Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> 02-01-04 19:28, alex wrote:
>
>> wherefrom do you want to have /t /+ /y/ when short /i/ > /e/ in PBR?
>
> Not again, Alex. You've asked this question before. Check the archives
> if you don't remember the answer.
>
> Piotr
I indeed do not remember. I remember about Miguels opinion tha the group
"ti" should have had a "debile" comportment in Romance and not more as
that.
Mr Iacomi will come probably with Rosetti's mention that
"postconsonantic short /i/ when followed by /a,o,u/ becomes "y" .For
this affirmation Rosetti shows some _latin examples_ (not example from
Romance) as follow:
balteus not baltius, brattea non brattia, calceus non calcius, cavea non
cavia, palearium not paliarium, solea not soliatinea non tinia, vinea
non vinia ( examples from Appendix Probi).
more, he shows some regresions as lilium non lileum, alium not aleum,
ostium not osteum ( examples from Appendix Probi too).
I assume on the bassis of such "failures" in the folks's mouth, one can
easy postulate that /ti/ > /ti/ and does not need anything more to
explain. Eventualy the only add should be that there is not the latin
suffix "-tio:nem" but the same bad form in VLat which became /-tionem/
and there is the requested /y/, not in Rom. where there is imposible the
/y/ from /e/ and the ty > Ti and not "c^".
Alex