m_iacomi wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, g wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 28, 2003, at 06:06 PM, m_iacomi wrote:
>>
>>> Lat. "titionem" > DR "tãciune", AR "tic^uni"
>>> Lat. "fetiolus" > DR "fecior", AR "fic^or"
>>> Lat. "petiolus" > DR "picior", AR "pic^or"
>
>>> Lat. "-tio:sus" > DR "-cios" (in suffixes)
>>
>> e.g. <legea contenciosului administrativ>.
>
> Better "albicios", "bãtrânicios", "rãutãcios" or "în(n)ecãcios",
> not to mention here the c-word. :-)
>
> Regards,
the trouble is that what appears to be true - see "minTi" (to lie) but
"minciunã" (lie) does not fit too properly phoneticaly.
The "i" in Latin suffix "-tio:sus" is a short "i", thus we have in PBR
an "-teosu".
Now the "-teos" >"-c^ios" appears at least very curious id not
improbable.
The example of "titionem" is problematic since phoneticaly we have
"ti:tionem" and semanticaly the meanings.. well the meaning is related
in this case to the Rom. word.
about "petiolus" we found out this is a word from Middle Ages Latin,
thus there is no chance to be inherited.
"fetiolus" is too to rule out since the meaning is an anohter, just the
phonetic form will fit ( assuming one will get the explanation of
"-teosu" > "c^ios"
for *mateuca , one has to explain "maciulie" as well or to consider
"mãciuca" is not related to "maciulie" thing which I doubt they are not
related.
The "intellectionem" does not appear to be a inherited word but a
internal derivation inside of Rom. Lang.
OK, it is easy to say no, thus which should be the alternatives for this
ominos "c^ios"?
From the phonetic point of view there should be an "*-kios/-*-kiosus" or
"*-sios/*-siosus" with a weierd change of "S" > "c^". At least the
change is not more wiered as "teos" > "c^ios" since we know and we are
aware of "Si"="c^i" in dialectal forms.
Alex