Re: [tied] derivations of rom. and -

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" wrote:

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

Others prefer to call them "exceptions", a name I'm not so happy with
but it's a matter of choice. Well, you have still a lot of lectures in
front of you, waiting.

> 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"

Surely you didn't read what I wrote, or you dit it without
understanding
the point made about "accidents": they "occur only on particular cases
having some specifical trait allowing them". Have you got it now or
you
need further explanations?!

> 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...).

If you do not understand what I've said, feel free to ask specifical
questions.

> I never saw Piotr and other peoples in this forum to apply
> the "Accidents' theory" when they derived a word from a PIE root.

There is no "accidents' theory".
Of course it is better not to have to cope with (seeming) exceptions
and they cannot be accepted if specifical conditions do not allow them
or there is a far more likely theory not making use of them.
On the other hand, on this list we've had tons of discussions
involving
Piotr, Miguel and others mentioning all these specifical phenomena
which
lead to "accidental exceptions", as you can convince yourself by a
simple search in the archives.

> 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' ).

That's fine.

> Now following your explanation : the same people that use 'de' in
> Romanian (starting 2000 years ago)

Romanian does not start 2000 years ago. One can speak about Common
Romanian from the 7th-8th century on (with approximation), before
which
one has to use the label "Proto Balkan Romance".

> as in 'fructe de p~adure' used BY ACCIDENT 'am mers dup~a mure'
> (etc...see you pseudo-argumentation below...)

If Alex uses witlessly "pseudo-argumentation" it is not a good reason
for you to take that label for granted, for he is not the ultimately
reliable source in linguistical critics. Nor you did understand the
value of a crucial argument. It is true this is not taught in most of
the Romanian technical institutes, but it is compulsory for any person
having something to do with science. Linguistics is a science, so you
should get informed on this before any other unhappy comment.

> At the end, applying your theory, we will arrive to have more
> Accidents than Rules.

There is no "my theory" and you completely misunderstood the issue:
even if it was crystal clear from my point of view that "mainstream"
refers to a large majority of words, you somehow distorted that to
obtain an opposite allegation I didn't made nor imply. Impressive.

> Seems that the "Accident' is not in 'dupa' but in another place....

It is surely in "dupã" and very likely also somewhere else, but that
would hardly make a worthy subject for cybalist, so stick to proper
issues for this list.

Cheers,
Marius Iacomi