> The rom. word "colo" ( there, far (about distance), far(about the time)
> "mai incolo"= later) resemble from phoentical and semantical meaning the
> o grade of *kWel an not an eccum-illoc
What if eccum-illoc's place was taken afterwards, for
a period of time, by an *[e'kwilo]? It would nolens-volens
and anyway have looked like the PIE *kWel. Thus, it
would've looked... _again_ like that.
NB: Even today, in 2003, in some areas of the Romanian
(I mean the so-called "Daco-Rumanian" dialect only),
people use (instead of <acólo>) the variant <acólea>,
that's pronounced [a-'ko-lea] in standard Romanian, but
the real regional pronunciation is [a-'kwa-le(a)].
Lacking a special font for the [w] in the official Romanian
writing system, the word would be written like this:
<acuale(a)>. (The final <a> in brackets because both
forms are extant there: <acuale> and <acualea>.)
However, I don't dare to deem this phenomenon as a
wondrous preservation of the [kw] over such a long
period of time, but a mere regional occurrence, a
caprice, namely in areas where [a-'kwa-] seems to
be... smooth compared with [a-'ko-] in the rest of the
area, esp. since the general pronunciation in the
same regional areas are rather [a-'kO-], and out of
this it's easier to make [a-'kwa-].
> Alex
g