Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> Feminine douã also looks like an accusative (dúas > dúwa > dówã), but
> in view of Italian <due> < duae, and Rom. nouã "9" < nove, I suppose
> it can also reflect the nominative duae > dúwe > dówã. Same then for
> nobis > noBe
>> nouã, vobis > voBe > vouã, with -Be/-we > -wã.
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
To me it appears interesting here that we have the trace of the "w" no
matter if of Latin origin or not. That means the sound is not gone, it
is present and infirm the (weak) rule of intervocalic "v,b" which should
have dissappered without trace.
I wonder about form of "us" in Alb. pers. pron. in N "ne" (< *no-?) ,
G/D "neve" and number 9 "nente" ( < *no: +ta ?)
In fact I made the paralel with Albanian because the Rom. forms are very
alike to Alb. numerals too.
We discussed one and two until this point , I would continue with the
rest.
Alb. "tri/tre", Rom. "trei"; For this numeral there is imposible to put
any paternity here beside PIE because these appear to have been a very
strong formation which remained unchaged from Slavic until Germanic (
beside t > d in Germ.)
The Thracian glosses presents too word compounded with the element
"trei", "trai"; if this "trei/trai" should have meant indeed "three" it
is unknown to us.
Alb. katër is seen by Gustav Meyer and Pedersen as a loan from Latin
"quattuor". If this is true, then there cannot be the same stratual(!)
basis for Alb. and Rom. since they hadle different all the "problem"
clusters.
(!) with "stratual" here I mean the same folk from the Roman times.
Alex