Re: [tied] Rom. fost

On 2007-05-09 09:52, altamix wrote:

> that appears to be a speculation.( there is no fus+t > *fust > fost;
> for "fãcu" you have "fuse" and if "fãcu+t" > "fãcut", a "fuse+t" will
> give allways an "fuset", but not "fost"; here is no space to make
> speculations about such reductions). Since the form with "fost" was
> known already in Umbric ( I hope I am not mistaking now) then the
> presence of this form in Romance should be considered as explanable.

Umbr. fust is a 3sg. future form, not a participle. What else can <fost>
be, in your opinion , if -t- is a transparent ppp. suffix? You can't be
serious about "fuset". If there is no vowel in <rupt> from <a rupe,
rupse> etc., why rule out fost <-- fus- + -t?

Piotr