Re: [tied] husk

m_iacomi wrote:

>> Yes. And if you will have something against the reconstructed forms
>> I would laugh.
>
> I have nothing against proper reconstruction, when justified. Your
> reconstructed forms are neither proper, nor justified. BTW, you
> should think about etyma of "oaspe".

Do you point here out to missing "h" in "oaspete" or you are meaning
here the diphtongation of "o". For the diphtongation of "o" I guess
there is nothing to add; for missing "h" there is a lot to say.

>
>>> Meanwhile, Romanian knows no inherited /h/, all words containing
>>> this phoneme are either late coming loanwords (after dialectal
>>> separation), or regional phonetic variants for words without any
>>> etymological /h/ (as in "hulpe/vulpe" or "hier/fier"). Balkan
>>> Romance did not have the phoneme /h/. Period.
>>
>> kha-kha-kha .
>> I did not laughed.
>
> You're not supposed to.
>
>> It was just an example which you can verify. I am not speaking
>> about your Balcan Romance, but later about that.
>
> _I_ am speaking about Balkan Romance not having the phoneme /h/
> and thus invalidating sharply the allegement that its' descendent
> (Romanian) could have inherited words with /h/.

I understand your point of view. The Latin spoken everytime in that part
of the world should be now Romanian, thus since there is no "h" in the
Rom. words which derive from Latin, then there cannot be any inherited
"h"; Every word which contains for instance an initialy "h" are later
loans. This is your way to see the things.
The problems you will have here are the Albano-Romanian cognates which
begin with initial "h". I don't bring here as example the word
"harmãsar" (stallion) neither I will give _now_ several examples. I will
limit myself just to only one:
hãmesit (hungry); Albanian "hamës".
For Albanian the explanation is simple since the verb "to eat" is "ha".
For Rom. "hãmesi" DEX shows Albanian "hamesi" here.

>
>> Even if onomatopeical words are a special thing it happens I find
>> very interesting the idea of Vinereanu about Romanian "to have".
>> And not for "to have" itself but for "to get" which is "a gãbui".
>> The adress of its dictionary is know to you. Comments?
>
> In Vinereanu's sketch of dictionary there are good parts and there
> are also some new parts. The good parts aren't new and the new ones
> aren't good. But his "work" is merely a diversion for this thread.

Well, this is an opinion about his whole presentation. I did not allowed
myself to say something about whole thing; I just pointed out to a
special word to a special PIE root. Not more.

>> It happen to agree with them. Our goal is to find it out.
>
> Sorry, that's not *your* goal, that's only your pass-time hobby.

yes.. the water is wet:-)

>
>>> No substrate.
>>
>> haide bre!
>
> Still no substrate.
>
> Marius Iacomi

Turkish has no aspiration here.

Alex