Re: [tied] derivations of rom. and -

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:58:50 +0000, m_iacomi <m_iacomi@...> wrote:

>>> Genoa dapue, O.Neapol. dapò, Gall-Sic. d&puói).
>
> Is "Sic." standing for Sicilian?

Yes, Gallo-Sicilian, a northern Italian (Lombard) enclave in Sicily.

>>> Are there any Romanian variants of <dupã>?
>
> In DR, there are only hypercorrect forms and false analogies (mostly
>spread in Southern part), as pointed out by George. They do not
>deserve
>too many comments. There are dialectal forms - Aromanian: <dipã>,
><dipu>,
>Megleno-Romanian: <dupu>. Generally I think it's too much to look for
>strange explanations since the Italian forms are perfectly consistent
>with Romanian. There is no problem in deriving any of these words when
>taking into account the stress in the expression, falling on "de" in
>"de post" (> It. "dópo", Rom. "dúpã") and on "post" in "(ad) post" (>
>It. "pói", Rom. "apói"), for which the two phonetical evolutions do
>not
>have to be similar. Thus, the compound "de post" could not be treated
>as monosyllabical in Romanian, so final consonants did not produce the
>would-have-been regular [y] (but analogy with "poi" in Italian lead to
>or preserved it in some forms as given by Rohlfs). For unstressed /o/
>>
>/&/ there are numerous examples in Romanian for words of Latin or
>Slavic
>origin (as hinted by the same Rosetti: contra > cãtrã, foras > fãrã,
>okno > ocnã, nos > nã, etc. - note: cãtrã, nã, got regularized further
>in DR giving "cãtre", "ne")

If we take a form accented on the first syllable from the very beginning
(*dépost), we might expect to see the normal development of unstressed /o/,
namely /u/. A form *dépu would be nice to explain the /u/ in the first
syllable of <dupã>, but does it work to explain the -ã?


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...