From: alex
Message: 22396
Date: 2003-05-30
> On Thu, 29 May 2003 23:51:21 +0200, alex <alxmoeller@...>I am afraid I can not follow your chain of transformations for imi
> wrote:
>
>> This is what makes me crazy. You are absolutely sure and you put
>> every where the "latin in" which simply is overcharged if not
>> absolutely wrong. The examples where we have aromanina "ãn" and
>> dacoromanian "în" speaks for not being "latin in" there since from
>> "in" you cannot have an "ãn".
>
> Sure you can: in the prefix în-, ãn-. The î- of Daco-Romanian here
> developed out of a schwa (ã), the same way that it did in îmi (ãmi),
> îtzi (ãtzi), îszi (ãszi), îi (ãi). The prefix in- (VL > en-) first
> was reduced to n- (cf. ex- > s-), and then acquired a prosthetic
> schwa.
>