Re: [tied] derivations of rom. and -

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 07:17:47 +0000, alexandru_mg3 <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

>Hello M. Iacomi,
> I don't hear, until now, somebody else that use "the Accidents'
>Theory" to explain some linguistic evolutions.
>
> This is not a scientific way to explain something: because
>everything that doesn't fit in the Rules will be easy considered
>as "an accident" (as you already did in this case), that is explained
>in one way (dialects,subdialects?sic.) or in another one (is not 'u',
>but 'i','e','^i', 'backvowel', 'frontwovel', 'some partial
>assimilation' (for sure this is the 'best accident' that you found)
>etc...).
>
> I never saw Piotr and other peoples in this forum to apply
>the "Accidents' theory" when they derived a word from a PIE root.

Of course you must have seen it.

A search on "irregular" and Piotr Ga,siorowski revealed
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/26526

And Piotr is applying the <<Accidents theory>> here not to just any Slavic
word, but to the one his own surname is based on!


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...