On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 08:52:37 +0100, petegray
<
petegray@...> wrote:
>>But illi:us and isti:us do _not_ follow the example of
>>e:ius, cu:ius and hu:ius.
>
>That should be eyyus, cuyyus, huyyus. The first vowel is short, the
>consonantal <i> is double. I rather think this supports the change -sy-
>> -yy.
Yes. I was citing the Classical Latin forms, where Vjj >
V:j. The genitives illi:us and isti:us can also derive from
*istijjus, *illijjus (< *is-tosyo, *olnosyo).
I also asked about the reduction of unstressed /a/ vs. /o/
in Latin. Is /a/ more resistent to reduction than /o/? I'm
not confident about the soundlaws governing reduced vowels
in Latin, but based on the reduction of fac- to fic-
(afficio, etc.), I'd say there is no difference between /a/
and /o/. So if *-osyo was reduced to *-ijjo/-i:o, *-asyo-
should have done the same. Is that correct?
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...