Re: [tied] derivations of rom. and -

m_iacomi wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:
>
>> m_iacomi wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Aromanian "i" does not explain Italian "o" and DacoRomanian "u" and
>> MeglRom. "u".
>
> OK, so you did not understood. Read again.
>
>> Your CR *depã is reconstructed just for explaing the Arom. form but
> not
>> for DacoRom. MeglRom, Italian.
>
> Wrong. CR "*depã(o)" is the normal exitus of Latin "de pos(t)" with
> the
> stress on /e/ and it is also a regular source for modern AR forms.
> Consequently, this CR form is _required_. Its purpose is not to
> explain

the _required_ form in CR is not required since Aromanian "dipã" can be
simple the compositum of "de pe".
I stop here since it seems we forgot (me and you too) the older w r i t
t e n form of the word which is in the texts of the XVI century. The
form, is "dupre" and all the speculation with any compositum of "pos(t)"
appears to be just nonsense.

Alex