alexandru_mg3 schrieb:
>
> u-veg have different 2 syllables either.
> u-ya-ga also
> (v&-)-du-wa also
> (m&-)-du-wa also
>
> I don't see any difference
you don't see any because you compare with the actual Hungarian form
üveg. Look, I already said that if the form has been *uwega, then the
the stress shuold have been on "e" and the Romanian speakers perceived
the "uw" as long "u" which was reduced _naturaly_ in their language to a
neutral "u". That is, the "a" at the end of uiagã can be the Romanian
adaptation after sticlã, butelcã, ploscã what ever, thus you got a 3
syllabic word which was rendered as *u-é-ga; the stressed "e" yotacised
to "ie" and the "ie" became "ia". I don't know the word, it is a
regionalism but I should say that the plural form of "uiagã" is "uiege"
as each other ord with "ia" ( iapa-iepe, iarna-ierni, mia-miele, etc.)
It will be strange for me to be a plural *uiage there....
>
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 2) yotacising of "e" to "ie"
> > >
> > > This is Not true either.
> > > The transformation e>ye/ya is ended "End Of Roman Period"
> >
> >
> > What does makes you to think that way. This change of "e" to "ie"
> and
> > then to "ia" will work even today, where is the problem?
> >
>
> I "cannot see" any ye in cle's,te /kle'shte/. Can you?
>
> Trust me that e/accented > ye/ya is ended Before Slavs Arrival
>
>
> Marius
in "cleshte" the vocal in the next syllable is an "e", not an "ã".
The dipfhtongation and yotacisation of "e" when followed by "e" stoped
before the arrival of the slavs. The diphtongation of "e" or
yotacisation of it whenn followed by "ã" in the next syllable appers to
have worked long time after it.
Alex