Re: [tied] correction [Re: Weeping]

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> 18-01-04 21:14, alex wrote:
>
>> For "ied" there is not supposed anymore that there is a sg. remade
>> too analogical because of Alb. word, but this should derive direct
>> from "haedus".
>> I love the linguistic,it allows a lot:-)
>
> If Alb. edh had been borrowed from Balkan Latin (*Edum < (h)aedum),
> the initial vowel would have developed into *ie > je, and the
> intervocalic
> -d- would have been lost; cf. mEdicu- --> mjek, vadum --> va:. It's
> therefore more likely that <edh> is a regular reflex of inherited
> *h2aig^-. Rom. ied (pl. iezi) is not compatible with such an
> etymology, but it's perfectly compatible with Lat. (h)aedum/(h)aedi:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/27434
>
> Linguistics _constrains_ speculation rather than "allow a lot".
>
> Piotr

Thank you for re-posting that Piotr.
I assume you have read the argumentation of Mr Iacomi for brad-braz'.
The same situation does happen in ied-iez'.
It is the literary language which standardized the form with "d" at the
end, even in conjugation of the verbs for
"râd" instead of popular "râzi", etc.
I don't repeat these things since you know them as well too.
Is there any need to say that Latin "haedus" is a loan word from a
language which developed IE *h2aig^- to *haid- and which gave in Latin
"haedus"?
Alex