> >>e:ius, cu:ius and hu:ius.
> >That should be eyyus, cuyyus, huyyus. >
> I was citing the Classical Latin forms, where Vjj > > V:j.
Nonsense.
I was also talking of the Classical forms, where Vjj survives, and does not
undergo the process you mention.
I refer you to W Sidney Allen "Vox Latina" pp38f
"In the interior of a word [the i-consonant] rarely occurred singly
between vowels. ... With a few exceptions noted below, wherever a single,
intervocalic i-consonant is written it stands for a _double_ consonant, i.e.
/yy/ [WSAllen's emphasis]. Thus aio maior .. stand for aiio maiior etc.
This is quite clear from various types of evidence. [grammarians, reports
of early spellings, inscriptions, Italian reflexes etc]...
There are two small classes of apparent exceptions, but both are
concerned with compounds of which the second element begins with consonantal
i. In e.g. di:-iudico, tra:-iectus e:-iaculo pro:-iectus de:-iero the first
syllable has a long vowel, and there is no reason to think the following
i-consonant is double. In biiugus, qadriiugus, the syllables bi- and ri-
are light, so that here too the i-consonant must be single."
We must therefore accept eyyus, cuyyus, huyyus, unless you can dispose of WS
Allen's evidence, and the explicit statements of Roman grammarians.
Peter