tolgs001 wrote:
> It's worth adding that "a voi" [vo-'i] -- be it based on
> Sl. voliti or Lat. *volere (velle) -- is not only
> used as an auxiliary to build the future tense, but
> also as a synonym to "a vrea": voiesc, voiesti, voieste,
> voim, voitzi, vor / imperf: voiam, voiai, voia, voiam,
> voiatzi, voiau / perf. am,ai,a,am,atzi,au voit / subj
> sa voiesc, voiesti, voiasca, voim, voitzi, voiasca etc
> future (indicative) eu voi voi [voj vo-'i]
>
that is the question George. Ther should pe possible to find out if this
is a Latin or a Slavic one.
And we have this topsy turvy just because it is assumed there are two
times of loanding words from slavic.
The first time should be there when the "l" became palatal and the other
more later when the palatalisation of "l" in Romanian was done and so
the Slavic new-loans have entered the langauge with the "l".
But when? This is too short in my opinion. The first contacts with slav
, by the best wish should have been in V-VI centuries. Assuming that in
this time the "l" became palatalised in Romanian it won't explain
anymore such arguments as given by Rosseti as "Urecla" in the 13
century.
I gues here it ought to see in paralelism the loans into Albanian too
where we have or don't have the slavic "l".
It cannot be that the word is either from Latin or from Slavic. There
must be found a possibility to find out .
BTW , maybe Piotr explain us the refelxes of Slavic *volja in actual
Slavic languages since " to want" in Slavic seems to be soemthinc with
"oCem, haCiu"..
Alex