Re: Albanian "f" [...]

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" wrote:

> Take a look at the family of words you have here in Alb.:

[...]

> It seems the form with "fër" is a methatesised one, don't you
> think?

No.

> Latin "prope" meant "near" but it does not fit with Latin
> evolution from PIE if the root is something with *prokWe

According to your wild guess, Latin word should not exist.
Unfortunately for your reasoning, it does and it is preserved
in Romance, despite what says the self-claimed expert Vinereanu
about it. Compare "aproape" with Catalan "a prop" `near`.
A PIE root "*prokWe" does not exist. Vinereanu's claim that
"prope" should originate from an Oscan/Umbrian "*proque" is
unsupported. It's useless to make assumptions over assumptions
without any factual argument.

> The Latin form "appropiare" appear just beginning with Itala,
> thus after Latins entered the Balkan.

Initial Latin form: "ap-propinquare" (conserved in Occitan Prov.
"aprobencar") meaning `to get near (space or time)`, appears in
classical authors; "approp(r)iare" is attested in Late Latin as
substitutive, obviously linked to "appropinquare".

> It can be this is a simply coincidence, but since we have for
> sure pt > ft and the Rom. sense is identical with Alb and the
> Latin word prope meant the same, a closer relationship between
> thes words should not be excluded.

Unfortunately, for Albanian /p/ > /f/ only before /t/. I'm
affraid that for Latin "prope" and Albanian "fër" the only
thing in common is the "r" in both words...

> To mention again, Rom. has not the derivatives which existed in
> Latin, but its own derivatives from "aproape". If the root is
> indeed *prokWe I cannot explain it trough Rom. either.

There is no such a root.

Marius Iacomi