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

"My opinion is Marius is misleaded by the "-itsa" suffix here. One has
to remember the other words related to "aluna" here are all deriving
from "aluna" and not from the diminutival "alunitsa": "

The current title word in Romanian is of course 'aluna' 'hazel nut'
as you said above. And of course "-itsa" is a suffix present in
Romanian word 'alun-iTa' meaning 'small hazel nut'

But is '-thi' in 'laj-thi' something else but a suffix? Of course
not. So 'lajthi' is originary a derived word too as 'aluniTa' is.

Could 'th' in lajthi being a diminutival sufix too? It could be
also (even is not 100% sure) to result a semantic meaning 'kind of
brown small nut'. It could.

Is this a the single case in Albanian when a derived word became
a 'title-word'? Of course not.

So both words in Romanian and Albanian 'aluniTa'/'lajthi' are
originally derived words. There is no doubt on this.

Best Regards,
marius

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
> wrote:
>
> > *wan^ > uni in Romanian? How come?
>
> apparently there is no "-wan^" > "un". The only phonologic changes
> known would be "on" > "un" _and_ "on" > "oan" if "n" was followed
in
> the next syllable by an "ã" or "e".
>
>
> > Piotr
>
>
> My opinion is Marius is misleaded by the "-itsa" suffix here. One
has
> to remember the other words related to "aluna" here are all
deriving
> from "aluna" and not from the diminutival "alunitsa": these are
> alunish, alun; it is hard to assume the initial word was one which
> was later felt as diminutive and because of this, it was
regresively
> built due reduction of the suffix , thus alunitsa > aluna and from
> this new created word, one has an another regresive derivate "alun".
>
> The sufix "-ish" in "alunish" which means "a group of hazelnut
trees"
> will speak for an very old derivation, older as that with the
Latin "-
> et". Considering the missing of the nasal in Albanian, the vocalic
> difference ("a" versus "u")one remains just with an common "l" in
> both languages. And that is too few to consider the words as being
> cognates.
>
> Alex