From: alex_lycos
Message: 19393
Date: 2003-02-27
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: PIE *kwokt
We can treat -tieáuã > -tzeá as a special case, but that's not
satisfactory
Bourciez says: "Derrière <t,>, <s,> (résultant de l'absorption du
<y>), la réduction aboutit à <a> probablement par une étape <ãa>:
roum. et mr. <t,arã>, <s,apte> pour *<t,earã>, *<s,eapte>." And:
"Derrière une palatale l'<e> ne se prononce pas dans roum. ceapã =
ce:pa, sãgeatã = sagitta". If in both these cases ea became a through
ãa, the development of vitella may have gone through *vitieáwa >
*vitzeáuã but then /e/ failed to become /&/ in the context /eaã/ or
/eao/ (wã > o, as in the feminine indefinite article <o> < u(n)a).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...
Does Bourciez say something about timere > teamã why here not T but
simply "teamã"?
Or about sentire > simTi? ( the Ti is interesting here for now)