Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
>>
>> ( I also hoped that 'hou' < 'uo' being obvious (we have here
>> this 'uo' twice) not to be raised by you as an impossibility. But I'm
>> wrong ...)
>
> It's nice to see you admit it ;-)
>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This is directly contradicted by <vatr�>, where Alb. va-/vo- is
>> retained.
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> There is no contraction regarding 'vatra'. The contradiction is in
>> your model that supposed that 'wa' -> 'o' and 'wa' -> 'va' happened
>> on 'the same moment of time'.
>>
>> Of course that in this case a contradiction will be obtain.
apparently the whole issue could be mo reclear if one will have lexical data
lexical data. If you allows I will put here the examples which exist between
several languages (Greek , Latin, Romanian, Slavic) and Albanian there where
we in Albanian have "vV-" in intial position. That s what the lexical data
will say if there are accepted following comparative words (I excluded the
derivatives here taking just an word from the root). Of course the main
purpouse here is to show what we get from this comparations with several
languages for underlining the comparation between Alb. and Rom. Thus we
have:
Albanian - Other Languages
a1) va- <-> o- "vaft" - Latin "optimum", "vaj" - Latin "oleum", valle -
Rom. "oare",
"varfer" -Greek "orphanos","varosh" - Rom. "orash"
a2) va- <-> ve- "vargua"-Rom. "verig�"
a3) va- <-> va- "val�" -Lat. "valum,Rom. "val"; "vaj" - Rom. "vai"
a4) va- <-> v�- "vap�" - Rom. "v�paie"
b1) ve- <-> o- "ve" - Lat. "ovum",Rom. "ou";"vep�r" - Lat. "opera"
b2) ve- <-> ve- "verdh" - Rom. "verde", "ver�"-Latin "vera";
b3) ve- <-> va- "ved�r" - Rom. "vadr�"
b4) ve- <-> vi- "ve" -Latin "viduvus" (but. Rom. "v�duv")
"vere" -Lat. "vinum", Rom. "vin"
b5) ve- <-> au-(?)"vesh" - Latin "auri(cula)", Rom. "auz"
c1) v�- <-> v�- "v�lla" - Rom. "v�r"; "v�rshim" - Rom. "v�rsa";
"v�rtet"- Rom. (ade)v�r; "v�rri" - Rom. "v�ra"
"v�shton"-Rom. "v�z"
c2) v�- <-> v�- "v�rse" - Rom. "v�rst�" (but Slavic "vrustu")
"v�rvit" - Rom. "(z)v�rli)
c3) v�- <-> be-(?)"v�shtjell" - Rom. "beshteli"; "v�z�llim" - "b�z�i"
d1) vi- <-> vi- "vi�e"-Rom. "vitsel", Lat. "vitulus"
"vid�r"-Rom. "vidr�". Slavic "vidra"
"vij�" -Latin via(?); "virgj�r"-Lat. "virginus"
d2) vi- <-> fi- "vishkull" - Rom. "fishc�"
e1) vje-<-> ve- "vjen" -Rom. "veni", Lat. "venire"
"vjersh�"-Lat. "versum"
e2) vje-<-> v�- "vjerr" - Rom."v�r�"(?)
e3) vje-<-> b�- "vjet�r" - Rom. "b�tr�n"
f1) vo- <-> vo- "voli" - Rom. "voi";
f2) vo- <-> bau- "vov�" - Rom. "baubau"
g1) vu- <-> vo- "vullnet" - Rom. "voi"; "vullnetar" -Lat. "voluntarus"
g2) vu- <-> v�- "vurkollak" - Rom. "v�rcolac"
h) vy- <-> ve- "vyshk�t" - Rom. "veshted"
So, how one sees, there are differences and they are for real. Now, after
one see which is the possible etymology of the words one should try to
explain these phonetical changes which made these differences and when
exactly on the timeline.
For Piotr:
- regarding the alternance "hV-" versus "V-" you are on a weak ground since
there are a lot of such alternances:
harmasar-armasar, ots-hots, hor�i-or�i, hodorogi-odorogi, huruial�-uruial�,
hutsa-utsa, etc, etc.
Be informed DEX doesn't mention a lot of the regional way to speak them out
but even in DEX alone are a lot of them. If there is a protetic "h" or just
traces of an older "h" that should be seen when one see the etymologies of
this word.
BTW, Czech "hora"(village); Rom. "hor�" (village, obsolete now), is this too
a Slavic word? Or do we have to do with the notion for "dance in circle" and
"circle" for village?
Alex