Re: a help for Piotr

>We don't _need_ substratal or adstratal influence to explain Latin
>qu,gu > Romanain p,b.
>As to the specific case of <patru>, I don't agree that kW- > p- is
>irregular in
>this form, as is stated in Romanistic handbooks

Thank you very much. (I hope Alex will read the explanation carefully.)

>I don't think sandhi is an adequate explanation (there *is* a close tie
>between
>numeral and counted word, but the counted word follows: patru cânii is the
>normal order, not cânii patru).
>
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal

Without a definite article: "patru câni" (since 1954 the standardized
spelling: "câini"; betw. 1954-1992, "cîini"; I myself do not accept the
diphtongation, since it is subdialectally limited only to a few counties
in Southern Romania). The other way around the definite article is
necessary, as well as a verb, e.g. "cânii sunt/erau patru".

George