Re: Latin *accu ? - > or how to obtain the misising A

Alexandru Marius:

> => SO HERE IS THE RESULT :
> Rom. ACESTA eng. 'THIS' = ATQUE ECCE+EUM ISTA = *ACCU ISTA
> eng. 'rather here it is that one'
>
> => LAST STEP:
> FROM NOW ON, THIS ALAMBICATION WILL BECOME A 'LATINIST DOGMA':
> "Who will not trust in this derivation is an ignorant!!!"

(I promise to stop here this evening after this last remark :)

a) At least Densusianu (a top Romanian Linguist) "has tried to take
the missing A only supposing an A of the previous word in phrase + a
later generalization" in order not to complicate much more (and
again) the supposed Latin compound *ecce istu

...a + *ecce-istu = Rom. a+ecce+estu > acestu

So to name here 'his' method': It suppopsed that this A was added
for 'syntactic reasons'.

('Synctactic Reasons' was also Miguel's false explanation for the
lost of -t and -nt in Lithuanian , to answer here to Brain's
question too)


b) But Miguel (via other Latinists that previously did this) didn't
stop where Densusianu did:

1. he added in front a whole word atque (of course that needs to
start with A, because the ISSUE is A here) only to can obtain the
missing A.

2. next combining it with ecce/eccum = *atque eccum to obtain the
missing A in a supposed *accu (of course via a supposed syncopation
to can eliminate the accumulated residuum) (=> remember also
another method: the 'ad-hoc' spreading of some endings from one
conjugation to another one ONLY in order to obtain the 'good' i)

3. and based on this big alambication he finally 'obtained'
the needed A:
*atque eccum istu = *accu istu = *aquestu > acestu

Honestly, I prefer Densusianu ....

Based on his supposition I took 'HIS' A ...and first I try to see if
this A appear as a distinct particle in another language as seems to
be in Romanian :

1. and I found it as a distinct particle in Albanian too: a-të, a-
si, a-so, a-saj, a-jo

2. just as it is in Romanian: a-ia, a-cea, a-ceasta, a-ceaSi

3. next I could find also this A- in the Skt. a-sau 'that'


4....and I bet (without to check something in advance ... but I will
check one day: (starting with the Basque, Miguel) that this
proclitic *A- was present also in some 'Western Areals' too => and
this will explain next his presence in some Western Latin alterated
forms too...(of course other of them could also been later
evolutions)


On the other hand, with a supposed atque eccum < *ACCU etc... I
could never find this proclitic A- used to form the Dem. Pronouns
in some areals...

I would have remained only with this alambicated meaning in my
head 'rather here it is that one'...as 'the definition' for a
simple 'this'

Best Regards,
Marius







Marius Alexandru

Best Regards,
Marius Alexandru













--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3"
<alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

> > Alexandru Marius wrote:
> >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'

>
>
> I want to resume here the 'Latinist' method used to obtain Rom.
> acesta etc...I will try to resume the method in order to can

detect

> this 'method' in advance for now on....
>
> 'LATINIST' METHOD:
> ===================
> 1. Let's put togheter the forms of some idioms 'acesta, aquel':

so

> we need an A, a C and maybe an U to can next combined with

iSTA/ISTA

> or with ILLA/ILLU
> 2. ok, so is ACCU ...
> 3. unfortunately is not among the 80,000 attested Latin words =>

ok

> so is *ACCU in this case.
> 4. Let's now find a good source for accu : lets find 2 words that
> if we combined them we obtain *accu ...oh, is difficult...
> 5. lets try to find a closer phonetism and next to apply a
> syncopation etc...ok...let's take (the always present) ecce and we
> need another one...oh, is difficult but let's take atque ...
> 6. Let's apply now a syncopation based on this 2 words ...ok, it
> will be hardly to say that this syncopation is not possible : it
> could happened (even it wasn't the case...)
> 7. Ok. so *accu = atque ecce
> 8. But the semantism? Doesn't matter here...we already added

ISTA...

>
> => SO HERE IS THE RESULT :
> Rom. ACESTA eng. 'THIS' = ATQUE ECCE+EUM ISTA = *ACCU ISTA
> eng. 'rather here it is that one'
>
> => LAST STEP:
> FROM NOW ON, THIS ALAMBICATION WILL BECOME A 'LATINIST DOGMA':
> "Who will not trust in this derivation is an ignorant!!!"
>
> Best Regards,
> Marius Alexandru