Re: [tied] derivations of rom. and -

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:52:38 +0000, alexandru_mg3

<alexandru_mg3@...>

> wrote:
>
> > a) <apoi> (then) - the proposed latin source is 'ad post'
> >
> > b) <dup~a> (behind) - the proposed latin source is 'de post'
> >
> > Now could this 'post' become either 'poi' and 'p~a' ?
> > For me is hard to believe.
>
> I don't think dupã can be from "de post". That would have

given /depoi/.

>
> As to meaning, dupã is close to French (d')après, Cat. després, not

only in

> its concrete meaning "after, behind", but also in more abstract

uses like

> <dupã mine> "according to me" (Fr. d'après moi). The Fr. and Cat.

words of

> course come from <de (ex) presse>, but in both languages this

replaced an

> older form (de)puix, (de)puis, from Latin <postea>, <postius>: Cat.

puix,

> Occ. pueis, Fr. puis, Ital. poscia. In Romanian that would have

given

> */depoas,ã/, which conceivably was altered to <dépoa(s,ã)> -->

<dúpã>.

>

<dépoa(s,ã)> --> <dúpã> ?
How did that /u/ get there? Is this another unexplained /u/ in the
same pre/adverb (as in my previous posting)?

Torsten