From: alex
Message: 654
Date: 2003-12-03
> --- In phoNet@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@t...> wrote:in which language then? So far I remember Rom. does not show an
>> Some examples appears to be something in the Midle Age if
>> one thinks that Alb. "doktuer" is seen as a loan from
> Latin "doctore".
>> Beside of this , the Latin group "pt" shows two treatments in two
>> words: captiare > kapshoy
>
> -pti- (i became a consonant) is different to -pt-, as -pt- is
> different to -p-.
>it seems that here "p" got lost at all and one does not have no "pt"
>> discaptare > diktoj
>
> But what did we get here as an intermediate stage. -skpt-? No
> wonder the development of the whole is not the sum of the
> development of the parts! Moreover, at such a point, -pt- has
> ceased to be an intervocalic cluster!
>We discussed about a false problem since Miguel pointed out there was no
>> Now to Rom. Lang. The "kt" group is seen not just as regular "pt" but
>> too as "t" in words as "unt" < unctum", "untura" > unctura".
>
> We discussed this sort of development of -nct-, in relationship to
> the development of Latin _sanctus_, on Cybalist in
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/23333 and its thread.
>The problem is the location of PRom in the neighbourhood of Albanians.
>> Interesting aspect :
>> -it ought to mention something very strange. Albanian share with Rom.
>> almost 100 substratual words, but just 39 Latin words; the rest of
>> Latin words are shared by Albanian with the rest of Romance. How is
>> that to explain ?
>
> Why is that a problem? If Romance had more independent branches,
> there'd be even fewer Latin words surviving only in Romanian and
> Albanian.
>
> Richard.