Re: [tied] derivations of rom. and -

Hello M. Iacomi,
I don't hear, until now, somebody else that use "the Accidents'
Theory" to explain some linguistic evolutions.

This is not a scientific way to explain something: because
everything that doesn't fit in the Rules will be easy considered
as "an accident" (as you already did in this case), that is explained
in one way (dialects,subdialects?sic.) or in another one (is not 'u',
but 'i','e','^i', 'backvowel', 'frontwovel', 'some partial
assimilation' (for sure this is the 'best accident' that you found)
etc...).

I never saw Piotr and other peoples in this forum to apply
the "Accidents' theory" when they derived a word from a PIE root.
If they cannot applies the Rules they prefer to keep that word
outside from the 'main stream', this seems for me a correct
scientific approach.

In this particular case we have in Romanian the supposed
derivations :

1. lat. de > rom. de (sic! No Accident here)
2. lat. de post > rom. dup~a

( and also 3. lat. ad post > rom. apoi , but now I speak only
about 'e' ).

Note that both 'de' and 'dup~a' belong to the romanian main
vocabulary and they are used very often in the current day speaking.

Now following your explanation : the same people that use 'de' in
Romanian (starting 2000 years ago) as in 'fructe de p~adure' used BY
ACCIDENT 'am mers dup~a mure' (etc...see you pseudo-argumentation
below...)
BUT why they didn't arrived to say by accident 'fructe du
p~adure' because you 'accident arguments' have the 'same validity'
also for this example.

At the end, applying your theory, we will arrive to have more
Accidents than Rules.
Seems that the "Accident' is not in 'dupa' but in another place....

Regards,
marius a.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
> In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:
>
> > alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> >
> >> The issue is that we don't have in Romanian other examples where
> >> Latin. e becomes Rom. u (like in the supposed lat. de post > rom.
> >> dup~a).
> >> As I know, the transformation rules are more important than the
> >> possible cognates.
>
> Your picture is flawed. The rules are always giving the
mainstream.
> Out
> of phonetical rules valid for some general context, there are
_always_
> the so-called "accidents" which occur only on particular cases
having
> some specifical trait allowing them (ellision of some unstressed
> vowels,
> reduction of difficult consonantic groups, assimilation,
> dissimilation,
> hyperurbanisms, folk etymology, etc.).
> For instance, in this case one could argue for some partial
> assimilation
> of the first front vowel to a back vowel, produced by
unstressed /o/
> from
> the last syllable, for influence of labial consonant (as in
Italian),
> for
> expressive reasons, or for a combination of all these. It is not to
be
> found in "the rules" [the knowledge of which does not ensure any
guy
> to
> formulate ultimative sentences of the type "it is not possible",
just
> as
> reading a book of medicine does not make one a medical expert able
to
> cope
> with particular cases of patients].
> Out of that, you (and by the same token, Alex) are too focused on
> modern
> Daco-Romanian form, completely ruling out crucial information
> contained
> in Aromanian <dipã>/<dipu>. Correctly used, this information
_proves_
> the
> Common Romanian should have been with a front vowel in the first
> syllable
> and the question can't be _if_ "*d(i/e)pã" > "dupã" but _how_ did
that
> happen from Common Romanian to modern Daco-Romanian. My personal
guess
> is that the vowel shift was essentially expressive and
articulatory,
> and
> included an intermediate stage of medial closed /1/, still present
in
> regional "dâpã" as quoted by George [that is /i/(/e/) > /1/ > /u/].
> Of course, this is not a regular phenomenon since it's intimately
> linked
> with one word's particular characteristics, but it is still
> unsurprising
> since "accidents" of this kind _necessarily_ occur on large word
> samples.
> It's to be noted that being an "accident" doesn't equate
explanation
> lack.
> For this case one has at the disposal also Italian parallel
evolution
> and
> Aromanian dialectal forms, allowing us to write down "dupã" < "de
> post",
> without any "probably" attached; thus one has to look for the most
> likely
> explanation of /i/(/e/) -> /u/, not for other potential alien
sources.
>
> > 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