Re: [tied] -ella > ua ( it was some Rom.-aLb. concordance)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:

> I checked the archives (I must add in all these mesages is just
> your opinion)

Specialists' opinion with which it happens I agree.

> -----------------------------------
> You'll have to take into account also : post-tonic -(e)lla >
> -(e)a in Daco-Romanian, -(e)au& in Aromanian. The only thing
> to be noted is assimilation to /i/ from the first syllable by
> the "temporary" short /i/ issued from diphtongtion (see also
> message 18761). There is nothing else to be said.
> ------------------------------------
>
> I am afraid I cannot understand your point of view here.

Neither for the first nor for the last time.
Summarizing: post-tonic Latin -ella > Common (Proto-) Romanian,
Aromanian -eaw& > DacoRomanian -ea.
With demonstrative (gaving birth to definite article): post-tonic
Latin -ella illa > (Proto-)Romanian, Romanian -eawa.

> c) msg 18810: there is nothing to see about. The plural definite
> form /-le/ is genenralised; I fail to see any connection with -ella
> /-ua/

Keyword: analogy. For words not coming from Latin.

> To draw a line:

Here you have a line:
-----------------------------------------------

> you assume that the same word "vitella" has given once "vitea"
> and a second time "viteaua".

No.

Marius Iacomi