>You must be kidding. Alb. dh corresponds to Romanian substratal
>/(d)z/ quite regularly (remember <mazãre>?).
Besides, /dz/ is an intermediary between /d/ and /z/, even
in today's Romanian - chiefly in the subdialects spoken in
Northern Transylvania & Maramuresh and Northern Moldova
(incl. areas of Ukraine around Cernauti): [dzik-, dzIk-] <>
[zik-] "say;" [dum-ne-dz&u, dum-ne-dzeu] <> [-z&u, -zeu] "God;"
[vedzj] <> [vezj] "you see" (but in both the infinitive:
short <vedea> long <vedére>).
I'm not aware of Romanian words having etymologic occurrences
[g and the like] transformed into [z] within the frame of
natural Latin + substrate transformations into the Romanian
idiom (old or new).
>Isn't <stârc> a loan from Germanic (*sturka- > Ger. Storch,
>Eng. stork etc.)? I'd be surprised if it weren't.
B.T.W., <sturz> "thrush; Drossel" (Turdus; Turdus pilaris;
Turdus viscivorus viscivorus; Turdus ericetorum philomelos;
Turdus musicus musicus).
cintezã [tSin-te-z&] (dial. variant cintiTã [-ti-tz&]),
masc. cintez or cintezoi or cintitzoi "(chaf)finch;
Buchfink" (Fringilla coelebs).
(For pupãzã ['pup&z&] "hoopoe," Romanian dictionaries say
the etymology were Lat. upupa + the suffix -zã [z&],
that corresponds to the Albanian one: -zë.)
>Ther's nothing to be afraid of. Nevertheless, you've got it all
>wrong. PIE *g^H > Lat. /h/ or /g/ depending on the context, but the
>former more often than the latter. Lat. /g/ has Romanian reflexes
>as above, but Lat. /h/ is simply dropped, as elsewhere in Romance.
>For example, *g^Hjes- > heri: > ieri 'yesterday'. This is the
>straight-line path of development from PIE to Romanian. But in
>substratal lexemes we may get *g^(H) > Romanian (d)z.
But in the case of <ghearã> (up to 1954, officially also spelled
as <ghiarã>) conventional Romanian dictionaries keep quiet on
etymology. Moreover, only in official-standard Romanian and only
in subdialects of Southern provinces the pronunciation is [gea-]
or [gja-] - in subdialectal areas in the North-Northwest it is
rather [g^ar&] (hopefully I use the appropriate transcription),
namely a lingual-palatal (almost tending to alveolar) sound
that's practically identic with its counterpart in Hungarian
(written <gy>), Slovak, Polish (written <d> if I ain't wrong),
and which local Romanians would render as a "d" (<dearã,
djarã>) in written, weren't there the norms imposed by
those subdialects that perceive this sound as [gea, gja],
i.e. as a "dry" velar sound only.)
OTOH, this looks like one of many other cases where Lat.
[g()l] > Rum. [gh + dipht. ia or ea]; but it only looks like
this.
>I'm glad you're willing to learn.
Maybe he'd wish to read whether <barza> has links to...
<barzo dobrze>. :-)
>Piotr
George