Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
>> Also:*pos > pas 'after, behind'
>
> Come on, it's another lookalike, not an exact match.
>
> Piotr
and where should it be derived in your opinion since the actually "s" is
not supposed to reflex an ancient "s" ?
The romanian counterpart here can be "peste" which appears to be
something compound of two words "pes+te" which have been kept long time
out of each oder for awoiding having "peSte"; The Rom. preposition is
given by DEX as deriving from two Latin prep. "pre"+"spre" > peste which
appears just a good try but not the real etymology.
Rosetti see in "peste" Latin "per-extra" and he argues with Older forms
of XVI-century which are "preste, pestre".
Since a such prep. is a locative prepos. it shows the position of an
object versus an person which speaks about, or versus an another obeject
which is took as referential point, maybe in this is in fact implied
just the verb " to be" and the prep. "per-/pre-" found in Latin & Slavic
, thus pre+este (este= pers. III sg of to be) >preste.
This form "preste" will explain the form of the XVI century; the another
form wioth "pestre" I guess it can be seeen as a unusual form (
methatetised, wrogn wroten?). I cannot in how many instance the word
appears since Rosetti does not give any references here ( at least not
at the page 160 of his ILR)
Comming back to Albanian, where from should it be derived in your
opinion since the actually "s" is not supposed to reflex an ancient "s"
?
Alex