Re: [tied] Re: Miguel & dentis

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 15145
Date: 2002-09-05

On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 21:42:49 +0200, alexmoeller@... wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
>To: <>
>Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 1:19 PM
>Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Miguel & dentis
>> The suffix is -IcI. As far as I know, zo~bIcI (> Bulg.
>z&b&c), from zo~bU (>
>> Bulg. z&b), would have had o-grade, so the /i/ in Rom. zimtz
>is not expected.
>> The loss of yer is regular in the Slavic oblique cases
>(zOb&c, zObca), but I
>> imagine also in Romanian if the word was borrowed as an
>u-stem (*'z&mb&tzu >
>> zimtz).
>[moeller] pacalici, (remember please of latin pacalis:-),
>zgribulici, aici, ici ( the short form of aici=here),
>somnorici and so on.. there are too much to put them here.
>In the rumanian "ici " has as aufix more an diminutival role.
>But not every whee: bici, shorici are normal substantives
>where it seems that "ici " is not a suffix at all.

Slavic <c> is pronunced /ts/.

The Latin diminutive suffix -icus is etymologically related to Slavic -IcI (<

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal