Re: -s -> -i

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> >case a development -s -> -i is not phonetically plausible.
>
> Why not? There's nothing implausible about -s > -h > -0 (in

polysyllables,

> after unaccented vowel), but -s > -h > -ç > -y in monosyllables,

after an

> accented vowel. The 2sg. -i in Italian and Romanian is in any case

not simply

> the result of a soundlaw -s > -y (we would expect 2sg. -ai, -ei in

the a- and

> e:-stems, instead of -i), except in monosyllables (dai < das, stai

< stas).

>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

I don't think the monosyllabysmus has something something to do here.
There are the regular verbal desinences as everywhere, thus the /i/
is the one for II pl and not any evolution of s > i:
stau, sta_i_, dau, da_i_, dorm, dorm_i_, etc.

The Italian and Rom. are not the only which make the plural in "i"
(has Slavic plural in I as well or I am confounding ?). I am not sure
how vegliote made the plural, it seems my data are just lexical data
regarding vegliote. I have to search a bit more about.

Alex