--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:
> Latin duo - PAlb *dwuai - Alb. dy - Rom doi (where Rom ua>o is
> regular as in una >o ) -> nobody can told me here that the Albanoid
> Subtratum that have been Romanized didn't influenced this word at
> all (when the PIE was *duoi-jo). On the other hand to consider that
> the Latin had no influence here is a big mistake too.
> So this category Latin-PAlb-CommonForms should be introduced as a
> concept that should include this type of cases.
[...]
> Marius
excuse me, I don't agree with the reduction of "una" to "o". This is a
singular example, it doesnt respect any rule in Rom. phonetic changes,
it appears imposible to mee ( the same can be said about the reduction
to "ella" to "ua"
We do know that *wa > suffered two changes in Rom. once the *wa became
"va" and once *wa became "o"( he/she will make it: "va face" or "o
face"), thus the only phonetic explanation for Rom. "o" cannot be una
(from IE or Latin) but it should be an *oC or an *wa. The "oC" could
get reduced to "o" and *wa yelded *uã which is in fact "o", the
undefinite article for feminine as english "a".
Alex