Re: [tied] Re: Late Proto Albanian *3 /dz/ = Early Proto Romanian

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> 03-02-04 21:40, alex wrote:
>
>> I am sorry to contradict you Piotr, but there is no *drEktu in
>> Proto-Balkan Romance. At least not in the one people assume gave
>> Romanian. Why I say that?
>> Because in Old Romanian there is stil used the forms "d�rept" and
>> "d�reptate". The syncope of "�" is recent, very recent, 200 years
>> maybe.
>
> If so, then <d�rept> is simply the regular reflex of unsyncopated
> *derEktu-. Vulgar Latin had both, and the syncope could have happened
> at any stage.
>
> Piotr

It is so with respect to "d�rept". And there cannot be any "E" since /i/ >
/e/. In "directus" we have a short "i".
Vulgar Latin seems have had a lot of thingies. The Rom. general conjunction
"de" is to see with Alb. "dh" as well and "rectus" is in Germanic too
"recht", PIE *reg^ ?
I don't suppose anything more here, just I am very critical with the Vulgar
Latin which seems to be a very confortable and dilatable notion.

Alex