> So it's not unlikely -eÅti could have been rendered as -st- if loaned.by speakers who have no "sh" in their language? Probably, I guess it pretty depends on the speakers of the language and the phonetical features of their language..
> > At that time was too George the one who argumentes against it butnot an ancient one since the Romanians have been far away from Trieste and now they speak it out as the Italians, namely "Trieste". Actually, in Ro lang for "to be" there is the form for pers. 3 sg. "este" but as suffix there is only "eshte", no suffix in "este". The words which ends in "-este" as "veste, poveste, almageste" are either loans from slavic (that is, as the Slavs came, the change of *esty>*eshty was already done), or they are neologism as french "almageste".
> > meanwhile we know that the "-esc" suffix in Romanian cannot be
> > explained via Latin.
> Does Trieste have it own name in Romanian? 'TÃ®rgeÅti'?