Re: [tied] -ishte, -eshte

From: alexmoeller@...
Message: 15336
Date: 2002-09-09

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] -ishte, -eshte

These are not front, either in Modern Romanian (/u/ is back
and /ã/ is central) or historically. The palatalising ones are
(historical) /i/ and /e/ _immediately_ following the -sk-. Got


[Moeller] never ever.
first /u/ is front not back, ã is indeed central.
when i or e was imediately after "c" it doesnt mater what was
before "c" in romanian ist became groups "ce" and "ci" ro
"che" chi"
let us take the verb a deschide.< lat. descludere. we have
deschide and not deshtide
scheuna , schimba, schimonosi
peshte <lat. piscis will tell that you are true, but is
romanian peshte the latin piscis?It seems to be very singular
ashterne= lat. asternere
ashtepta= lat *astectare( adspectare)
Even in the romanian lingvistic there is nothing for "s"

Reichenkron supposed sk got in romanian "sh" but it is wrong.
True is the oclusive PIE *k fallowed by "s" got a "sh" in
PIE *kseubh>call_it_how_you_like_if_not_thracian *shobãi>rom.
shovãi= to be not sure what to do, to hesitate
deom teh same PIe is the lisard too
PIE *kseubh >Call_it shop+irela>rom. shopârla

So , there is no rule as you mind I dont see an example. I
have no ideea what you for examples have in your mind.