>uveg has a supposed u-wa either, if wasn't directly /u-va/ with /v/
>can you understand at least this?
Pay attention to those pieces of information or assertions that are
conveyed to you. Whenever talking of /v/, it is the /v/ in Hungarian
/'ü-vaeg/, not /v/ in Romanian. Since the Romanian words /u-'ja-g&/
and /'ja-g&/ do not contain any consonant /v/.
>Also is not /v/ 'that vanished' is /w/ but of course that you miss
>that lesson too, mixing the contexts.
If you had paid heed to what I wrote in one of my latest postings, then
you'd have noticed the information that, according to some
Hungarianlinguitst, the fact that Hungarian loanwords into Romanian are
rendered with vowels where the *modern* variant of those words in
today's Hungarian contained a /v/ might be a hint that many hundreds
years ago those /v/'s were actually /w/'s in Hungarian. So the sentence
above you can attach to your "clop" instead of an ornating feather.
>The reference books for the History of Romanian Language History are:
>Rosetti IRL and Ovid Densusianu ILR
Of course. It is a really good thing to know that Rosetti and Densusianu
were some of the luminaries of the Romanian language and its history.
But to really grasp and understand what those great fellas, yeah, giants,
taught us is a completely different thing. Capisci?
>Don't be shame to quote 'your transformations' here (they are
>usually wrong).... before to make assumptions ...but if you didn't
>read Rosetti would be hard for you....
You are in bad need to be taught manners.)
>(You are that one that arrived say that toiag and noian in relation
Concentrate your attention, focus it to what is written, man! Don't abuse
my patience. And before starting your daily reading and replying on
cybalist do have your necessary intake of glucose! I made a jocular
à propos to your phonologic analogies by comparing the word uiaga
with the word toiag -- but being at the same time careful enough as to
underline that I didn't imply that uiaga and toiag were related! And now
what happens? Unde dai si unde crapa: your reception pops up to
have been 'I asserted something about putting toiag and noian in the
same bowl. Re-read that post <jumpin' tootin' blazes!>.
>with uj& is the same 'sheet'
Shit - not *sheet!
>==> the correct name for such a comparison is that "you miss some
>other basic lessons here" ...and I used an euphemism)
What the heck do you wanna tell me here? I haven't dealt with your
/uj&/ obsession as yet. And I even don't intend to do that, for your
/uj&/ has nothing to do with the discussion üveg-(u)iagä. The only
thing that ->indeed<- would fit is the fact that /uj&/ somewhat resembles
the beginning of /ujag&/ provided that /uj&/ is pronounced /u-j&/. But,
if the stress falls upon /u/ then there's a start(l)ing difference: in
/ujag&/ the stress falls on the second syllable.
George
PS: Nici de poanta cu "fetele de la APACA" nu te-ai prins. Va mâncä
Pesedeul cu fulgi cu tot. <tsk-tsk>