Re: [tied] Re: Indo-Iranian

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 22:24:13 +0200, alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>in Rom , simply Latin /i/

= Romance /e/

>cannot become /a/ iste, ista simply does not
>mathes.We bneed an "a" there a form like *esta will be the worst one and
>"ista" absoltely excluded.

Wrong. This is the same thing as we saw in în-, îmi, etc. In Italian and
Romanian the form was apocopated to 'st-, sta- (cf. Italian st-esso,
sta-sera), and subsequently a prosthetic vowel was prefixed : ãst, asta,
Moldavian ist.

>"a". For your catalan castilian examples, the "a" there in "aquella",
>wherefrom is this "a"?

I told you. Same as in Romanian: accu-.

>the same for next set:
>(msc. sg. "ãla", ( fem. sg) "aia", ( msc. pl)"ãia", (fem.pl)"alea";

That's simple:

illu > 'l
illa > 'l^
illi > 'l^
illae > 'le

Prosthesis, as in ãst, asta:

l > ãl-
y > ai-
y > ãi-
le > ale-

Addition of deictic element -a (as in acest-a, acel-a):

ãl + a > ãla
ai + a > aia
ãi + a > ãia
ale + a > alea

100% Romance.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...