Re: [tied] again gW>b and getae

Strange. The answer you're asking for is given in the paragraph above. Just read it again carefully. I don't mind providing copious information but if I get too verbose other list members may grow nervous. Here are a few further examples:

copi-a --> copi-o:sus
verb-um --> verb-o:sus
nerv-us -> nerv-o:sus

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: alexmoeller@...
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] again gW>b and getae



----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] again gW>b and getae


>> I'm not surprised in the least, since Lat. aquo:sus 'full of water, watery', accounts for Rom. apos jolly well (besides, a Dacian word would have dropped its inflectional ending in Romanian, just as Lat. -us/-um was dropped). We have <aquo:sus> rather than *<aqua-o:sus>, because the stem vowel -a- is regularly elided before the suffix -o:s- 'abounding in ...', cf. <pecu:nia>, <pecu:nio:sus>. Such things are easy to look up in dictionaries and other books and I warmly recommend that you should do some checking before posting any more aquose stuff.

[Moeller]
> if you are so kind and give such a plenty of information, would you please give me some more?or instance what did the sufix "os" in latin language when suffixing a substantif? Just for my poor knowledges , please. It will be very appreciated.