Re: [tied] Fun?! (correction [Re: Weeping])

m_iacomi wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:
>
>> a propos "ied" versus "brad". Here is the most funny analysis. For
>> "brad" it is supposed that the singular is made analogical from the
>> plural "brazi" because of the Albanian word which request an "z".
>
> The substratum word "brad" (`fir-tree`) is indeed supposed to have
> analogically rebuilt the singular in /d/ from the plural form. The
> reason for reconstruction is still not "Albanian word" but the very
> weak oposition between a sg. /braz/ and a pl. /braz'/ (unvoiced
> final "i" hardly audible) correlated with canonical alternance of
> consonants /d/ - /z/ before palatal glide. Analogy is probably
> Common Romanian since Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian exhibit the
> very same singular form.
> Albanian word suggests only what could have developped if there
> were no analogical "milieu" - a /z/, from an initial substratal
> consonant yet to be determined.
>
>> For "ied" there is not supposed anymore that there is a sg.
>> remade too analogical
>
> There is no reason to do that. The word "ied" < Lat. "haedus" is
> the perfect model for analogical reconstruction since it exhibits
> naturally the canonical alternance.
>
>> because of Alb. word, but this should derive direct from "haedus".
>
> I fail to see what's so funny about that. It's exactly what
> analogy is about: two originally different paradigms are reduced
> to the one of them which looks more "regular" in the language.
> In Romanian the alternance /d/ - /z(i)/ is well in place, there
> is nothing to wonder about.
>
> Marius Iacomi

Exactly what you mentioned before. There is the form "iez'" versus
"ied".
Let us be serious. Since in Latin exist "haedus" there was no need to
think at eventually a substratual word.
If there should have bean any "*bradus" in Latin there should have been
too, no need to think at a substratual word.
The very fact is this:
substratual words are considered for sure these ancient words which does
not resamble Latin Greek or Slavic and which have their counter parts in
Albanian.
One has to ask himself, if Dacian/Thracian/Ilirian have been IE
languages, how should have developed these languages the IE roots, in a
such manner that these words should be different from Slavic, Latin,
Greek but they should have been in the same time, special forms for not
being confounded with the words of these 3 languages. We don't know.
There is just the request, these languages should have had something
else, something very special in their development for distinguish their
own words from Slavic, Greek , Latin words.

It remains just an obscurity: the Albano-Romanian connection, the common
words of these two languages are hardly to connect with the IE roots.
And that is strange conclusion. What should one expect from a such
conclusion?
-the common words are not of IE origin ?
-the properly developments of the IE roots of Dacian/Thracian/Illyrian
are "lost" in the known forms of Latin, Slavic, Greek?

By myself I cannot find a satisfying answer here.

Alex