From: m_iacomi
Message: 19267
Date: 2003-02-26
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" wrote:[...]
>>>> Some scholars belive thatWhy not otherwise, since anyways the rule is not correctly
>>> [my labels here:]
>>>> PIE kW > p and gW > b in Romanian when not followed by /e/ &
>>>> /i/
>>> [statement #1]
>>>> and kW >k and gW > g when not fallowed by /e/ and /i/
>>> [statement #2]
>>>
>>> No scholar could "belive" that. Statements 1 and 2 are
>>> mutually incompatible.
>>> The rule is: _Latin_ qua > Romanian pa & _Latin_ gua > Rom.
>>> ba with exception of wh* words (in Miguel's notation)
>>> Otherwise, the normal evolution is elimination of labial /W/
>
> The 'not fallowed' should read 'followed'! Then Statement 2
> becomes compatible with Statement 1.
>> Sir, please. None spooked about your Latin here. There areUndoubtedly. When stating the rule for Latin words, I just
>> many words which do not derive from Latin and not about
>> _Latin_ transformation I was speaking here, but it seems
>> some people are too busy for showing the Latinity of a
>> language with a bit over the half of the pan-romanic words
>> and where, for these 300 words ( where from over 100 with a
>> funny semantic shift) are around 170 derivations rules.
>
> But what happened to Latin words is highly relevant if Latin
> and Dacian (or whatever) elements both had /kw/ (or similar)
> at some stage in the Romanian language. The words would have
> undergone the same sound changes whatever their origin.