Re: Re[4]: [tied] Romanian Verb Endings and Substratum influence (r

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 19:04:43 +0200, alex
<alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> the initial "e", does not become "a" in Rom. There is
>>> erba, esca > iarba, iasca and not *arba, *asca, thus a
>>> derivation with the help of "ecce" is simply wrong.
>>
>> The derivation under discussion is from *accu, not from
>> <ecce>. And tonic initial /E/ doesn't became /a/ in Spanish
>> or Portuguese, either; the development to *accu is
>> exceptional.
>>
>>> Since you mention the forms in "aqueste" and "aquel",
>>> which is the explanation of this "u" here? Is the "u" from
>>> "*eccu" or which one?
>>
>> From *accu, obviously.
>>
>> Brian
>
>
>nice. Rom. has "acela" for "he one who is far" and "acesta" for "he one
>who is near" as another set of demonstrative.
>I guess none doubts "acela, acesta" are not cognate with "aquel" and
>"aqueste".

You mean: no-one doubts they are not cognate.

>I see no "u" there.

Ce?

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