m_iacomi wrote:
>
>> Maybe later if ever.
>
> Better later than never.
>
> Marius Iacomi
Mr. Iacomi, when you say "analogic" you assume you have an word which
has a certain form and becouse of this form, the second word you try to
explain, got the form of the first word you take as point of reference.
In this case, for "ucigu" you must have an word which ends in "-igu" for
saing that *ucidu > ucigu after the first words.
You cannot make any analogy because the participium of a werd which ends
in "ge" is the same with the participium of one verb which ends in "de",
thus , because of this participium, one has made analogical form for
present. A such analogy appears very strange, more wished as explanation
as a reality.
But this is of course my own way to see the analogy and for sure in
opinion of many people, a very limited way to see.
For helping you here, I suggest the analogy was made by "înfige" where
"înfigu" could have been the form which helped out to make "ucigu".
That will help for the the verb. It wont help anymore for the
derivatives which are all based on "g" but absolutely no one on "d".
What does it mean? Don't ask me for my opinion. It seems I still have to
listen a lot here, thus I am not able to tell you any opinion of me.
Alex