Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> Sorry, I replied via the group page and funny things happened to the
> encoded characters. Since it was for Alex, I'd better correct the
> text for the sake of clarity:
>
> -ealã > -eawã > -ea (but with the glide preserved in sandhi
> between the noun and the definite article)
>
> Piotr
Piotr, I guess that is more better that you will explain as specialist
in slavistic how the slavic suffix for plural (?)
"-eli" has given an suffix in romanian for feminin singular, which is
"ealã" ( ea because the rule Miguel said is true, e > ea when followed
by an ã, but this is not because of any latin stuff here, this is
properly for Rom. Lang).
You see? The slavic suffix "-eli" gave an "ealã" in romanian and
together with Latin roots, we have words almost identical with latin.
Or should I say, the rom. suffix "-ealã" is not the slavic "-eli" but
the cognate of Latin "ella"?
The scholars explained that Rom. "-ealã" _cannot_ derive from latin
"-ella". Should they do an another mistake here?:-)
Alex