Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 2:43 PM
> Subject: [tied] IE g^ , gwe -> dacian g', z
>
>
>> 1. PIE gwher -> Germisara (Dac. ge) -> Zermisara (Dac. z)
>
>> (please note that ge->z is a later transformation in Dacian, because
>> Germisara is also attested)
>
> Such variable spellings look to me like attempts to render foreign
> /3^/ (/dZ/) for which there was no letter in the scribes' native
> orthography.
>
> Piotr
Dito here about ortography.
The change is attested even in Latin "ge" > "dze" as in Aromanian for
"dzenunclu" = genunchi (knee)so far I remember. Th bad thing here for
any satem conclusion, the "g" is in palatal medium.
The Germisara is usualy seen as germi + sara and the first part of the
compound is considered a cognate of Greek "thermos" and "sara"=
water."sara" remains for me dubious even if some Rom. linguists try to
see Rom. "zer"(whey) as a derivative from the same root as "sara".
Alternativ I try to see the things this way:
We have in Alb. and Rom. substrate the word "jar"=embers which can be a
derivative of this *ger- which is in germisara.
What appears interesting to me is the transcription is the form
Germizera or Zermizera.
In this construction it appears the word can be a compound of Germi+izer
= hot lake
Rom. "iezer" = deep lake in the mountains.
Bad thing here: Rom. "iezer" is considered to be a loan from Slavic
"jezerU" andnot a substratual word.
Alex