Re: [tied] Re: Lat. cotoneus > Rum. gutui is ok?

george.st@... wrote:

>> There is no irregularity. The word "cãlcân'" is alive in Banat
>> subdialect. Regular evolution of "n'" (phonetically written on
>> cybalist [n^]) is towards a iot in most DR speaking area.
>
> I haven't heard of the Banat <cãlcân~> myself (and I don't
> doubt its existence), but I know of similar (i.e. ... archaic)
> constructions there, such as: <tu spun~> [spun^], instead of
> <tu spui> [spuj], "you say; tell," which is valid everywhere else
> outside the region of Banat. (The older variant thereof is however
> attested in documents several c. old, AFAIR.)

There is no problem with a such example since the "i" actioned on "n"
for making it palatal and ultimately making it to dissappear. Since (by
the conjugation) the usual desinence for pers II sg. is "-i" there is a
regular change of "ni" > "n'" > "i".

About "-neus" one cannot say the same; one need the "i" for making the
"n" to become palatal. The "e" _is not_ enough. For this see in your
example the conj. of the same verb at the pers III sg (spun-e). The
desinence being "e" the "n" remain very stable there.

> George

Alex