[tied] Re: ...Crãciun...

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

> The "i" in Latin suffix "-tio:sus" is a short "i", thus we have
> in PBR an "-teosu".

No, there is a [y] in diphthong not [e]. Back to lesson 1.

> Now the "-teos" >"-c^ios" appears at least very curious id not
> improbable.

It is simply a false inference.

> about "petiolus" we found out this is a word from Middle Ages Latin,
> thus there is no chance to be inherited.

False. It can't be anything else but inherited.

> "fetiolus" is too to rule out since the meaning is an anohter,

That is: you did not get it.

> for *mateuca , one has to explain "maciulie" as well

No one doesn't.

> The "intellectionem" does not appear to be a inherited word but a
> internal derivation inside of Rom. Lang.

That is: doesn't appear to you.

> OK, it is easy to say no, thus which should be the alternatives
> for this ominos "c^ios"?

There is the one you find in Rosetti's ILR at the indicated chap.
There is no other one.

> 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.

Bad reasoning. Forget about "=". There is "[t] + [y]". No
"[t] + [e]". Full stop.

Marius Iacomi