Re: [tied] derivations of rom. and -

Hello Miguel,
"Accident" means "not according to the rules".

If we have an "accident" we can have 2 possibilities:
1) we have an exception to the rules but our assumption is still
true
2) we have an exception to the rules, our assumption is false,
so the sample in cause have to be positioned in another place (under
other rules ) in our theory.

(In both cases 1. and 2. I supposed that the Rules are stable,
that is not always the case, but is true in our example).

So you (and M. Iacomi), need to clearly fix the general Rules that
allow you to include one sample in the first or in the second
situation.

Until now I only see, a hard effort here trying to justify the
cnclusion... :
"dupa is derived from 'de post' according to the rules...not
the 'ain rules' but other 'small ones'" etc...

A. Here are the Facts :
1. Am-fost -du-pA-mu-re
2. Fruc-te -de-pA-du-re

B. Applying the Rules (only regarding the 'e'):
1. Am-fost -de-pA-mu-re
2. Fruc-te -de-pA-du-re

C. Applying the Accidents in both cases (only regarding the 'e'):
1. Am-fost -du-pA-mu-re
2. Fruc-te -du-pA-du-re

So. 1. the Rules did not fit.
2. the Accidents did not fit.
Conclusion : dup~a cannot be derived from 'de post'

Best Regards,
marius a.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 07:17:47 +0000, alexandru_mg3
<alexandru_mg3@...>
> wrote:
>
> >Hello M. Iacomi,
> > I don't hear, until now, somebody else that use "the
Accidents'
> >Theory" to explain some linguistic evolutions.
> >
> > This is not a scientific way to explain something: because
> >everything that doesn't fit in the Rules will be easy considered
> >as "an accident" (as you already did in this case), that is
explained
> >in one way (dialects,subdialects?sic.) or in another one (is
not 'u',
> >but 'i','e','^i', 'backvowel', 'frontwovel', 'some partial
> >assimilation' (for sure this is the 'best accident' that you
found)
> >etc...).
> >
> > I never saw Piotr and other peoples in this forum to apply
> >the "Accidents' theory" when they derived a word from a PIE root.
>
> Of course you must have seen it.
>
> A search on "irregular" and Piotr Ga,siorowski revealed
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/26526
>
> And Piotr is applying the <<Accidents theory>> here not to just any
Slavic
> word, but to the one his own surname is based on!
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...