> BTW, there is no AR <flu'er> (a plain nonsense), at most <flùer>
> (with stress mark).
>
> Regards,
> Marius Iacomi
>
It would be better to read again Rosetti...especially when I
quoted him posting the url image of taht page in ILR ....so I'm
surprized that you didn't arrive to read it and to reproduce it
correctly ...
Rosetti ILR:
" ar. flue'r ; [Dal] fluearã [Papahagi, Basme...] .... "
Please try again:
http://f6.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/sPaNQ3mJboVFIkN80wpTVuFM5TyPaz1prRDqSKDc
OB7NtM2PzCRlfFNamRCZOrnBw2O4DzruTlJsjv7LO2xU6U1ZEgxnO21V8250zw/Rosett
i/Rosetti_ILR_II_114_115.jpg
Marius
P.S.
1. As regarding your long assertion on pradã, I don't see there
any explanation on how to derived correctly Aromanian and Romanian
forms for pradã: Rom prádã pl. prãzi (DEX) Ar. prádã pl. prãdz
(Papahagi) from Latin praeda....
If you could derive it correctly please post this derivation
here, and I will be happy to learn it immediately and next to thank
you.
If you cannot ...doesn't matter what you 'explain' outside or
around this...
2. And another question for you : how Latin *abellona (<
abellana [nux] see DEX) could give Romanian aluna ?
Is somehow via b>zero and next ae>a ?
(even I don't trust such a link (see Albanian word) ...for sure
you trust in it as an "anti-substratum guy" so please derive
here 'correctly' aluna too...)