[tied] Re: Derivation Rules from Old Slavic to Romanian

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

> Nice is that we just constate the change of "ct" to "pt" but how
> does it works?
> {There is no "labialisation" of "c"} (1) since
> {the next consonant is a dental} (2)

False inference. There is no contradiction between (2) and ~(1):
{/k/ is labialised}.

> I suppose as follow:

[snip]

You should suppose nothing, take a book, read also some old posts
and stop producing useless texts with the very same proof of not
understanding what's up with some elementary phonetical stuff.

> The advantage: we can explain phonologicaly how the change works.

Keep dreaming.

>>> dece -> zece
>>> die -> dzi -> zi
>>
>> Cf. French Canadian - colonists indeed!
>
> Actually "zi" is a short form and not the "interited" one.
> The Rom. word is "ziuă"

BS. Romanian inherited word is "zi", with article "ziua", giving
a reconstructed analogical form "ziuă", there is nothing to wonder
about (-ua < -illa, see also Miguel's post).

> [...] there is need of nothing for deriving it from PIE *deiwo

... but a lot of imagination.

> I guess that even the word for "today" which is "azi" is not a
> derivative of "a" + "zi" as explained by shcolars

Scholars do _not_ explain it as "a + zi" as you suggest, DEX
proposes "hac die", as well as Al. Rosetti.

> but is to see in corelation with Latin "hodie:".

No. /o/ > /a/ does not fit.

> Interesting are the inscriptions for "hodie" where they appear
> as "oze", or by Isid. "ozie" [...]

... that is to account for reality of phonetical slip tendency
[d] > [dz] > [z] already in Late Latin.

Marius Iacomi