[tied] Re: Romanian APA

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>
> Richard Wordingham schrieb:
> >
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:cybalist%

40yahoogroups.com>,

> > alex <alxmoeller@> wrote:
> >
> > > Richard Wordingham schrieb:
> >
> > > > > So only Romanian would remain a unique 'modern case'..in

this

> > > > > model?
> > > > No, Sardinian has a similar change.
> >
> > > Richard, is your answer linked to the sintagm "modern case" or

do

> > > you include more here?
> >
> > My point is that Romanian is not the only Romance language to

show kw

> > > p.
>
>
> that is a wellknown matter and it was discussed by almost each
> romanist ( see for more information M.L. Wagner with his
> "Historische Lautlehre des Sardischen). So far I know, one speaks
> there about almost the same development in the both languages but
> developments which should have happen separately in each language.
>
>
> > It's not as simple as that - in Romanian there are special
> > developments such as kwe > ce, and we have both kwa > ka and kwa
> pa,
> > without any obvious phonetic conditioning.
>
> it is said there has been not a phonetic conditions but it is said
> there have been semnaticaly conditions. Thus, the interogative
> pronouns should have been kept with "k" due their very special use.
> Alex
>

Yes, 'it is said': but this is only to 'can say something'...in order
to keep the same timeframe : 'Roman times' for both kw>p and kw>k
-> that is impossible to be kept.

This duality kw>p and kw>k is one of the 'most tricky case' in the
history of Romanian Language.


I wish to know their real timeframes, because this will clarify
forever if apa is subtratual or not (and not only apa)

Could I ask for a help : what is the PIE form of Latin quattuor :
more exactly why we have an a inside?


Marius