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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" 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}.
>
> False. "k" is not labialised here

Keep telling that to yourself. Linguists still have the other
opinion, it's just your own problem not to admit it.

>>> 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.
>
> I suppose what I want.

Of course you _may_ suppose what you want, including green elephants
flying over your desktop. You _should_ not, though, if you want to
use efficiently your time on planet Earth and not wasting others'
time with nonsensical ascii lines.

> The books you are talking about have their limits due the idea
> they want to exprime.

You are not in position to know what those limits are.

>> BS. Romanian inherited word is "zi", with article "ziua", giving
>> a reconstructed analogical form "ziuã", there is nothing to wonder
>> about (-ua < -illa, see also Miguel's post).
>
> Ah! so, you are so sure as the poorman in the church. Keep on it.

It's obvious for anyone but those wearing blinkers. On the article
-ua we had already a discussion which you certainly forgot, as usual.

>>> but is to see in corelation with Latin "hodie:".
>>
>> No. /o/ > /a/ does not fit.
>
> You have a problem. And this is that it seems you know nothing
> about the vocalism of Thracian.

The vocalism of Thracian (representing PIE -> Thracian) has
_nothing_ to do with a supposed evolution from Latin "hodie"
to Romanian "azi".

>>> 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.
>
> Your meaning in Late Latin is not kept in your language. See "now".

You are making even less sense as usual (if possible). I did not
advocate for "hodie" > "azi", that's by all means your invention,
and I am not interested by the semantic problem you create. I just
pointed out that the tendency [d] > [dz] > [z] in some phonetic
conditions belongs to a late stage of VL, it is not a feature to
be supposedly found _only_ in (Northern) Thracian, as your fixation
still goes on.

Marius Iacomi