From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 57982
Date: 2008-04-25
>form
> > you don't see any because you compare with the actual Hungarian
> > üveg. Look, I already said that if the form has been *uwega, thenthe
> > the stress shuold have been on "e" and the Romanian speakersperceived
> > the "uw" as long "u" which was reduced _naturaly_ in theirlanguage
> to aRomanian
> > neutral "u". That is, the "a" at the end of uiagã can be the
> > adaptation after sticlã, butelcã, ploscã what ever, thus you gota 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 ais "uiege"
> > regionalism but I should say that the plural form of "uiagã"
> > 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....George, Alex,
>
> (Uiegi & iegi /d3/.) But otherwise bravo! Jos palaria.
>
> George