Re: [tied] Re: Indo-Iranian

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

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

You see it wrong, or better sayd, you can see it just to see it that
way. "ecce" has in Rom. "iacã" perfect regulary phoneticaly and
semantic.

> That's simple:
> illu > 'l
>

There is no f.. "illu"> "'l". since you have the sufix "-il" in Rom.
Hoer auf mit dem Scheiss!

> 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@...
>

100 % no Romance in this case but proto-italic:-)

It is speculative all the prothetic forms here. You simply don't want to
see the PIE *ali-us. OK. Let us say I have nothing against your
arguments . Just one question:
- which are the factors which argue for not being from PIE *ali-us ? For
you as linguists , which are these factors?

Alex