m_iacomi wrote:
>> There is no way. Despite the pseudoargumentation of Mr Iacomi here,
>> there is no way of obtaining from Latin "e" an "u".
>
> Well, you just (1) read again. If that's not enough, GOTO (1).
>
> Have fun,
> Marius Iacomi
No Sir. When I mean "there is no way" I mean here _regular way of
changes_ without folks etymology, assimilations, dissimilations, etc,
etc etc.
Since one does not have any other written source which will allow us to
establish an another etymology for this word, it is the very right way
of someone to see it as being the ancient Latin word "de post".
The forms in Aromanian you are talking about "dipã/dipu" are too of no
help since there is not known any /e/ > /i/ without the influence of
some nasals, thus "de post" presentst 3 big difficulties for becaming
"dopo" & "dupã" & "dipã/dipu".
Actualy it seems the only argumentum brought here is this "post" for
tracing it back to Latin but this appear to be false too.Latin "post"
from PIE *pos, ultimately from PIE *po.
One has to remember , there is -incidentaly of course- "VulgarLatin"
"pos" too which appears to be the same form as PIE *pos.
I agree the IE *po appears more better here as the accepted reduction of
"st" > "i" ( which is not credible for RomLang.
It appears questionable if here indeed the Latin "de" any game plays.
I am thinking now at Slavic "do", Gothic "du" , OldLith. "do",
prepozitions with the meaning of "after, nach, zu , hin". I just wonder
people are ready to accept some irregularities just for keeping a
certain etymology without to look if there is indeed something else, but
every one with its meaning here.
Alex