di:- > zi

Rom. Lang distinguish between the palatalised consonants; for each
palatalised consonants being there two nuances, two colours of the
next vowel. Thus, there are not simply "k^", "d^", "g^", "s^", "t^"
but there are as follow:

Group A
"k^e", "d^e", " g^e", "s^e", "t^e"

Group B
"k^i", "d^i", "g^i", "s^i", "t^y"


The Rom palatalised "d^i" (zi)was discussed here as having one of more
sources the Latin group "di:". From all the living examples in Rom. ,
it happens that in initial position there is just only one word which
will show this rule ( Lat."di-" >Rom."zi").

I guess that the phonetically laws are working precisely and I thought
as follow: -it can be it is an accident and from all Latin words which
in initial position have had an "di:-", just only one word could prove
the rule of long "i:" which palatalising the preceding consonant,
gives the Rom. group "C^i". But, there are more sounds which became
palatalised in this manner and the palatalisation should work in the
same way, thus, Latin "Ci:-" should give Rom. "C^i" in initial position
regardless what if this "C" is one of the consonants k, d, g, s, t.
With this idea, I begun to verify all the words which begin with "C^i"
in Rom., where "C^" is "k^", "d^", "g^", "s^", "t^" .

Just for remembering, the usual notation here on cybalist when speaking
about Rom. was/is as follow:

k^e/k^i = ce/ci
d^e/d^i = ze/zi

g^e/g^i = ge/gi
s^e/s^i = Se/Si
t^e/t^i = Te/Ti

_____________________________________________________
1) Latin "di:-" in initial position > Rom. "zi-"(d^i)
_____________________________________________________

since the examples here have been already posted, it does not make sense
to post them once again. The conclusion from the given examples is that
this rule was proved by one word only and that was "di:cere" > "zice"

_____________________________________________________
2) Latin "ci:-" in initial position > Rom. "ci-"(k^i)
_____________________________________________________

there is no word in Rom. which begins with "ci-" and has as etynom a
Latin word which has in initial position an "ci:-"

_____________________________________________________
3) Latin "gi:-" in initial position > Rom. "gi-"(g^i)
_____________________________________________________

there is no word in Rom. which begins with "gi-" and has an etynom a
Latin word which has in initial position an "gi:-"

_____________________________________________________
4) Latin "si:-" in initial position > Rom. "Si-"(s^i)
_____________________________________________________

si:c > Si (semantically does not fit)

there is the Rom. word "Si" which means "and" and this is supposed to
derive from Latin "si:c". Accepting this pair, we have 1 word which
proves that "si:-" > "Si" in Rom.

_____________________________________________________
5) Latin "ti:-" in initial position > Rom. "Ti-"(t^i)
_____________________________________________________

there is no word in Rom. which begins with "Ti-" and has an etynom a
Latin word which has in initial position an "ti:-"



That are not the linguistic facts, but the language facts. We have there
two languages to compare, and the result of what we compare should be
evaluated. Summing up, the Latin "Ci:-" in initial position has yelled
in Rom. an "C^i-" in 2 words. If one take critically the fact , the
semantism of one word is not and does not request the Latin semantism,
then we remain just with only one word from all the lexical material we
have.

From the analysed lexical data, the conclusion appears to be that there
cannot be made out any rule that Latin consonant (C) followed by an
long i (i:) gives out an Romanian palatalised consonant of group B (
k^i, g^i, d^i, s^i, t^i).

Since all this begun with the suspicion that Latin "dicere" is not the
root wherefore Rom. "zice" came I consider one can say that it is
possible, that Latin "di:cere" could give accidentally Rom. "zice" if
there is not (very possible fact) an another PIE root at work.


Alex