tolgs001 wrote:
>
> Your problem is that you can't imagine the
> palatalized thing without that [i]. I understand
> that: the really palatalized g and k aren't at
> all typical of your subdialectal background
>
> George
Tat is not the problem here George. The problem is that the /i/ made a
lot of trouble (OK , they aren't trouble, just changes).In this
situation where the alternance is there we do not have any
palatalisation of "cl" for the examples I gave.
take a look:
Latin 'ped-', Rom. 'picior' but alternative 'picior'
Latin 'pectus', Rom. 'piept' but alternative 'kiept'
Substrate 'viezure', alternative 'g'iezure'
Latin 'vermes', Rom 'vierme', alternative 'g'ierme'
Slavic (?) 'Bivolu' , Rom. 'bivol', alternative 'g'ivol'
Latin 'bene', Rom 'bine', alternative 'g'ine'
Latin 'venire', Rom. 'vine', alternative 'g'ine' or most extreme 'zine'
From this statement we have the originar word with "bi-" or "vi-" but as
result "g'i". The same here, the originar word has an "pi" but
alternative "ki".
Here is no palatalisation of any "cl". It is to me a stragen change from
labial to velar or palatal velar. Can one speak about delabialisation
here? Or which should be the explanation?