[tied] Prope (Re: Albanian "f" [...])

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

>> Different story of Albanian and Latin words. Quoting Abdullah's
>> words: "About <afër> 'near' I accept Çabej's etymology a- privative
>> suffix from PIE *n.- and <far> 'far' < 'not far, near' and I doubt
>> that it is connected to Romanian apro-"
>
> this different story does not explain the forms with "afra-" in
> Albanian. I wonder what Abdullah thinks about these forms.

Then ask him.

>>>> Compare "aproape" with Catalan "a prop" `near`.
>>
>> And don't elude facts. Catalan "a prop" means the same and has
>> a similar form with Romanian "aproape".
>
> It seems you forget the point where I was going from. I said, I
> look for words which are corelated in Rom. and Alb. words which
> have been not considered until now. Which are the facts I elude?

Romanian "aproape" as well as Catalan "a prop" and other Romance
derivatives are inherited from Latin. Albanian word is not a Latin
loanword, does not come from the same PIE root [per-2 - Pokorny],
and doesn't look like Romanian "aproape".

>>> Beside the example given by Abdullah I will give one more: afion
>>> I suppose this is too a properly evolution in Albanian.
>>
>> What is "afion" supposed to be linked to? What example gave
>> Abdullah supporting /p/ > /f/ in Albanian when not before /t/?
>
> afion= Opium

It looks more like a loanword from Greek "opion".

>> I didn't really get your point. Rephrase it.
>
> Explicatia pentru lipsa derivatelor latinesti in lb. Româna [...]

I didn't meant to rephrase it in Romanian. This is not r-lang
so one should avoid using a non-international language.

> este data prin faptul ca ele s-au pierdut in timp si ca noile
> derivate pe teren intern românesc se explica prin noi constructii.
> Asta este o pozitie.
> Pozitia a doua este a lui Gica Contra care spune ca aceste derivate
> presupuse a fi existat , nu ca au fost pierdute, dar ele nu au
> existat niciodata in limba. Care este argumentul pentru a arata
> ca totusi aceste derivate au exista in limba si ca s-au pierdut/
> modificat in decursul timpului?

I still don't understand what language are you talking about:
Classical Latin?! Vernacular Latin?! Balkan Latin?! (Proto) Balkan
Romance?! Proto-Romanian?!
If you refer to some Balkan Latin (which eventually gave birth
to PBR > PR), being nothing else than Latin, most derivatives
should have existed, but some less obvious ones were probably
lost and some others were conserved as such (no longer analytical,
as for "pãmânt" or "mormânt" in which -mentu(m) > -mânt is no
longer felt by natives as suffix). The obvious ones conserved
their suffixes (which naturally evolved over the time as normal;
for instance -ariu(s) > -ar(iu), -atu(s) > at(u), -itia > eaTã).
You won't get anywhere with a statical vision on the language.

Marius Iacomi