m_iacomi wrote:
>> 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
Aromanian "i" does not explain Italian "o" and DacoRomanian "u" and
MeglRom. "u".
Your CR *depã is reconstructed just for explaing the Arom. form but not
for DacoRom. MeglRom, Italian.
Leting by side your stile of using a lot of words making compliments as
usual (I have cut all the stuff off here since it is indeed of no use),
I will like to ask you something else:-
- are there some other words beside "-post" which end in "-st" for
showing if there is a more traceable change of Latin "st" which in final
position > "i" ?. If yes, then some exemple will help a lot for
underline this rule.
Alex