Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
]
>
>> My dear, indirectly you agree that vitella and vitellus cannot give
>> Rom viTea and viTel .In both of them there is not a long /i/ so the
>> PBR forms
>> should be vEtellus, vEtella
>
> There is no /E/ in an unstressed syllable!
>
> The West Romance form (Cat. vedella, Fre. veau) points to vitella,
> with short /i/ giving /e/. In Italian and Romanian, unstressed /e/ in
> pretonic position often gives /i/. As I've said before
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
The root is stressed!!
The root is stressed and the root is "vitã"
As usual in Romanian the suffix change the stress
vita has accent on /i/
sufix /ea/ stress on /a/ viTeá
sufix /el/ stress on /e/ viTél
And even if it schouldn't be, how ever you want to have it you have
there an /e/ and not an /i/.
And /e/ > /i/ just under the influence of the nasal, and here we have no
nasal.
So, what is the problem here? Only a vitella & vitellus with long /i:/
could give this word.And they are not with long /i:/ so, case closed.
And if in Latin the vord 'vita' means "life' and in romanian 'vita'
means 'cow', I cannot help, these are semantic change from PIE not from
Latin until now.
Don't you find funy that latin "vita" = life is supposed to come from an
*vivita and Romanian "viaTa" is supposed to come too from an *vivita? I
find it. It shows more tehy are sister languages but not
mother-daugether relationship.
And the old writers don't need to lie. Herodot wrote about Troja, it was
found.
Vergilius said Latins are thracians, it will be shown he said the truth.