[tied] Re: Schöffe I

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> So it's not unlikely -eşti could have been rendered as -st- if loaned.

by speakers who have no "sh" in their language? Probably, I guess it pretty depends on the speakers of the language and the phonetical features of their language..

> > At that time was too George the one who argumentes against it but
> > meanwhile we know that the "-esc" suffix in Romanian cannot be
> > explained via Latin.
>
> Does Trieste have it own name in Romanian? 'Tîrgeşti'?
>
>
> Torsten
>

not an ancient one since the Romanians have been far away from Trieste and now they speak it out as the Italians, namely "Trieste". Actually, in Ro lang for "to be" there is the form for pers. 3 sg. "este" but as suffix there is only "eshte", no suffix in "este". The words which ends in "-este" as "veste, poveste, almageste" are either loans from slavic (that is, as the Slavs came, the change of *esty>*eshty was already done), or they are neologism as french "almageste".

The suffix "-eshte" makes adverbs from nous, showing "like how something should be made" eg. american+eshte=americaneshte (like the americans).
On another hand, there is the romance equivalent of -esce which is rendered too as "-eshte" and we find it in the conjugations of the verbs ( you gave already the example of italian conosco, conosci, conosce with their Romanians equivalents).
It is maybe a possibility to consider that a substratual -"eshte/eshti" is the one reflex which triggered the change of the Latin -esce/esci in -eshte/eshti since for the Thracian speakers that sound was "almost" the same.

Alex