Re: [tied] Re: PIE *kwokt

m_iacomi@... wrote:

>
> The first is valid. In fact -ll- > -u- [w]; the Common Romanian
> form was something like /viTeaw&/. The (here final) group /w&/
> may evolve in Daco-Romanian towards /o/ (through an intermediate
> phase /wo/) and is eventually dropped if it follows stressed
> final vowel (like in all other -ella words). The group -eaw& is
> still alive in Aromanian and it's restored also in Daco-Romanian
> when nouns are used with the definite article: "viTeaua"
>
> Regards,
> Marius Iacomi

What should mean here "restored" Mr Iacomi?
The ending "-aua" is simple the same definite article for fem.
substantives which end in "-ea":
caTea= caTeaua, viTea=viTeaua, cordea=cordeaua, flanea= flaneaua
I cannot imagine myslef it wnet lost and someone learned the folk again
to use this suffix. This is why I ask wondering what means "restored"
here?