--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:
> 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).
>
> No Sir. When I mean "there is no way" I mean here _regular way of
> changes_ without folks etymology, assimilations, dissimilations,
> etc, etc etc.
That would be a clear case of misuse of English language since "no
way" means simply `it is not possible` and not `it is not possible
via regular means of derivation`. But I think you just took for
granted your favorite negation for anything beyond your immediate
power of understanding (of course, being a Latin compound makes it
even more suspicious in you eyes) and you really meant "it is not
possible", as written in the previous message.
> The forms in Aromanian you are talking about "dipã/dipu" are too
> of no help
Maybe in your very same eyes.
> since there is not known any /e/ > /i/ without the influence of
> some nasals,
In Daco-Romanian, that's right. But not in Aromanian dialect, where
/e/ > /i/ is a perfectly common feature you being now made aware of.
> thus "de post" presentst 3 big difficulties for becaming "dopo" &
> "dupã" & "dipã/dipu".
No, it does not. There is no problem in recovering Old Italian forms
and a Common Romanian "*dépã" (while one cannot exclude completely
the possibility that even at CR stage, the stressed vowel was already
somehow altered). The question is _how_ did it evolve into modern
Italian and DR forms. Since there is no blind phonetical rule to give
the transformational pattern, one must look for specifical features
of the word allowing it. You've seen Devoto's explanations for It.
"dopo" and mines for DR; if you're not happy with that, feel free to
propose a better explanation for the passage from CR to DR.
> Actualy it seems the only argumentum brought here is this "post"
> for tracing it back to Latin but this appear to be false too.
Maybe you did not read the explanations and you did not notice the
bunch of perfectly similar Romance derivatives of Latin "de post".
It is never too late for the wise action of getting informed.
> I agree the IE *po appears more better here as the accepted
> reduction of "st" > "i" ( which is not credible for RomLang).
Try the correct spelling: "which I still do not perceive as credible
for Romanian language, despite long explanations already given on
this list about normal evolution of final /s/ in Latin monosyllabs".
There is no "reduction" of "st" into "i", but final "s" > "i" in
stressed monosyllabs. Obviously, this is _not_ the case we are
dealing with when speaking about "de post" and it is senseless to
remind a rule which does not apply. Nobody agrees with your PIE "*po",
that is only your rejectable proposal.
> It appears questionable if here indeed the Latin "de" any game
plays.
You certainly have a _big_ difficulty to understand what a crucial
argument is and the peremptory proof of AR form and Italian word.
That is your problem to cope with _before_ any tentative of answering
to my message.
Marius Iacomi