Re: [tied] Re: Albanian pre and Romanian prada

Abdullah Konushevci wrote:

> As far as I know, nasalized forms are characteristic only for zero-grade
> forms, so I can't see how to derive Alb. <re>, without any trace of
> nasal, from *rung-. Indeed, suffixed form *reug-n-yo should have yielded
> Alb. <(g.) v-rânj> 'to beconme dark', Alb. Geg <i v-rân-të> and Tosk <i
> vrër-të>, as well as in <vrân-si> 'cloud'. You may ask anyone you like
> that there is no articulatory distinction between Alb. <re> 'you fell'
> and <re> 'cloud'.

The nasalised form is cited by Demiraj and Cimochowski; the latter also
mentions Old Albanian <ren> (which I haven't been able to verify, since
he has no reference to the source of the form). I'll do more checking later.

> Furthermore its certainty is questioned too. Curiously you have no
> objection about Alb. <be> 'oath', derived from *bhoidh-eH2 (cf. Sl.
> beda, Lat. foedus), but such possibility you deny for <re> and <pre>.

It's just a question of the most plausible derivation, given the
available data. I don't object to the standard etymology of <be> because
there is no better explanation known to me.

Piotr