[tied] Re: Derivation Rules

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

>> Of course you _may_ suppose what you want [...] You _should_ not,
>> though, if you want to use efficiently your time on planet Earth
>> and not wasting others' time with nonsensical ascii lines.
>
> I don't know why you are in fact afraid.

I'm not afraid, I feel ashamed and sorry for you.

>>> 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.
>
> You are not in position to decide about my position:-)

By all means, after reading your lines yes, I am.

> No. I promised to Piotr I won't reopen the subject until I don't
> show clear that the "-uã" is not from "-illa". That is an ABSURDUM
> phoneticaly but I stop.. I said I don't reopen it now.

If you don't want to debate a topic, claim not its' absurdity.

>>> 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.
>
> I said that "azi" should be seen in relationship with "hodie", I
> did not said that "hodie" > "azi".

But you said "your meaning". It is not mine. The word "hodie" has
no importance for the history of "azi" other than revealing a well
known phonetical evolution which interests also "die(s)" > "zi" (and
consequently, "hac die" > "azi").

> The "d" > "z" was plenty discussed here too and we learned that
> it happened just in a part of the world ..

Wrong. You just forgot about Richard's hint for Canadian French, a
hint I've made too long time ago in a message about Canadenses which
described (obviously for anyone but you) some linguistical facts
from that part of the globe. You also forgot about other documented
late Latin instances of "z" instead of "d"(+i) all over linguistical
Romania (azutoribus, zabolus, etc.) among which "oze" is just another
example you mentioned here. Consequently you should rephrase: "I was
able to retain, from all explanations I got, that [d] > [dz] > [z]
happened only in the Balkans". Facts are not in agreement with this
thesis. Since facts cannot be denied, one should abandon the thesis.

Marius Iacomi