Re: [tied] Re: kentum/satem: why Lithuanian kg before e/i

alexandru_mg3 schrieb:
.

>
> It's true that the o>oa exists for Romanian (in some contexts:
> mainly before e and ã, the a-context 'is not clear enough'):

there is not mainly but entirely before "ã"(&) and "e". So far I
remember there is no exception.

> but the
> timeframes didn't match here: there isn't any other PAlb a: > Rom o
> (> oa) <-> Alb o in the common words (see raTa, madzare)

I am not sure I really got what you mean here :
Palb "a:" > Rom "o" (> oa)<-> Alb "o" (see ratsa, madzare).

>
> In addition Rom c^ for Alb s shows us a very old loan for the Balkan
> Latin

this is a bit indigerable. We (you) speak about "Protoalbanians" in
the time of Cesar in Roma !!!

>
> These are the reasons that we are obliged to suspect wa not o>oa in
> Romanian /c^wara/
>
> Marius

The plural is "ciori".Do you think there is a remade singular from
plural and the "o" was analogicaly re-established from "oa"?



Alex