--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:
>>> The form, is "dupre"
>>
>> ... and it's a hyperurbanism or a false analogy (by folk etymology)
>> with words or expressions of Latin origin containing "pre"
>> (< "per") [...]
>
> The use of the word "dupã" interchaged with " de pe" is indeed
> usual since the phonetism is near and the meaning too near.
The phonetics are close but the meanings aren't, it's just how
folk etymology works.
> I don't know if this was a superurbasnism or a false analogy.
You might not know, so trust others' knowledge.
>>> and all the speculation with any compositum of "pos(t)" appears
>>> to be just nonsense.
>>
>> ... to someone who hasn't interpreted correctly the information
>> given by those texts (try to "explain" Aromanian forms with your
>> wise last-minute wanting-to-contradict hypothesis, BTW).
>
> That is bad. I mean, you are too obstinate for something else.
"Obstinate"? No. It's not me. Summing up:
1. first objection was: if "ad post" > "apoi" (with final [y]),
why "de post" > "dupã" without final [y]?!
I showed up it does not hold because stress pattern is different.
Then, you discovered (both you and M.A.) that there is another
vowel in the word, so you raised...
2. the second objection: how could /e/ evolve into an /u/?! and
you decreed it was not possible.
I showed up that's circumstantial argument because of the proof
furnished by Aromanian form, so the first vowel change cannot be
considered as ruling out "de post" > "dupã", but that it _had to_
be so (agreeing that Aromanian word shared the same history with
DR "dupã" up to dialectal split).
You were still not happy to run out of arguments, so you invented
another hilarious one...
3. the third "objection": the final group "-st" should not reduce
to "-i", so why it was not conserved in "de post"?!
I showed up this was not the case for the considered word.
Finally, with a last-minute discovery, you proposed...
4. the fourth objection: since in some ancient DR texts there is
"dupre" instead of "dupã", the word cannot derive from "de post"
but it has to be a back formation from (Old DR) "de pre" (it is
to note, incidentally, that the same /e/ -> /u/ arising in this
"solution" was no longer disturbing for your mind since it does
fit your main goal, that is to prove falsity of official accepted
derivation from "de post" by any conceivable means).
I showed up that a graphic form does not mean it was pronounced
like that (there are plenty of examples in ancient DR texts, and
one has to be very careful in interpreting them), or that most
Romanians were actually pronouncing /dupre/ at that moment. Since
the phonetism and the meaning do not fit, and since Aromanian
form cannot be derived from "de pre" (< "de per"), this proposal
is to be sternly rejected, on the basis of the well-known "grano
salis" for ancient spellings interpretation.
You refused to answer my own objections to your last proposal
and you dare to call me obstinate while _everything_ points out
your own stubborness to destroy commonly accepted etymologies
because they don't serve your ultimate goal (to prove that most
Romanian & foreign linguists were consistently wrong on some
words supposed of Latin or Slavic origin and thus claiming all
etymologies should be granted to substrate language -- if not
"real" mother language of Romanian -- Dacian...). THAT is bad.
It's bad method, bad spirit, low rate of information.
> When you have the written testimony you give your own
> interpretations
They are not my own. I was already thinking to this issue when
stating <In DR, there are only hypercorrect forms and false
analogies (mostly spread in Southern part), as pointed out by
George> (
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/28728),
long time before you've got your "revelation".
> ignoring a lot of stuff just for showing what a hell head you are.
You should still watch your language.
> for me this subject is done
Thanks God!
> and my own conviction is that there is no "de post" > dupã
I can live perfectly at ease, regardless of your own problems.
Marius Iacomi