[tied] Re: kentum/satem: why Lithuanian kg before e/i

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Sean Whalen <stlatos@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- alexandru_mg3 <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
> >
> > Piotr, please to tell me why you kept (W) in
> > c^(W)/g^(W) ?
> > Do you suspect that W survived for a while (...as
> > w)?
> >
> > So it would be *kWers-n/reh2 > PAlb. *c^wa:-r(r)a:
> > that would
> > completly explain also the Romanian form *cioara
> > /c^wara/
>
> I agree that a form like kYW existed for a short
> time, but as far as I know this word just shows
> regular o>oa before a, etc.
>

No.

It's true that the o>oa exists for Romanian (in some contexts:
mainly before e and ã, the a-context 'is not clear enough'): but the
timeframes didn't match here: there isn't any other PAlb a: > Rom o
(> oa) <-> Alb o in the common words (see raTa, madzare)

In addition Rom c^ for Alb s shows us a very old loan for the Balkan
Latin

These are the reasons that we are obliged to suspect wa not o>oa in
Romanian /c^wara/

Marius

> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>