Re: [tied] derivations of rom. and -

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:

>> This is no question since it did not appear. It was inserted in
>> some Italian dialectal forms by analogy or hypercorectness.
>
> The "i" exists in Rom. "poi-" and "apoi" as well, thus some "Italian
> Dialects" appears as an unlucky expresion here.

I was specifically referring to "dopo"/"dupã", not to "poi"/"apoi",
as anyone could have noticed with attention payed to the context.

> Coincidence or not, it is too speculated the Rom.Lang should have
> developed on a thracian basis, regardless if you like it or not.

It is called "substrate" and it is not (Southern) Thracian but
Northern Thracian (a.k.a Daco-Moesian). And not "on the basis"
but "including some elements" of it (some words, some patterns).

> Fact is too, the change of Latin /de/ to "du" in Rom. and "do" in
> Italian _is not possible_, it doesnt matter with how much honey
> you want to bake it.

Rohlfs has a different opinion, as you noticed from Miguel's
message. Methinks he, Romanian and Italian linguists are more
likely to be right.

Marius Iacomi