Re: [tied] Proto-Albanian

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

>> And here is here. These common words, they are in the most cases
>> identicaly phonologicaly. And this is what makes me wonder. Why the
>> same treatment for these common words and a different treatment of
>> the Latin words in both languages, the words in each language having
>> today for the "inherited" Latin elements an another foneticaly aspect
>> Which should be the logic here?
>
> It's not true
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

Hmm, ok I will resume myself to some examples and of course they are not
the most relevant:

Latin Albanian Romanian
coxa cofsha coapsã
directus drjet drept
crucis kryc cruce
angelus ëngjëll înger
luctam lufta luptã
venire vjen veni
vitregus vitërk vitreg

Most imporant changes should be some like these:

x > fhsh & ps
ct > j & pt
ct > ft & pt

So, it is not very correct to say " It's not true" since there is a
different treatment in the consonatism and I did not gave examples with
"Z, T, c^" for showing other differences. It is more as clear there is
not the same threatment of the Latin words.