Re: [tied] Re: Labiovelar in Latin

m_iacomi wrote:

> "alex_tiscali_dsl" wrote:
>
>> [...] 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].
>
> I don't doubt _you_ aren't able to hear the difference, and proves
> are still accumulating your ear is not trained to correctly identify
> and recognize some phonemes. This is a matter of serious training
> in linguistics and not of home listening of some recorded music.

:-) it seems you just go somewhere from the root of the discution. There
is a way to speak with "g'i" for "bi", "vi" in DacoRomanian and the
sasme is in Aromanian for the same "bi", vi". The ancient roots have had
na "g" there. This was the point. If yo do not pay attention to that but
you just try to explain this way to speak trough "late evolution",
"separate evolution in the same way","influence from X or Y ", be my
way, that is your cup of tea.

>
>>> 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.
>>
>> How can you prove this is a late development?
>
> Try reading the books you have. Indication: ILR - Rosetti, about
> Romanian in XVIth century.
>
> Marius Iacomi

Thank you. A lot of informations there are usefullly and a lot useless.