From: tgpedersen
Message: 28779
Date: 2003-12-27
> m_iacomi wrote:here,
>
> >> There is no way. Despite the pseudoargumentation of Mr Iacomi
> >> there is no way of obtaining from Latin "e" an "u".etc,
> >
> > 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.us to
> Since one does not have any other written source which will allow
> establish an another etymology for this word, it is the very rightway
> of someone to see it as being the ancient Latin word "de post".no
>
> The forms in Aromanian you are talking about "dipã/dipu" are too of
> help since there is not known any /e/ > /i/ without the influence ofbecaming
> some nasals, thus "de post" presentst 3 big difficulties for
> "dopo" & "dupã" & "dipã/dipu".too.Latin "post"
> Actualy it seems the only argumentum brought here is this "post" for
> tracing it back to Latin but this appear to be false
> from PIE *pos, ultimately from PIE *po.reduction of
> 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
> "st" > "i" ( which is not credible for RomLang.plays.
> It appears questionable if here indeed the Latin "de" any game
> I am thinking now at Slavic "do", Gothic "du" , OldLith. "do",wonder
> prepozitions with the meaning of "after, nach, zu , hin". I just
> people are ready to accept some irregularities just for keeping aelse, but
> certain etymology without to look if there is indeed something
> every one with its meaning here.I also just came across another "unexplained u": PIE *ap- "water,
>