g wrote:
>> Yes it does. /do.w&/ douã.
>>
>> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>
> That's right. And this second syllable [-w&] is valid
> in all D-R subdialects, irrespective of the variations
> of the vowel in the first syllable (between [o] and
> [a]).
>
> Unfortunately, conventional school knowledge of
> Romanian native speakers do not emphasize the
> simple fact that the Romanian font "u" also stands
> for the phonetic occurrence [w] and not only for
> its "colleague" [u]. Well, the forever rotating and
> changing Rum. Departments of Education have
> needed for many decades now some fisticuffs applied
> to shnozzles and triple chins (excuse me, but CNR :-)).
>
> George
... these school knowledge.
I thought you will wonder about *dúwo and Rom. "doi", "douã" compartive
with Lat. *dui, duae and Alb. "dy", "dy:"
"nouã" vs. Lat "novem", "nouã/noi" vs. Lat "novis"; "vouã/voi" vs. Lat.
"vobis"
More, maybe should be interesting to see that "trei" was in Greek too
"trei" and there is no "i" in Lat. "tres". The apparition of "i" in doi
and "trei" is due analogy to each other ("doi" influenced by "trei" and
"trei" influenced by "doi"), etc.
I have the feeling one expect that this ominos substrate should have
been an alien language where for numerals one have had expected curious
forms which should be very, but very different from other IE languages,
thus it should be ab initio excluded as being the basis for the actual
language.
It looks like blinkers for horses & repulsion & aversion
Alex