[tied] Re: lat. nux, -cis - PIE?

I. "Except that you artificially stretch the word "

Please give me some example here regarding this: "artificially
stretch"
I applied only 3 rules on Albanian derivation :
c>th ;
lost of initial a ;
nj > j

and I obtained *alanjts-(ja) that is quite the Romanian
word 'aluniTa'.
There is no 'Grimm's Law and metathesis' in the derivation above but
only ordinary rules.
Where you have seen in above derivation the "artificial stretching"?


II. " *wan^ > uni in Romanian? How come? "
This is really a delicate point related to Romanian derivation.
It is related to the alternance a-a a-u (but also a-i u-i) in some
Romanian words that have counterparts in Albanian (as I know the
alternace a-a a-u is present also in Lithuanian, but I haven't
enough knoledge on this)
I will come back in the evening with an e-mail related to the
alternance a-a a-u in Romanian old words.

III. " There are serious formal difficulties with your derivation. It
looks like an attempt to construct a common term for 'cat' and 'dog'
through Grimm's Law and metathesis (dog > tak > kat) "

Please enumerate some of them (with exception of *wan^ > uni in
Romanian that I agree that need a special discussion).
As I know, mainly I applied only the derivations that I described
above.

Thanks a lot for your feedback,
Marius




--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> On 04-11-10 01:59, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> >
> >
> > "If <lakthi> is an authentic form,
> > then you seem to be right about the origin of the <-j->, but we

should

> > start with something like *lakVc- or *lagVc- in Proto-Albanian"
> >
> > But in this case you are very close from my proposed form:
> > PAlb. *alwaknic-ja or *alaknic-ja that fit very well too.
> > There is no issue to derive 'lajthi' from here.
>
> Except that you artificially stretch the word ONLY in order to
> accommodate all the segments needed to relate it to the Romanian

word.

> That's Procrustean linguistics.
>
> > Also there is no issue to compare Alb. 'lajthi' with existing
> > Rom. 'aluniTa':
> > 1. the lost of an initial a in Alb
> > (as in: Rom. amorTi / Alb. mërdhi)
> > 2. th < c (Rom. Tarc / Alb. thark)
> > 3. and j < nj
> >
> > all of them are 'normal' derivations rules in Albanian.
> >
> > Applying them we easy obtain PAlb *alanjc-(ja)/*alwanjc-(ja)

that

> > is quite the same with the current Romanian

word: 'aluniTa' 'small

> > hazel nut'.
>
> *wan^ > uni in Romanian? How come?
>
> > So there is no issue to compare the Romanian and the Albanian
> > form...in contrary.
> >
> > Could we ignore this obvious match between Romanian and

Albanian

> > forms 'lajthi'/'aluniTa' especially when we have about three

hundred

> > old common words between Albanian and Romanian ?
> >
> > Why Latv. lagzda or Slavic *le^ska are considered closer (even
> > today there are no common derivation available) to

Albanian 'lajthi'

> > but not the existing Romanian word : 'aluniTa', when there are no
> > difficulties to derive them from a common PAlb form and the

meaning

> > is the same ?
>
> There are serious formal difficulties with your derivation. It

looks

> like an attempt to construct a common term for 'cat' and 'dog'

through

> Grimm's Law and metathesis (dog > tak > kat). Creative but hardly
> compelling. Of course if you stuff a reconstruction full of extra
> segments that can be manipulated to achieve the desired effect and

then

> deleted, relating almost _any_ two words is easy.
>
> Piotr