Re: [tied] Re: Weeping (was: Latin pinso etc.)

Richard Wordingham wrote:

>
>> Thus, contrary to that what Piotr means , it appears possible to have
>> nsV > nzV if the V = /i/,/i/,/y/
>
> Unless by 'appear' you mean 'falsely appear', the above paragraph is
> total gibberish. The vowel list makes no sense, either. What forms
> did you have in mind? Bear in mind that for this word, the
> Classical Latin principal parts are _tondeo:_, _tonde:re_,
> _totondi:_, _to:nsum_. (FWIW, 'the rules' yield *tutunzi from
> _totondi:_ - but *tutunde from 3s perfect _totondit_.) The
> percentage rule for *guessing* the perfect would yield *tondi:, not
> *tonsi:, and the regular perfect and past participle would be
> *tondui:, *tonditus.
>
> Richard.

Herewith I wanted to point out the examples from the previous mail as
"osânzã", "rânzã" etc where the suffix "zã" can be from an earlier
"-se/-sa" , not exclusively from an "-dia".
The perfect/imperfect form for "tunde" is in Rom. "tuns" and nowhere
"tunz".
The voicing of "s" is possible just because of the existence of the next
vowel; without a next vowel, there is no voicing, but the "s" remains
unvoiced.

Alex