From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 48495
Date: 2007-05-09
> that appears to be a speculation.( there is no fus+t > *fust > fost;Umbr. fust is a 3sg. future form, not a participle. What else can <fost>
> for "fãcu" you have "fuse" and if "fãcu+t" > "fãcut", a "fuse+t" will
> give allways an "fuset", but not "fost"; here is no space to make
> speculations about such reductions). Since the form with "fost" was
> known already in Umbric ( I hope I am not mistaking now) then the
> presence of this form in Romance should be considered as explanable.