Re: [tied] Terminology (Re: Piotr-)

m_iacomi wrote:

>>
>> I was thinking of that but there are the problems with "breaz"
>> (piebald) and there should be a very unusual metathesis in one of
>> these words: barzã versus breaz.
>
> The word is from Bulgarian "breaz" (which could maybe be linked
> with the same root as Albanian "(i) bardhë". Diphthong /ea/ in
> that position can not arise from a substratal word.

what means the word in Bulgarian?

>> About colours: we use colours to denominate vegetables, but we
>> do not use them for denominating birds, do we?
>
> Generally not, because the number of colours is limited while
> the number of birds' species is larger enough. Though in this
> particular case, people just did name the bird looking at its'
> general colour. Calling biological things with colours' name is
> not unusual in Romanian and calling this particular bird making
> reference to its' colour is common in several languages. So
> there is no reason preventing Romanians to call it in a similar
> manner: it is perfectly possible and it's what happened.
>
> Marius Iacomi

There is no bird known to me which is denominated after its colour. And
white is the goose too. I doubt that "barza" meant white. I don'T have a
better explanation but even Albanian does not help here . If in Alb.
there should have been the word "bardhë"= stork, then one could say,
yes, look , this is this. But there it is not a such bird. I assume that
your "particular case" is very weak argued having just a phonetical
similitude as basis and an wished semantical development.
If the "zã" is a suffix like in "pupa-za", "cinte-za" then we will have
to deal with a root as "bar-za".
Any idea regarding birds like storks and which will relate to "bar-"?

Alex