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

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 12:06:50 +0100, 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" since the next
>> consonant is a dental". I suppose as follow:
>> For getting a phonological path which works of this "ct" versus "pt"
>> I guess the examples with the "shiboleth" won't be bad. Since we
>> know the alternance "pi/ki" and "bi/g'i" one can assume there we
>> have had to deal with "kit" instead of "ct" in the atested Latin
>> "lucta". Since we know the PIE root is "lug-" this is not a bad
>> assumption. We have the group "ct" just in the Latin word, thus
>> there is no impediment to think that there has been an "luki-to"
>> where in Latin the "i" sincoped and we got "lucto".
>
> Nonsense.

Well, if you mean:-)
I speak here about what I need in Rom. for making the phonetism works;
the change "ct" > "pt" via nothing cannot work.

>
>> Actually "zi" is a short form and not the "interited" one. The Rom.
>> word is "ziuã" and this cannot derive from simple Latin "dies".
>
> ziuã is a backformation on ziua < die(s)-illa.

No. There is no backformation.

Alex