> According to Rohlfs, this derives from "de post" > de poi > depò/dipò >
> dépo/dípo > dópo. All forms are attested in the Italian dialects (Std.
> Italian dopo, depoi, dipoi, dappoi; Southern: dòppu, dòpp&, ròpp&,
> tòppu,
> Umbr. depò, Siena dipò, Elba dipó, Abbruz. dapú, dapuó, Genoa dapue,
> O.Neapol. dapò, Gall-Sic. d&puói).
>
> Are there any Romanian variants of <dupã>?
>
> Miguel
AFAIK, none - except for <dúpre> (an archaic and
regional form) and *perhaps* <dúpe>.
However, <dúpe> (spread chiefly in South-SouthWest DR)
might be a variant not of <dupã>, but of <de pe> (being
semantically quite different [chiefly the idea "from"]).
If so, then <dúpe> is a hypercorrect thing (the native-
speaker deeming <dupã> a regional word and <dupe> the
standard one, which is of course wrong; there is no
<*dupe> in standard/official DR.).
OTOH, in the context of <apói, pãi, d'ápoi, d'ápãi>, I'd
mention <ápu> and <d'ápu> in subdialectal (I assume quite
small) areas in western regions of Transylvania. I remembered
them as I read - in the lines above - the Italian dialectal
forms of <dopo>: <dóppu, dapu, dapuó, dapue>. I don't know
whether this is covered in _Atlasul Lingvistic Român_ (1938);
I've incidentally heard them as I am from such a subdialectal
area (however, I myself have never used these forms, d'apu
and apu, preferring in subdialectal and colloquial talks
apãi and d'apãi).
[NB: in Romania, you'll find the spelling d-apoi and d-apãi,
in accordance with the post-1954 spelling rules.]
I mention this - which I deem of utmost
importance - to underline that there are numerous circum-
stances in which certain morphems cease to be used...
within the same family, within the same clan, within the
same village or part of a county, so that it can happen
that a certain morphem will cease spreading from a generation
to another merely... whimsically. IMHO, in many cases such
a "whim" can actually be generated by the influence esp.
exerted by a dominant subdialect/dialect/sociolect or even
by a... fad. (I see this almost on a daily basis in Germany
where I've lived for decades, namely in a region where there
have been clashes :-) between the Bavarian kind of Oberdeutsch
and Hochdeutsch. The phenomenon pertaining to morphem
selection is the same; and I assume it is the same in
virtually any language that has a sociolect called the
standard or received or Hoch-what-ever language. :-))
George