Re: [tied] Re: IE prefix "*s"

15-12-03 19:44, alex wrote:

> Now I wonder at what you think. We have a supposed form *abja for
> explaing "aibi, aibã" from "habeat" but we have a really word "abia"
> which remains "abia" and does not became "aibe". How is this to explain?
> Which should be the true here? The realy form which exist or the
> supposed one you postulate?

Why should a Modern Romanian word be affected by a change that operated
centuries ago? Anyway, whatever the etymology of <abia>, its first
syllable is unstressed, and i-diphthongisation from palatalisation
occurs under stress only. To quote Miguel, "As usual, you forget to take
the accent into account."

Piotr