richard.wordingham@... wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com,
> Piotr Gasiorowski
> <piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Miguel Carrasquer"
> <mcv@...>
>> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003
> 12:54 AM
>> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Balkan
> Serpents (was: alb. gji (breast))
>>
>>
>>> Unstressed /e/ gave /i/ here,
> probbaly at the stage *vetiellu >
> *vitiellu by assimilation
>>
>> Isn't non-Classical /i:/ (e.g. via
> contamination from <vi:ta>, as
> suggested by Richard) more likely?
> The connection with <vita> is Alex's
> suggestion, not mine
> Richard
Sure is mine. There is no reason to do not see the words vita, vitel,
vitsea as not related to each other. But romanian "vita" has no cognate
in latin.(still,but I guess there is one)
Latin "vita" should have given in PRB vEta and from here we have the
fun:
vita > vEta
virdia > vErdia
vitia > v
we are again already in PRB to the same problem.
Romanian word for life=viatsa should derive from an *vivita since from
latin "vita"= life is not possible.Nice is that in my dictionary , even
latin "vita"=life comes from an older *vivita. That is again a point for
a very old relationship.
I don't guess this *vivitis too.If "v" dissapier we get an
viitis.Wherefrom "ia" then?
I seen the corespondence of Rom "ia" in first stressed part of the word
is latin short /e/:
eccum = iaca
epa = iapa
erba = iarba
Therefore the vord where from Rom word should derive is something with
"vete".