Re: [tied] Re: PIE *kwokt

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: PIE *kwokt


> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:53:42 +0100, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
> wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> Not dropped. It's common usage to say "restored" when a phoneme
> otherwise lost resurfaces somewhere else in the paradigm or in some
> other composed form. It's just a linguistical metaphor, and does not
> imply that something was literally lost and then restored
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...


Ah, OK, so it makes sense, thank you.
But I dont see where this phoneme should lost resurfaces somewhere else
in the paradigm.Any examples for clarifying?