Re: [tied] derivations of rom. and -

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:

> m_iacomi wrote:
>
>> You certainly have a _big_ difficulty to understand what a crucial
>> argument is and the peremptory proof of AR form and Italian word.
>> That is your problem to cope with _before_ any tentative of

answering

>> to my message.
>
> Aromanian "i" does not explain Italian "o" and DacoRomanian "u" and
> MeglRom. "u".

OK, so you did not understood. Read again.

> Your CR *depã is reconstructed just for explaing the Arom. form but

not

> for DacoRom. MeglRom, Italian.

Wrong. CR "*depã(o)" is the normal exitus of Latin "de pos(t)" with
the
stress on /e/ and it is also a regular source for modern AR forms.
Consequently, this CR form is _required_. Its purpose is not to
explain
DR or MglR (and by no means the Italian word -- how on Earth could one
think that a CR form is to explain a modern Italian development?!): it
is _the necessary intermediate step_ between "de pos(t)" and "dipã(u)
".

> I will like to ask you something else:-
> - are there some other words beside "-post" which end in "-st" for
> showing if there is a more traceable change of Latin "st" which in
> final position > "i" ?.

Already in Latin final "-st" in "post" got reduced to "-s" , as
proven
by all Romance. As I stated clearly: <there is no "reduction" of "st"
into "i", but final "s" > "i" in stressed monosyllabs>. And I stated
also that <this is _not_ the case we are dealing with when speaking
about "de post" and it is senseless to remind a rule which does not
apply>. For the mentioned rule (applying in "ad pos(t)" > "apoi"),
both
Miguel and I already gave several examples.

Marius Iacomi