Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:07:31 +0100, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
> wrote:
>
> [a lot of confused nonsense]
>
> It's really very simple:
>
> Lat. vitellu(m) > vetEllu > vetiellu > vitzel(u)
> vitella(m) vetElla vetiella vitzea
>
> Unstressed /e/ gave /i/ here, probbaly at the stage *vetiellu >
> *vitiellu by assimilation. -ella > -ea as in stea < stella
I guess this /ella/ > /ea/ is very connected to the good old example
stella > stea
But 'ste:lla' is again a form from *ster-la or *ste:l-na
Greek: astros
Gothic: stairno
Sanskrit:star
I suppose that the last /r/ was weak pronounced if final.And the PIE
root should be something like *ster.
Trough dyphtongation of /e/ we got an ster > stear
Because of the accent on "ea" the "r" was almost mute so it got lost, so
from stear > stea
The definite article here is not "a" since without article is "stea",
but it is "ua"
Funny.,
porc+ea > purcea with article purcea-ua
catsã + ea > catsea, with article catsea-ua
mãs- + ea > masea, with article masea-ua
It is to compare with other words like:
viperã - viper-a
casã - cas-a
I have to make up my mind about. With every example it seems the
actually romanian words have a better connection with Old Latin as with
Latin and this is very curious.