> You really are ignorant about the Romance languages, aren't
> you?
Miguel before to insult me, that is always easy to do, you need to
answer to the issues that I raised you regarding this invented form
*accu...
You have proposed us in the past other "fix" 'pure Latinist' ideas
regarding Romanians that you propagates starting from about 10-15
years now like:
1. "budza a recent loan in Romanian" (when no Slavic Loan in
Romanian shows a dz but a z)
2. "no Daco-Moesian Subtratum in Romanian"
3. that Romanian vãr is from "verus" of "consonbrinus verus" so
from "really consobrinus". in this vcase the Dacians would kept only
the word "really" : when we have also Alb. vëlla 'brother' and
Aromanian cusurin ...
4. Now you come with some Catalan -Romanian connections and
invented Latin variants *accu based on Catalan -Romanian
correspondance
No Romanian Linguist proposed a Latin variant *accu Miguel, do you
know this?
5. Not to talk about your invented spreading "in order to have
different endings" used by you to justify some "wrong" endings only
with arguments like: "sometimes happens , sometimes not" , "this time
I think that it happens" without any argument behind...
6. You put together the lost of -nt III.pl in Romanian with the
lost of -t III.pl in Italian (where the n is still there) by
inventing a common "-n phase shared by Romanian and Italian".
No serious linguist did this Miguel, do you know this?
Also please learn to be more polite...and put down arguments not
insults here...
Regards,
Marius