Re: [tied] Re: Labiovelar in Latin

m_iacomi wrote:

> Before elaborating useless replies, you should have read and tried
> to understand the information I gave to you. The voiced [h] is _not_
> the same phoneme with [g']. So in Aromanian we have a _different_
> phenomenon than the one you insist on in Dacoromanian. Since that
> phoneme doesn't appear in other dialects and since it appears in
> Greek (language intermingledly spoken with Aromanian in regions where
> the phoneme is largely used in the latter), it's obviously the
> result of Greek influence, as well as [th] in the very same dialect.

It seems your information someone provided to you is useless Sir.
Do you want me I give you some aromanian music? You don't need just to
see in the books, but you can hear them . There is no difference between
g'inã in DacoRomanian and g'inã in Aromanian, regardless that you call
this sound " voiced [h].

>
>> [...] there is not a Greek influence to explain this word to speak
>> in North of Romania aka Maramu and Moldova
>
> Never said that. Dacoromanian regional [g'] instead of [b] or [v]
> is just a normal late development which wasn't so much successful.
> It appears also in Italian dialects, as I already showed (cf. Rohlfs)
> and is not connected with Italian evolution nor with the _different_
> Aromanian phenomenon you quoted ignoring the real pronunciation.
>
> Marius Iacomi

How can you prove this is a late development?