Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> Yes, the palatalization is transformed into i-epenthesis, as it is in
> habeat > *abja > aiba.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
well, the *abja you suppose there is ideed. Of course it does not derive
from "habeat" but it is supposed to derive from "ad vix" and it means
"barely, hardly, just" (abia)
Now I wonder at what you think. We have a supposed form *abja for
explaing "aibi, aibã" from "habeat" but we have a really word "abia"
which remains "abia" and does not became "aibe". How is this to explain?
Which should be the true here? The realy form which exist or the
supposed one you postulate?
Alex