[tied] Re: PIE *kwokt

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" wrote:

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

>> I am tired to see Rom. "vitsea" as a derivative from a
>> diminutive forms of Latin 'vitella'

Oh dear, oh dear... :-)

>> 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?

Spelling: <viTea>, stress on the last vowel (in the diphtong).
In your notation, T <=> tz.

> 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.)

You'll have to take into account also : post-tonic -(e)lla >
-(e)a in Daco-Romanian, -(e)au& in Aromanian. The only thing
to be noted is assimilation to /i/ from the first syllable by
the "temporary" short /i/ issued from diphtongtion (see also
message 18761). There is nothing else to be said.

>> 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?

Probably because "virdia" & "vipera" have roughly the same
size [ASCII length] and both start with "vi-". Just a guess. :-)

Regards,
Marius Iacomi