On Sat, 27 Feb 1999, Leofranc Holford-Strevens wrote: > True; perhaps for that reason it didn't really count; morphological > derivation might have excused quicquid and quicquam, whereas adding -que > to sic or nunc or tunc was a wanton act without justification. Or one > could imagine that the cqu from dqu (or rather tque) sounded like a > single long consonant, whereas when the c was original it would have > remained separate. May one compare the French poets' rule on hiatus, > which forbids 'tu as' _habes_ but permits 'tuas' _interfecisti_?
That sounds reasonable to me. Thanks. Randi Eldevik Oklahoma State University ----------------------------------------------------------------------- To leave the Mantovano mailing list at any time, do NOT hit reply. Instead, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message "unsubscribe mantovano" in the body (omitting the quotation marks). You can also unsubscribe at http://virgil.org/mantovano/mantovano.htm#unsub
