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

From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 43845
Date: 2006-03-15

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci"
> Even it be wiser to not reply at all in such kinds of posts,

I don't want to offense you in any way Abdullah, but usually I
applied 'more strictly that you' the Albanian and Romanian phonetic
rules.

So "such kinds of postings" at least respect the following rules:

1. they never tried to invent new rules for Albanian and Romanian
(like gWH > h )

2. they try 'to take care' about the resulting semantism (=> see in
an opposed direction your proposal 'near snow' = 'snow' => isn't more
logical an etymology 'snow' = 'a kind of water' ? For sure it is.

(see also pric^ina semantism proposed by other peoples here =>
where 'cause' = 'at cause'))

3. try whenever is possible to find 2 forms of the same word in
Albanian and Romanian

I agree of course that sometimes I will not arrive to 'a good
conclusion' but 'at least' the trial is not at all an 'ad-hoc' one.

To come back to your proposed etymology:
Abdullah, why b is not lost in dëborë (being a multi-syllabic word,
we should expect the same behavior as in Alb det < PAlb *deubeta,
isn't it? So your etymology is not 'so valid' as you presented it:
because you cannot be sure that the prefixed form 'is so recent' due
to ë there and knowing that a > ë preceeded b/intervocalic > zero.
Can you see the issue?


Marius


P.S. : I 'cannot understand' Abdullah, why you think sometimes
necessary 'to display' 'such kind of arogance' that usually is also
sustained behind with 'some poor arguments' : some good contra-
arguments will value 1000% more than this...
I need to remember you some of your 'past reactions': when you have
said that 'you have never seen such a bad derivation' in respect to
one published by Demiraj on Leiden :) or in other case you 'really
cannot detected' if another derivation was really ok => please
remember your reaction "Piotr and the others, please save me" and
finally "you really needed Piotr intervention to tell you that
derivation is a valid one".
So 'from where' Abdullah this type of reactions to you?
I feel bad myself trying to show all these things...