luare [Re: Pronoun]

>that doesn't work. The solution of Mr Iacomi looks more
>plausible since loosing the "n" from "unã" there is an
>"uã" which is more like "o".

Besides, in western regions of Transylvania, the
word "ori" (used in such situations: "this _or_ that")
is abbreviated -> "o" either as [o] or as a diphtong
"uă" [w&].

>2)Accepting the palatalisation of "ll" there must
>be a kind of "i" there,instead of "ll", it cannot
>be lost in the air.

These transformations of the [l] are so that one
is able to utter the appropriate sound without an
[i].

>And indeed there is one,we see it in the conjugation
>of the verb to take (a lua< Letin levare):
>iua, iei, ia, luãm, luaTi, iau, conjunctiv. "sa ia",
>with dialectal form "sã ieie".

iau, iei, ia don't contain any [i], but the semivowel [j]
(that was written in Romanian until 1900 as "i cu caciula").

>What seems very curious is the "u" here for 1 & 2 pl:
>noi luãm, voi luaTi.

Why curious? These are very close to the infinitive
"lua, luare". If curious, then the other ones: iau, iei,
ia."

>I wonder wherefrom come this "u" since in "levare" is no
>"u" accepting the "v" dropped down.

Remember: "levare" was actually [leware] (or, in your
"system", "leuare"; from "leuare" > "luare" nicht mal'n
Katzensprung. ).

George