>Miguel wrote:
>"*accu is simply a syncopated form of <atque eccum>, widely
>attested.
I will analyse first if a Latin expression like "atque eccum"
(supposed to be contracted to *accu) could become or not a BASIC
compound of the BASIC Dem. Pronouns like: 'this' and 'that' in Latin
Idioms
1. Latin eccum is one particular derived form among others (so why
only *accu and not *ecca too?)
===============================================================
Details:
eccum is already and old composed word that represent ONLY a
particular derived form among other ones....
ecca = ecce ea
eccum = ecce eum
eccam = ecce eam
eccos = ecce eos
ISSUE-1 : So there is no reason that a particular form eccum to
become the single Invariant Form in *atque eccum, next used as
invariable proclitic particle in order to construct dem. pronouns.
to be more clear, we cannot exclude other forms to enterr in this
kind of compound like : *atque ecca, *atque eccam etc...
So Miguel, why not the other forms too?
*atque ecca = *acca ? Why ONLY *accu?
2. Impossible Semantism of "*atque eccum istu" =? "THIS"
========================================================
Let's see what is the semantism of *atque eccum =(supposed to be
contracted to *accu, but this would be another topic):
1. Latin: ecce -> adv. "Voila" "Here it is" Rom. 'iacã'
Examples:
ecce me! - (Plutarh) 'Me Voila' 'Here I am' Rom. 'iatã-mã' ('iacã-
mã')
ecce multo maior etiam disensio (Cicero) '
'And here it is, a missunderstanding much much bigger'
2. Latin. atque (ac) =>
1. conj. 'RATHER, also, in addition, and also'
hebeti ingenio ATQUE nullo 'with a lower intelligence
RATHER without (one)
2. ac => 'and, and with' 'noctes ac dies' (Cicero) =>
nights and days
3. atque => 'like, same with'
ISSUE-2 : THE BASIC DEM. PRONOUNS 'this, that' couldn't be
constructed on such ALAMBICATED semantism.
Based on Miguel ideea (....taken from some Latinist books) the
semantism of 'THIS' would mean :
Rom. acesta = 'this' = *atque eccum istu =*accu ista =
<<'RATHER' 'HERE IT IS' 'THAT ONE'>> ====??? <<THIS>> or
Conclusion => Sorry to say Miguel but such a semantism for 'THIS' is
a completly alambicated one....
Or maybe to show clearly what this semantism means I will
reformulate:
"RATHER, LOOK AT THIS", MIGUEL: "THIS" semantism is a 'ingenio'
invention 'ATQUE' 'nullo'.
Best Regards
Marius
P.S. I really don't know if is still necessary to analyse further
Miguel proposal and to continue with Miguel derived forms in
different Latin idioms (some of them 'forced' derivations) ...if we
need to start based on a such initial semantism that is an "ad-hoc"
one.
To take a similar example: such an alambicated semantism for a PIE
dem. pronoun like 'this' / 'that' will be never accepted ...
But in the 'Latinist' world (where we have more than 80,000 Latin
attested words) 'we' derived the basic dem. pronouns forms of the
Latin Derived Languages based on unattested form *accu and based on
an 'incredible' alambicated semantism: 'rather here it is that one'