--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
> Equus mortuus est. We went through this just over a year
> ago. See in particular
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/38283>
>
> for the development in Romanian.
>
> Or just search on 'acel'.
>
> Brian
>
there is no Latin "ccue" > "kwe" > "c^e" but IE *kWe > c^e.
Demonstrated in cioara & co.If you consider I am wrong, you should
show us which should have been the form of "cioarã" in the time
Latin "*accu(m)" became "*akwe-". The phonetic changes here should
have yelded an *acwãlu from *accum illu(m) and the today form should
have been *acolu" not "acelu". Ahmm....I don't have the feeling I
have to develop, there has been plenty of discussion on this but it
seems some people have trouble with the consistency and the time
line of the changes.
Alex