Re: [tied] derivations of rom. and -

m_iacomi wrote:

>> I don't know if this was a superurbasnism or a false analogy.
>
> You might not know, so trust others' knowledge.

Yours, for instance:-))

>
>>>> 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).

yeap. de < di, thus there is no trouble in explainig aromain "dipã" but
there is a trouble to explain Aromanian "dipu"; Interesting enough the
form "dupã" is used in Aromanian too. If this is a loan from
DacoRomanian today, it can be eventually worth to be prooved:
"Dupã tsi Polonia fu ampãrtsãtã anamisa di Rusii, Prusii sh-Austrii,
multsã Armãni (nai ma multsã ditu Moscopole) agiunsirã tu Ungarii, iu
dãnãsirã tu cãsãbadzli di nai ma mari simasii: Budapesta, Tokaj, Vác,
Oradea, Arad, Timisoara, etc."

>>
>> 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...

dú.pã ; a.pói but poi, pãi with no stress. I don't know what you
understood you showed but the change od the stress is not explanable
trough the prefix "de" & "ad" for having two forms of stress. Both words
should have been by-syllabical (*adpos, *depos) and they are today
by-syllabical. Your "show" regarding the stress simply doesnt work.

> 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...

If you tell me that "cal" derive from "culus" or "coleus" I cannot bring
any arguments agains a such inpety, thus " I am running out of
arguments". On your side, trough dissimilations, assimilations, folks
etymology, and a lot of other nice-klinging words you can argue anything
even if an utopia as this.

> 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.

I don't told you about "gust", "must" but I should have remembered you
about "fost". Do not consider you brought here any argument. The change
"st" > "i" is not probable in Rom, basta, thus we have been at the point
that there is no "post" but the vulgar Latin "pos"; on this hand I don't
see what are you stil bringing this "post" in discussion.
So the point here was that Latin pos has once "poi" and once "pã" which
can be explained just trough prefixation. The prefixattion with "ad" and
with "de" does not help at all, here was the thing where I said that the
stress is not explanable in this manner.

> 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"

Stop. I did not said the word is from "de pre".It seems you are the one
who advance a such hypothesis. I just said the ancient form is "dupre"
thus there is nonsense to put Latin "post" here.

> (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).

Well, this is why I did not supposed any "de pre" as you mention here.

> 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.

You remember me of Bartoli who after interviewing Udina complained about
the fact " he spoken a bad vegliote, he mixed a lot, he was a bad
subject for linguistical purpouses". You showed up that you are able to
make equilbristic with the data you get, nothing more. And you know why
I say that? Because you accept that (PIE *pre) > Latin "per" >
ProtoRom. "pre" > Rom. "pe", thus the change pre > pe is an accepted
one, but you don't accept anymore that dupre > dupã considering it
mistake, hyperurbanism, false analogy, etc. Rosetti should have been
proud of you, believe me:-)

> 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.

That is wrong. The phonetism is near and the meaning is near. By
yourself showed the interchange of "dupã" with "de pe". Of course you
showed this should be "bad Romanian" but this interchange is a prooven
thing.
When you say that "de pe " cannot explain Arom. you mean just as follow:
- it explains Arom. "dipã"
- it does not explain Arom. "dipu" because of the last "u"

Mention:the same last "u" in Arom. "dipu" cannot give DacoRom. "ã" in
"dupã"

> 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.

1)You expect from me to explain "du-" here? I did alread, didn't I?
2)I don't pay too much money on the established thing when they appear
to be false, thus indeed I am stubborn and I try to see that is wrong
there.
3) the real mother language of Rom. is PIE, the intermediary stages and
loans doesn't play too much role here

>
>> 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".

I hope when you use DR you don'T mean the literary DR.

>
>> ignoring a lot of stuff just for showing what a hell head you are.
>
> You should still watch your language.

Usualy I do. A "hell head" is not an injury, at least for me.

>
>> for me this subject is done
>
> Thanks God!

I hope there is no need anymore to re-open this subject. You can write
me privately if you feel the need to do it.

> Marius Iacomi

Alex