--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> alexandru_mg3 schrieb:
> >
> >
> > PIE *Dental+Dental > PAlb/Dacian? c^ > Romanian c^ <-> Albanian s
> >
> > Marius
>
>
> let us please remember the fact that one of the phonetic rules says
> that an ancient "ty" > "c^" as well.
> The wellknown example is latin titionem > tãciune thus an
> *kat+suffix begining with a front vowel should have the same result
> (c^) without a need of a double dental.
>
>
> Alex
>
The main rule is only ty > ts similar with dy > dz
Please see:
Romanian puT /puc/ <-> Albanian pus < Latin puteus
Romanian p&Ti <-> Albanian p&soj etc..
or
SubstratualRomanian budz& <-> Albanian buz& < PAlb budza: < PAlb
*budya:
etc..
But you are right: In a selective context ty gave also c^ in Romanian:
Latin ty/hiatus_accented{o,u} > Romanian c^
I didn't mention it, because 'I couldn't see any hiatus' in any
possible reconstructed Romanian-Substratum forms of cac^ula
II. Regarding the 'hat' topic : 'the need' of a dental+dental in
kac^ula 'was imposed' by Latin cassis 'helmet' as cognate (otherwise
you are right: all the possible sources of c^ are equally valid :
kW/+, kw/+, ty_o,u/accented, T+T. k'w etc...
Thanks,
Marius