Re: For Piotr

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" wrote:

> What I want to say here is that Romanian has a suffix "-oi" :
>
> 'b~aieToi' from 'baiat'
> 'b~altoi' from 'balta'
> 'b~arb~aToi' from 'barbat'
> 'b~arboi' from 'barba'
> 'broscoi' from 'broasca'
>
> and that the phonetism in '-oi' in Romanian seems not to be a
> Latin one.

It is not exactly Latin. It is simply Romanian masculine analogical
backformation from -oaie (< Lat. -onea, through intermediate stage
with /n'/, lost in Daco-Romanian, conserved as such in Aromanian).

> Also, I never wanted to say that my list of 'oi'-words are not
> from Latin (with exception of 'apoi' ('ad post') that is hard for
> me to believe it's transformation).

"Vedi Napoli e poi mori". Is that hard to believe?! :-)

> I wanted to say only that 'a non-latin' treatement 'oi' were
> applied to these words.

Which was essentially false since final -oi is not a "treatment"
but a simple ending emerging as normal phonetical or analogical
result of evolution.

Cheers,
Marius Iacomi