Re: [tied] Re: Indo-Iranian

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 19:11:56 +0200, alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>>> You see it wrong, or better sayd, you can see it just to see it that
>>> way. "ecce" has in Rom. "iacã" perfect regulary phoneticaly and
>>> semantic.
>>
>> Accu- is not ecce-.
>
>what is this accu- ? wherefrom you got it? I never found this form
>nowhere? Is this eventualy a form _requested_ by romance for explain the
>derivation from Latin?

*accu- (Spa. aquel, Cat. aquest, aquell, Ita. questo, quello, Rom. acest,
acel) is a contamination of <atque> and <eccum> (from <ecce eum>), which
are both abundantly attested in Plautus etc. as emphatic particles preposed
to the demonstrative pronouns, as is also <ecce>.

>> So you're denying the simple fact that e.g. Catalan aquest "this",
>> aquell "that" are related to Romanian acest "this", acel "that"?
>
>No. I simply do not derive them from Latin, but to an older layer as
>Latin. Thus, I see tehm as erlated to Latin but not derived from it.

It's in fact a younger layer.

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