From: Miguel Carrasquer
>But ok, Exception or not Miguel needs now to explain us...and toAs the asteisk indicates, *accu is not attested in Latin.
>demonstrate that this supposed *accu was really a Common Latin
>Form....Because showing only that a=a or i=i is not sufficient in
>So in this case Miguel, you need to accomplish some steps in order
>to really demonstrate that this *accu ...was a Common Latin Form.
>To do this:
>1. you can find and attested Latin form (some inscriptions, texts
>etc...maybe a Catalan or at least a Dacian "verus" that passed from
>Pompei...) => but if you cannot find one ok....let's go further.
>2. You need to identify the title word or the root word in Latin of*accu is simply a syncopated form of <atque eccum>, widely
>this *accu (if possible a PIE also your demonstration will be 100%
>sure) => so you will demonstrate first that this really could be a
>Latin word. Latin being a well attested Language is mandatory to can
>accomplish this step...
>3. Next after the root was identified you need to present how thisThe distribution is roughly: *accu- in Iberia, Italy and the
>*accu was derived from this root in a credible way with a credible
>4. Next you need to apply first the OLD Latin and next the Catalan
>Phonetic rules to can show us that this derivation was possible in
>Catalan to happen...
>5. Next you need to do the same thing for Romanian (and for any
>other Latin Idiom where this *accu appeared...)
>HELPING NOTE: in Romanian there is no Latin. e that passed to a...
>(It could be some recent lost of ea > a but we will easy find traces
>of the previous ea in Dialects in that case)
>Finally I'm really confident that for Miguel (that is a
>very "serious" linguist in opposition with other "igonrants"
>that "populate" this forum) will be an easy job to make this
>demonstration ...especially because I'm almost sure that before to
>make me an "ignorant" he have had previously checked any detail in
>the demonstration above....so he needs now only to write his