---------------------------------------------------------------------
> sg.'mãr' 'apple'/pl. 'mere' < Lat. variant 'me:lum'
> (see 'me:lum' at Rosetti,Densusianu) and not 'ma:lum' because
> accented Lat. a:/a always gives 'a' in Romanian but never 'ã')
>
> Note: I will come back with this second example in another message
> because based on Lat. ma:lum you establish once (Lat. a: > PAlb o
> see Alb. mollë and implicitly the timeframe of Alb a: > o ) that is
> not true in my opinion because based on Rom. 'mãr' the form 'me:lum'
> and not 'ma:lum' circulated in Balkan Romance.
No big deal. I suggested that <mollë> could be an _old_ borrowing from
Latin (not a mainstream late Balkan Latin one), but *mah2lo- is PIE
anyway, so it may be inherited in Albanian, or it may be a borrowing
from Doric Greek.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The subject that I want to open here is the following:
<< PAlb a:>o ended before Romans arrival in Balkans but 'is
reflected' in Romanian Language>>
Facts:
1. In Inherited Alb. words PIE *a: and PIE *e: became PAlb a: and
next became Alb o.
Examples :
PIE *meh1t > (e:>a:>o) > Alb. mot "year"
PIE *mah2ter > (a:>o) > motër "mother"
2. In oldest Greek loans in Albanian, Doric Greek *a: is reflected
as o:
Examples :
Grk. ma:kHana: > Alb. mokër 'millstone
3. In the Latin loans in Albanians Lat a: is Always reflected as a.
Examples :
Lat. sca:la(e) 'stairs' > Alb. shkallë
Lat. spa:ta 'sword' > Alb. shpa:të
A single word Alb. "mollë" 'apple' was proposed by Piotr (and not
only by him) as a loaned from the Latin 'ma:lum' 'apple'.
However analysing the Romanian 'mãr' pl. 'mere' 'apple' and the
Aromanian,Istr,Megl. form: 'mer' 'apple', the Romanian Linguists
(starting with Rosetti and Densusianu) indicated as Latin source for
the Romanian word 'mãr', not the Latin 'ma:lum' but a Latin variant
that circulated in Balkan Romance 'me:lum' (I think under influence
of the Greek word for 'apple').
The argument of this observation is that the Latin 'a/a:' in a
stressed context never passed to 'ã' in Romanian and of course we
have to add also that in all other Romanian dialects : Aromanian,
Istro-Romanian and Megleno-Romanian the word for apple is : 'mer'
What can result from here?
If in Balkan Romance the word for 'apple' was 'me:lum" and
not 'ma:lum' as Piotr observed in a previous message the result is
the following:
"No big deal. I suggested that <mollë> could be an _old_
borrowing from Latin (not a mainstream late Balkan Latin one), but
*mah2lo- is PIE anyway, so it may be inherited in Albanian, or it may
be a borrowing from Doric Greek." (Piotr)
Now after analysing the word 'mollë' in Albanian we can say that
Lat. 'a:' gives always 'a' in Albanian.
In Conclusion:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Transformation PAlb a: > PAlb o -> ended before the Romans
arrived in Balkans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
But from this "no big deal" arrives "a very big conclusion" :
4. We have in the Romanian Language, words that shows a
Romanian 'a' for an Albanian 'o' with a clear origin in Proto-
Albanian (Dacian?) *a: :
Examples:
Rom. raTã 'duck' - Alb 'rosë' 'id.' - PAlb *ra:t(s)ja
Rom. mazãre 'pea' - Alb 'modhull' 'id.' - Palb *ma:dzula
These facts shows that the tranformation a: > o wasn't yet started
in Proto-Albanian when the Proto-Romanians Already Possessed these
words in their language...
So words like: Rom. 'raTa' ('duck') ,Rom. 'mazare' ('pea')
existed in Proto-Romanian Before the Romans arrival in Balkans so of
course before the First Latin Word have entered in Proto-Romanian.
The facts presented above represents the Proof that there is
clearly a Proto-Albanian(=Dacian?) component in the Romanian Language
OLDER than the First Latin Word that entered in Romanian.
Based on the conclusion above the Daco-Romanian theory (->theory
that presents the Romanian people 'resulting from' Romanized Dacians)
received a solid argument in its favor.
The facts above generate a big problem for those that qualifies
the Romanian Language as a Latin Dialect with some Loans from
Albanian and that deny any Proto-Albanian(=Dacian?) component in
Romanian Language or from those that accept some Dacian influences
but deny the fact that the Dacian component is OLDER than the Latin
component in the Romanian Language.
In other words for all those that qualified the Daco-Romanian
origin of Romanian people 'as a myth' the observation above is 'a Big
Big Shot'.
They have to review their model or (I hope not) to ignore the
facts above.
Only the Best,
marius alexandru