Re: [tied] Re: -s -> -i

On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:07:08 -0000, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:35:10 -0000, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
>wrote:
>>
>> >So after the -i spread to other conjugations, it was found not to be
>> >good enough in the conjugation it came from? Hm! But your proposal
>> >doesn't explain that after all this reshuffle in Romance, somehow
>> >West Romance ends up with all the -s'es and East Romance with the
>> >vowels.
>>
>> As I said, final -s was lost in East Romance (> y after stressed vowel, > 0
>> after unstressed), so it would have been hard indeed for East Romance to end up
>> with all the s'es.
>Circular. Final -s was lost in East Romance because there was a rule
>that told it to go away? But why did the -s/-V follow the front line
>of Justinian's empire?

Haven't got a clue, given that the loss of -s in East Romania dates from the 2nd
century.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...