On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 10:05:27 +0000, alexandru_mg3
<
alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
>> You really are ignorant about the Romance languages, aren't
>> you?
>
> Miguel before to insult me
That was not an insult. If you really think that forms
based on *accu- only appear in Catalan and Romanian, then
it's a simple fact that you are ignorant about the Romance
languages.
[snip]
> 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?
I doubt you would recognize a serious linguist if he bit you
in the leg. Not that serious linguists do that...
I have before me Rohlfs "Grammatica storica dell lingua
italiana e dei suoi dialetti", where it says (under "t
finale"):
La <t> in posizione finale latina sembra che in Italia sia
caduta sin dal periodo del latino volgare. Alcuni esempi si
trovano già nelle iscrizioni di Pompei: <dedica>, <vidi>,
<quisquis ama valia>, <peria qui nesci amare> (cfr. Richter
$47); manoscritti biblici del IV-VI secolo recano <diceban>,
<audierun autem>, <nemo potes dicere>, <cum esse in
Galilea>, <salutan vos> (cfr. Rönsch, "Colletanea
philologica", Brema 1891, 243) [footnote]: Da qui alcuni
altri esempi per la caduta di <t> finale nelle antiche
iscrizioni dell'Italia meridionale: <dan>, <curarun>,
<fecerun> e <feceru> (CIL, X).]
So here we have both <fecerun> and <feceru> attested in CIL
(that is "Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum", in case you don't
know). I rest my case.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...