[tied] Re: ph3 > b -> Albanian dë-borë Romanian zãpada and Dacia

From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 43830
Date: 2006-03-15

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>
> alexandru_mg3 schrieb:
>
> >
> > Romanian Derivation:
> > ---------------------
> > PIE *h2ep-h3n.h2-dHo-ro >Dacian *dz- + ap(b)a-da:-ra >
*dzapa:dra
> > that will regularly give PRomanian zãpadrã > zãpadã (PRom -
drV/trV >
> > Rom -dV/-tV see Balkan Latin fratre > Rom frate
>
> No offence but I will mention three aspects which should speak
> against this idea:

Why ofense? If is a stupidity thanks to highlight sooner for me
(will be better for me)



> The first one is that you cannot compare "fratre"
with "*dzapadra";
> the "r" in the last syllable of "fratre" got lost because of the
> presence of the first "r" in the firts syllable, thus it was
> assimilated in the first "r" in the pronounciation. There are many
> words which ends in "-trV" or "-drV" in Rum.( it is in fact a
> distinct feature of this language) but I cannot recall one word
> where there is an end like "-trV/-drV" and before of this end
there
> is a syllable containing an "r".

You are right 'in general' (thanks) : there are cases where -tra is
there: Romanian vatra

However maybe not only r caused that reduction:

As I know:
Rom. altu 'other' > ORom altru > Latin alt(e)rum
Rom altminteri > Latin alteramente (even the transformation is a
little bit different, you can see the issue with *-tra- in Romanian)

Seems that in the examples above the reduction is trigerred by "l"
too.


> The second aspect is where you want to have the "*dz-" there?Did I
> missed something?

*dz- is a preffix see :
------------------------
*dz-welp-ina > dhelpër
*dz-o:mida: > dhemjë
o:mida: > vemje <-> Rom. omida
*dz-Latin jacere > Rom. dzãcea (even I doubt this etymology)
*dz-apa:dara: > dëborë
*apa:dara: > borë

I'm not sure about a PIE source of it or if is only a phonetism.
Usually a dz/z before some vowels is also available in Latin (I hope
to remember well here)


> The last aspect should be the fact there are a lot of
> transformations needed here in both languages for bringing these
> together. Usually, the other Alb/Rum pairs we know are not such
> complicated to see.

Let's count again how many:

The rules from PAlb *dzapba:dara: to Albanian dëborë and Romanian
zãpadã are:
for Albanian:
1. d/intervocalic > zero (regular)
2. a: > o (regular)
3 initial dz- > dh- > d- (regular)

So a Dacian *dzapba:dara: give in 'a normal way' Albanian dëborë
(see again above). Next 'surprize': the resulting Dacian
*dzapba:dara: is 'almost the same from a phonetical point of view'
with Romanian 'zãpada' (please take a look again) both having an
identical meaning 'snow'.


Please look above: I "didn't force" in any way the Albanian
derivation and I have obtain PAlb *dzapba:dara: 'snow' when we have
Romanian zãpada ...Is this a coincidence? Common!

for Romanian:
1. lost of final -ra (for one reason or other reason, also is
not impossible to imagine 2 forms: dzapa:da: and dzapa:da-ra: see
barukta <-> baruka etc...) (need to be explained further)

2. The Single issue is the p~b alternance BUT in a word that
contains <<apa>> *h2ep- and where we have Already the p~b alternance
in the PIE word *h2ep-h3on > PIE *h2ebon 'river' with the known rule
ph3>b

(so the remaining issue is to explain: why the Romanian arrive
finally to a p?)

Are the above rules "too many"? I don't think so.

But even if we still needed to have some explanations for
Romanian derivation :a PAlb. *dzapba:dara: 'snow' (NOTE: PAlb. form
was obtained ONLY from Albanian dëborë) and Romanian zãpada "speak"
from themself: they are one and the same word (despite the '(still)
missing' explanations)

Also the meaning is above any doubt: *-ro : "a kind /like" -*dHo
(h) "set/standing>solid" *h2ep-h3n.h2 "water" < *h2ep-h3n.h2-dHo(h)-
ro


Finally: 'Is better' Slavic za-pada 'falling down' for 'snow'?
(un-attested in any of today Slavic languages as 'snow'). So a very
strange loan isn't it? With Alb dëborë translated as a kind
of 'falling down'...too => considered by Cioranescu and not only by
him 'a translation' of Slavic-Romanian zãpada in Albanian ?!

Marius



P.S.

I. By the way:

*bhrh1g^-ro > Dacian *bardzra 'stork' was with a very good reason
rejected by Piotr based on PIE *g^r > PAlb. *gr

However a form PIE *bhrh1g^-o-ro > PAlb. *bardzara > PRom. *bardzra
> ORom bardza => couldn't be rejected.

In this case:
PIE *bhrh1g^-o 'white' > PAlb. bardza: 'white' (reshaped in -a:)
PIE *bhrh1g^-o-ro 'similar-to white' > '<the> white (bird)' > PAlb.
bardza-ra 'white' > Romanian bardza

PIE *kWers-ro > PAlb *c^wa:-ra etc...


II. Of course this pb need to be clarified if is was really pb etc...
[like: maybe it was: ph3 > pH > b in Albanian and 'evolved'
different in Romanian-Substratum for some contexts]

But anyway finally we 'are obliged' to explain also why the
intervocalic b in Romanian abur is still there...And there is a
single answer: because it wasn't a simple b at that time...