From: alex
Message: 38342
Date: 2005-06-04
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 13:03:19 +0200, alexthere is no etymological "a" either.
> <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>
>> Observation: considering the examples from Romance brought by Miguel
>> where apprently there is an accidental "a", in Rom.
>
> There is no "accidental" a-.
>no: Latin has had not the habit to make such demonstrativa with "a". For
>> this is a general
>> aspect. All the demonstrativa and locative adverbs have "a".
>
> Yes, as inherited from Vulgar Latin:
>The romance comparation does not help here. I am speaking about "a" as
> "this" Occ. aquest, Cat. aquest, OSpa. aqueste, OPor.
> aqueste, Rom. acest
> "that" Occ. aquell, Cat. aquell, Spa. aquel, Por. aquele,
> Rom. acel
>
> Of course Romanian acest and (a)cel are *much* more similarIf you want to spend so many flowers and to put the Alb. "k-" then I
> to Albanian ky and ai, aren't they?
>PanRomance but Romanian generalised the "a" in all demonstrative and
> The loss of the initial vowel in the demonstrative is
> practically pan-Romance (French (icist, cist, cest > ce;
> icil, cil, cel), Occitan (cest; cel), Catalan (�o), Italian
> (questo, cotesto, quello), Rhaetic (kis^t; c^el, kwel, kel),
> Sardo (custu, cussu, cuDDu) and Romanian (acel, cel)).
>It seems you stil did not got my idea. I repeat: "I am speaking about
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...