Re: [tied] derivations of rom. and -

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

>> 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_. [...]
>
> the _required_ form in CR is not required

Of course a required form is required.

> since Aromanian "dipã" can be simple the compositum of "de pe".

No, it can't be. It doesn't fit neither phonetically nor
semantically.

> I stop here since it seems we forgot (me and you too)

Speak for yourself.

> the older w r i t t e n form of the word which is in the texts
> of the XVI century.

You mean some DR texts.

> The form, is "dupre"

... and it's a hyperurbanism or a false analogy (by folk etymology)
with words or expressions of Latin origin containing "pre" (< "per"),
confusion made by writers of those texts and still in act nowdays
(in the other sense, when saying "paharul a cãzut dupã masã" `the
glass has fallen behind the table` in bad Romanian -- but current
speech of many -- instead of "paharul a cãzut de pe masã" `the
glass has fallen from the table`, which is the correct form).

> and all the speculation with any compositum of "pos(t)" appears
> to be just nonsense.

... to someone who hasn't interpreted correctly the information
given by those texts (try to "explain" Aromanian forms with your
wise last-minute wanting-to-contradict hypothesis, BTW).

Marius Iacomi