>> I don't see any "u" in Rom. forms. Nu e greu s� se intseleag�.
>
> I meant "�qu�?".
>
> Latin /kwe/ becomes /ke/ (Sp. que, Ita. che), and is then
> palatalized, like original /ke/, only in Romanian (ce).
> So accu-istum > akwesto/akwestu > akesto/akestu (and further
>> ac^est(u) in Rom.)
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
that is not the point Miguel. The point is one take a certain form in
Romance for explaining a vowel ( in this case the initial "a" ) , then
this forms which fits with other Romance , then this form should suffer
other changes which is not to find any more in other Romance for
explaing the Romanian form. From this point, even Italain doesnt matched
anymore with Romanian since Italian stil has "quello" and "questo" but
Rom. hasn't.
You give the derivation Latin "kwe". We don't talk here about latin
"kwe" but we talk about *accu, don't we?
That means this *accu does not fits for Rom. "ac^e" but you need an
"*acce". Let us assume it existed. Can we prove it within Romance?
Dalmatian doesnt help either here since it has "kale" for "quale", thus
how we can proove *acce ?
Alex
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.2.0 - Release Date: 27.05.2005