Re: [tied] Re: *gwistis

----- Original Message -----

From: alexmoeller@...

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 11:01 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] Re: *gwistis

> [Moeller] ah! so the romanian come from digitus and albanian from *kvistr and so we have a explanation . this is one of the "cognates" which was to find here on the list in the last time ( see habere versus haben)

 

Yeah, only a less impressive one: <de$t> and <gisht> are not that awfully similar, after all.

> I am sure you did not lost my example with de$t versus de$tept and I should like to see some another example from latin there where in romanian igi/ege falloved by "s" created an "$" in romanian.

Why "s"? It's followed by "t" in this case. It's been pointed out to you that the complete chain of transitional forms is attested: deget > dejet > dej't > de$t. All sorts of assimilatory changes originating in casual speech may become lexicalised and needn't be regular as long as they're natural (and if -Zt- > -St- isn't natural, I don't know what is). In the same way, English /-z/ (in <news>) has become /-s/ in the RP pronunciation of <newspaper>, even in slow and careful speech -- irregularly, but absolutely understandably. If you choose to remain unconvinced, it's your problem.

 

Piotr