Re: derivations of rom. and -

On Sat, Dec 27, 2003, at 12:59 PM, m_iacomi wrote:

> And I stated also that <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>. For
> the mentioned rule (applying in "ad pos(t)" > "apoi"),
> both Miguel and I already gave several examples.
>
> Marius Iacomi

Would this chronology do?
depos > depo > *depã > dipã > dîpã > dupã

George