Re: [tied] Re: *gwistis

From: alexmoeller@...
Message: 15589
Date: 2002-09-19

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:45 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: *gwistis

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: alexmoeller@...
> To:
> 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
[Moeller] aham.. latin ege went somehow -eje in romanian."a
InTelege "= to understand = lat. intelligere will be never
spoked InTeleje, but this is hard to understand:-)