Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: kentum/satem built-in already in PIE?

Expand Messages
  • tgpedersen
    ... If you could give a reference for the relevant work of Leskien, I d appreciate it. Torsten
    Message 1 of 58 , Aug 4, 2006
      > The sequences *-rj-, *-lj-, *-nj-, *-Vj- remained unchanged in that
      > paradigm (Leskien's 3rd conjugation);

      If you could give a reference for the relevant work of Leskien,
      I'd appreciate it.


      Torsten
    • alexandru_mg3
      ... Arumanian ... and ... to i ... As on my side, I think that there wasn t ANY o oa in Romanian ....because there was no o in Dacian.... Marius P S this
      Message 58 of 58 , Aug 14, 2006
        --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tolgs001" <st-george@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > >These are the reasons that we are obliged to suspect wa
        > > > >not o>oa in Romanian /c^wara/
        > > > >
        > > > >Marius
        > > >
        > > > The Romanian diphtong <oa> here (which is by no means
        > > > correctly rendered by the narrow transcription /wa/) is
        > > > a very late occurrence - a few centuries old, and specific
        > > > only to the south-eastern ("muntenian") subdialect of
        > > > Romanian.
        > >
        > > <snip>
        > >
        > > > George
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > does anyone forget the diphtongation of "o" to "oa" is
        > > present in Arumanian as well ??!! :-)
        > > The change should be more as a few century old since in
        Arumanian
        > > _and_ Moldavian dialects there are forms as "oaminji/oaminii"
        and
        > > that means the diphtongation is older as the change of "e"
        to "i"
        > > before "n", thus _older_ as the first literar testimonies and of
        > > course, not restricted just to some Wallachian (Muntenian)
        > > subdialects.
        > >
        > > P.S. I think that what literary is showed as "oa" is in fact the
        > > said "wa". Or is there any posibility for you to distinge
        > > between "wa" or "oa"? I have to recognise I cannot make the
        > > difference .
        > >
        > > Alex
        > >
        >
        >
        > For George: o/stressed /e,ã,a > oa is considered Common Romanian
        > (Rosetti)
        >
        > and oa is /wa/, George (see Rosseti too)
        >
        >
        >
        > Marius
        >

        As on my side, I think that there wasn't ANY o>oa in
        Romanian ....because there was no o in Dacian....

        Marius

        P>S> this fact will be known in the future as "Marius' Rule" :)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.