Re: [tied] "u" versus "a"

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 16:13:30 +0100, alex
<alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>so, if I understand you right, this is just a matter of stress here and it
>could appear just in compositum, thus this is why we have no "sulsus" or
>"sulto" but one has "insulto/resulto" and "insulsus" for "salsus" and
>"salto".
>
>For these who are pretty wondering why it should be so important to me: -
>the matter is important for me for understanding in which conditions is
>posible to have an "o/u" from "a"

Well, the fate of Latin unstressed medial vowels is
irrelevant to your concerns.

>because of the explanation of the
>macro-hydronimy in Dacia which presents the same change of recorded "a" to
>"u" ( see Maris > Muresh, Alutas > Olt, Samos > Somesh, Dan(ubius) >
>Dun(area). The Slavic influence here is excluded since the Slavs did not
>changed the "a" in "o" in the hydronimy (see Sava for instance).

Slavic *did* change /o/ to /a/, in the hydronymy and
everywhere else. Slavic /a/ comes from */a:/ or */o:/.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...