Re[4]: [tied] Romanian Verb Endings and Substratum influence (repos

At 12:21:48 PM on Thursday, June 2, 2005, alex wrote:

> Brian M. Scott wrote:

>> I suspect that Miguel was commenting in particular on
>> your claim that this particular evolution is unique to
>> Catalan and Romanian. This is wrong: it's found
>> throughout Iberian Romance (OSp, OPort <aqueste>,
>> <aquel>), and I believe that Old Provençal also had
>> <aquel>.

[...]

> the initial "e", does not become "a" in Rom. There is
> erba, esca > iarba, iasca and not *arba, *asca, thus a
> derivation with the help of "ecce" is simply wrong.

The derivation under discussion is from *accu, not from
<ecce>. And tonic initial /E/ doesn't became /a/ in Spanish
or Portuguese, either; the development to *accu is
exceptional.

> Since you mention the forms in "aqueste" and "aquel",
> which is the explanation of this "u" here? Is the "u" from
> "*eccu" or which one?

From *accu, obviously.

Brian