--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:
> Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I had completely forgotten about dopo.
>>
>> According to Rohlfs, this derives from "de post" > de poi >
depň/dipň
>> > dépo/dípo > dópo. All forms are attested in the Italian dialects
>> (Std. Italian dopo, depoi, dipoi, dappoi; Southern: dňppu, dňpp&,
>> rňpp&, tňppu, Umbr. depň, Siena dipň, Elba dipó, Abbruz. dapú,
dapuó,
>> Genoa dapue, O.Neapol. dapň, Gall-Sic. d&puói).
Is "Sic." standing for Sicilian? Normal form is "doppu", as well as
in
(Southern) Calabrese, or even "adduoppu"; according to Rohlfs, that
would
be probably a loan from literary language.
>> Are there any Romanian variants of <după>?
In DR, there are only hypercorrect forms and false analogies (mostly
spread in Southern part), as pointed out by George. They do not
deserve
too many comments. There are dialectal forms - Aromanian: <dipă>,
<dipu>,
Megleno-Romanian: <dupu>. Generally I think it's too much to look for
strange explanations since the Italian forms are perfectly consistent
with Romanian. There is no problem in deriving any of these words when
taking into account the stress in the expression, falling on "de" in
"de post" (> It. "dópo", Rom. "dúpă") and on "post" in "(ad) post" (>
It. "pói", Rom. "apói"), for which the two phonetical evolutions do
not
have to be similar. Thus, the compound "de post" could not be treated
as monosyllabical in Romanian, so final consonants did not produce the
would-have-been regular [y] (but analogy with "poi" in Italian lead to
or preserved it in some forms as given by Rohlfs). For unstressed /o/
>
/&/ there are numerous examples in Romanian for words of Latin or
Slavic
origin (as hinted by the same Rosetti: contra > cătră, foras > fără,
okno > ocnă, nos > nă, etc. - note: cătră, nă, got regularized further
in DR giving "către", "ne")
> I guess Marius showed good out the inadvertence here of "apoi" &
"după"
> ( Italian "poi" and "dopo").
It did not take stress pattern into account. Words with different
stress
(be it in the phrase) do not follow necessarily the same phonetical
ways.
The best example would be the one mentioned above: Latin "nos" > DR
"noi"
if stressed and > "nă" > "ne" if unstressed.
> The question remains "why loosing final "i".
This is no question since it did not appear. It was inserted in some
Italian dialectal forms by analogy or hypercorectness.
> It was several time mentioned that Rom. has very much common with
South
> Italian Dialects, these of Messapia and Calabria which originary
should
> have been populated with thracian/ilirian-like people
Skip this useless speculation, there is no room for it.
Marius Iacomi