1. << How Piotr mentions here; "before PreRoman time" IE "s"
As I know, Piotr, has the following facts to indicate a start
moment here :
b) The start of s->sh. Piotr himself indicate that this is
started after 600 AC (in my opinion no later than 650 AD -700AD ). We
can only say that s->z finished before this.
a) The Semi-romanization of Albanians. In my opinion,this took
place, after the Romanization of Romanians (so the main interval is
300AD - 600 AD).
Based on Latin Loans we can only say the s->z finished before
300AD. So it can well be attested as 's', before this, around 50-70
AD. As result an attested 's' in sec I AC could be very well possible.
Also it is possible that :
*supno -> *zum(n) -> gjumë 'sleep' is not inherited but
loaned from Latin as the Romanian 'somn' is.
If true , this could show us a LATER timeframe for s->z than
Piotr's supposed 'pre-Roman times'.
Some Albanian Latin examples here with a stressed 's' syllable
that becomes 'sh' in place of 'gj' should be very helpful to can
3. " where? "
the attested form at Herodot for "Zalmoxis" is with "s"
4. " Actually Alb. "vesh" is Rom. "auz" with "au" > "ve" "
I don't see what is the link here ...I wanted to show that a
final s is still there in Albanian and became sh. This is the case
5. " Assuming a living Dacian population in the XII century "
I don't assume a Dacian population in the XII century, when
the Romanian people already finished his formation for a long time
and no Dacians are attested in Transylvania.
I assume the following scenario for the situation in
Transylvania after 271AC - 1000AC:
- an Albanoid (Dacian) semi-Romanize population live in
Transylvania long after 271AD there. This population couldn't be
Romanize in 165 years.
- this population was Romanized later by a second wave of Romance
imigrants (that arrive after the Slavs arrived in the Balkans - in my
opinion around 700AC - see below).
- this mixted population was also under a strong Slavic influence.
DURING his formation.
6. << Fact is, that the Romanian name is "somesh"; how would you
explain the "e" and the "s" in Rom. ? >>
6.1 Romanian "s" in "Somesh" indicate that a Romance population
learn this River name when they haven't any 'zV' in their language.
As I told you before this population had ONLY 'dzV' see 'dzi'
or 'sV' see 'somn', but not 'zV'. So a 'z' could ONLY be learned by
this population as an 's' or as a 'dz'. In this case was an 's' as
in 'somn' -> 'somesh'.
6.2 The presence of 'sh' in 'Somesh' indicates that this
population learned the river name after s->sh ended so after 650-
6.3 But also the presence of "s" in place of "z" shows that
this population learn the river name before 800-900AC when the 'zV'
re-appears in his language (see Slavic loans).
6.4 I see '-esh' also as an Albanoid transformation (like
in 'vesh'). In my opinion the Romance population already learn the
River name with 'esh'.
Abdullah, could you help me here with the origin of 'esh'
termination in Albanian.
Maybe when the Hungarians arrived, the form was
already 'Zomesh' and not 'Zomush' but the name has been "Latinized'
with the Latin ending '-us' in the transcription of Hungarian Latin
6.5 The Hungarian attested 'Zomus' shows also that when the
Hungarians learned the river name (around 900AC) :
a. the Albanoid pronunciation was more relevant than the Romance
b. or that the Hungarians loans an 'sV' like an 'zV'.
I'm not sure which which of the points a) or b) are more
In any case this is the more likely scenario that I could found
to explain 'Samus->Zomus' and also the Romanian "Somesh'
I appreciate any help to can clarify this issue.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> > Hello Alex,
> > The transformations in my opinion are :
> > Samus -> Zomus
> > ---------------
> > 1) s -> z (but z didn't arrive next to gj as in 'South'
> > Albanian)
> > The transformation is located by Piotr in pre-Roman Times:
> > "Before Late Proto-Albanian (i.e. in pre-Roman times) *s underwent
> > voicing prevocalically in stressed syllables but remained
> > elsewhere (unless already lost). "
> > *serpm.no -> *ziärpan -> Geg gjarpën, Tosk gjarpër 'snake'
> > *supno -> *zum(n) -> gjumë 'sleep'
> How Piotr mentions here; "before PreRoman time" IE "s" > "z". The
> of the river should have been in Dacian then "Zamus" and
> the recorded name is however "Samus"
> > In my opinion we are here in a zone where the second
> > z->z^->gj didn't take place.
> > ( See also Dacian : Salmoxis -> Zalmoxis, for s->z)
> > 2. a: -> o normal transformation
> > like in ma:kHana: > mokën/mokër 'millstone'.
> > (see Dacian : Patavissa -> Potaissa )
> > 3. us -> ush ( I marked ush because in the Medieval Latin is
> > normal that 'sh' to be marked only by 's')
> > Here -us is not a Latin termination so is not necessary to
> > lost in all its positions like in Balkan Latin and to be borrowed
> > a lost termination e: etc.. So your examples with Latin -um,-us
> > not appropiate.
> > Please see : *h2o:(u)s -> vesh 'ear'
> Actually Alb. "vesh" is Rom. "auz" with "au" > "ve"
> > (as you can see here a final 's' is conserved in 'sh')
> > So the form *Zomush attested Zomus (in Hungarian Medieval
> > Texts), seems a very likely Albanoid Form (only the transformation
> >> z^->gj didn't take place in this region).
> > Any other opinion is welcome here.
> Assuming a living Dacian population in the XII century , the
> Romanians in their region should have got the word directly from
> thus "*Zomush" with posible variant "*Zãmush" as you postulate. Fact
> is, the romanian name is "somesh"; how would you explain the "e"
> the "s" in Rom. ?
> > Best Regards,
> > marius alexandru
> > P.S. :
> > What about the possibility to be Slavic, Germanic or Latin?
> > (that in my opinion this is not possible)
> that does't look as any Slavic, Germanic or Latin change.