From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 38312
Date: 2005-06-03
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:No we don't.
>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 00:06:43 +0200, alex
>> <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>>
>> >>> I don't see any "u" in Rom. forms. Nu e greu sã se
>intseleagã.
>> >>
>> >> I meant "¿qué?".
>> >>
>> >> 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@...
>> >
>> I have no idea what that sentence means. Initial a- is a-.
>
>It is the procedure one use for establishing the etymology:"it is in
>another romance something similar, then is this for sure from Latin".
>
>We take an *accu for explaining the "a" in acest, but we need an
>*acce for explaining the "c^".
>The *accu does not fit since the "u"Yes, that's exactly what happens.
>does not go syncoped as you put it on the paper (akwest > ak(w)est >
>ac^est).