Re: [tied] derivations of rom. and -

m_iacomi wrote:

>> 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.

other texts from that time are not to find so far I remember.

>
>> 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).

The use of the word "dupã" interchaged with " de pe" is indeed usual
since the phonetism is near and the meaning too near. "Ia mâna dupã
mine" (take the hand off of me) instead of "correct" Romanian (read
"literary") "ia mâna de pe mine".
I don't know if this was a superurbasnism or a false analogy.

>
>> 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

That is bad. I mean, you are too obstinate for something else. When you
have the written testimony you give your own interpretations and
dissaprove them thinking at any other eventuality , ignoring a lot of
stuff just for showing what a hell head you are. Thank you. It was nice
as usual reading your post but for me this subject is done and my own
conviction is that there is no "de post" > dupã, regardless how you want
to smoke it. D'apã ce sã crezi altceva?

Alex