Re: Fw: [tied] Latin versus *Proto-Romance

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:21:54 +0100, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
> wrote:
>
> >Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
> >> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 4:00 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Fw: [tied] Latin versus *Proto-Romance
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> do you mean herewith the slavic word "krali" ?
> >>
> >> Yes
> >>
> >> Piotr
> >
> >
> >hmmm.. I wonder when stopped in Romanian the "li" > "i"
>
> The Slavic form was not krali, but kralI (nom/acc), with a soft yer
> <I>, which was dropped very early on, leaving only palatalization of
> the consonant (kralj, kral'). This should have been borrowed as
> Romanian *kral^, which gives Daco-Romanian crai.
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

And Hungarian kiraly ...

I thought the various Slavic -oro- / -ra- came from -or-, and not -er-
or -ar-?

Torsten