From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 35140
Date: 2004-11-19
On 04-11-18 15:11, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
I skip the folkloristic comments as irrelevant. The same thing may be
known under different names, and slightly different things may bear the
same name. A round dance is a round dance, whatever the specific
diffences. English <carol> (originally also referring to a kind of round
dance) is also etytmologically connected with <kHoros>.
> Is not Romanian h for w.
>
> The h is only prothetic here and not from w: *huo-ra < *uo-ra.
>
> I hope that you will not tell me that uo>huo like in uooooo!!!!
> huooooo!!! is not possible and is a major issue. So a prothetic h
> before a 'uo' is very probable to appear.
Getting more and more ad hoc. Very probable? How many similar examples
of "prothetic <h>" does Romanian show?
>
> Next the explanation of h- here is sustained by the fact that the
> reconstructed Romanian form shows that the sounds 'uo' appeared twice
> in the word at one moment of time: *uoruo > *huoruo and that this
> *uoruo was difficult to be pronounced in Romanian without an initial
> h-.
Whose "reconstruction" is this? *-rw- would have given Romanian <-rb->,
as in corb < corvu- /korwu-/. Please stop multiplying absurdities.
> and even you don't like the idea of a Subtratum in Romanian:
> because the rule above (PAlb wa > Rom. o) will put in cause your
> proposed timeframes for Albanian language.
This is directly contradicted by <vatrã>, where Alb. va-/vo- is retained.
> I will come back with other examples that reflects the rule:
> PAlb wa > Alb va <-> Rom o
>
> On the other hand talking about "contorsions" here, your logic
> regarding the "loan path" among Greek, Albanian, Bulgarian and
> Romanian regarding the same (very specific) dance is a
> very "contorted one".
Ever heard about Wanderwörter?
Piotr