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

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 16:45:18 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
> wrote:
>
>> The Slavic form was not krali, but kralI (nom/acc),
>
> or rather, as Piotr says, kraljI. Sorry
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

Under such a form It can be easy understood why a "l" can become an "i".
But with an "l" which is followed by "a" or "u" is not even so easy,
even if u > iu for geting a "i".
Of course I was thinking at Latin construction of type "cla-", "clu-"
like in "clavis" and " includere" or "inclavare"
or is there maybe /a/+/i/ after loosing of intervocalic /v/ ; is this
/ai/ ( from /a/+/i/) the one which should be made responsible for this
/cl/ > /chi/ (ki) ?

Alex