Re: [tied] Re: derivations of and <(d')apoi>

g wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 24, 2003, at 11:41 AM, m_iacomi wrote:
>
>> Well, to clarify all, one has to say that derivation of Common
>> Romanian "*depã/dipã" is straightforward; the further evolution
>> towards modern DR form is rather uncommon but not surprising at
>> all. At any rate, the word "impossible" does not apply.
>>
>> Marius Iacomi
>
> I confirm the existence of the variant <dîpã>
> at least in an western area of DR (namely in the
> Bihor county). A variant which I forgot to mention
> in my latest post.

I don't know this form and that variant, if exists, it makes the things
worse. We know about an /u/ > /â/, but not an /â/ which became "u". Thus
, if the variant you are speaking about even exists and this is not a
recent form , we have to assume the older form of "dupã" is the same as
the actual form, namely *dupã.
By no meaning you will have /e/ > /â/ in that position.

>
> George

Alex