From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 57998
Date: 2008-04-25
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexandru Moeller" <alxmoeller@...>
> alexandru_mg3 schrieb:
>>
> you don't see any because you compare with the actual Hungarian form
> üveg. Look, I already said that if the form has been *uwega, then the
> the stress shuold have been on "e" and the Romanian speakers perceived
> the "uw" as long "u" which was reduced _naturaly_ in their language to a
> neutral "u".
====
It does not work to start with *uwega and
so hypothesize a Hungarian word stressed on the second vowel is absurd.
ujeg > üjeg > üveg makes sense.
Arnaud
==========
That is, the "a" at the end of uiagã can be the Romanian
> adaptation after sticlã, butelcã, ploscã what ever, thus you got a 3
> syllabic word which was rendered as *u-é-ga; the stressed "e" yotacised
> to "ie" and the "ie" became "ia". I don't know the word, it is a
> regionalism but I should say that the plural form of "uiagã" is "uiege"
> as each other ord with "ia" ( iapa-iepe, iarna-ierni, mia-miele, etc.)
> It will be strange for me to be a plural *uiage there....
>
=========
In that case, it's easy to explain why üveg is ujaga/ujege.
In that the case for üveg being out of *uj water is strong.
strong than to derive it out of apaka:
Arnaud
=======