[tied] Re: PIE *kwokt

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <richard.wordingham@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:34 AM
> Subject: [tied] Re: PIE *kwokt

The Greek form "ipo" for

> "ek'wos" is the same as romanian "iapa" thus the "late Latin

evolution"

> should be here already questionable.

Or totally unsurprising. Romanian isn't even the only Romance
language to show the change!

I am a bit too saturated for these

> "late Latin evolutions" for phenomena which are attested in the

time of

> Latin and before Latin and -what a wonder- they repeat themselves

in the

> same geographical space.

One is attempted to think of old speech patterns reasserting
themselves, but how would they have been handed down?

I am tired to see Rom. "vitsea" as a derivative

> from a diminutive forms of Latin 'vitella' when everywhere is the

PIE

> *vits- as root ( see Germanic , Albanian forms but too Sanskrit and
> Avestan forms but see the too the Latin regular form)

Where's the stress in this word, and is Alex's spelling of it
correct? I am having a bit of trouble updating the rules for
Romanian to take account of it. (It was much easier to see it as a
reformation on the masculine.)

> I am very sceptically about the phonologic rules when a short "i"

can

> become an "a" or remain an "i"
> ( se demonstration of Miguel for virdia> varza but vipera > viperã.

Perseus ( http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform ) shows
vipera as having a long 'i'. Why do you think it was short?

Richard.