>as you see, the link between Alb. "peshkoj" and Rom. "pescui"
> Let others judge who of us two is making a fool of himself. As you know
> full well, Latin/Romance verb stems in -a:- routinely become Albanian
> verbs in -o(n)j (as in kujtoj < co:gita:re), and the suffix is so
> productive in denominative verbs (pikturoj 'paint', etc.) that it could
> have been added to any base, native or borrowed, at any time. <peshkoj>
> is the expected outcome of the borrowing of Vulgar Latin *pesco
> (*pescare), corresponding to Class. piscor (cf. Rom. pescui, It.
> pescare, Sp. pescar, Fr. pêcher). Even if the -tar suffix is native, it
> was sufficiently similar to Lat. -to:r- (with the same function) to take
> its place in loans. It's the ABC of loanword adaptation.
>in the said connection Alb and Rum have followed different paths
> > And, what this has to do with Albanian <peshkatore> or <qumeshtore>,
> > or <therrtore>?
> peshkatore < *pescatoriu- < pisca:to:rium. The suffix -tore was
> abstracted from such Latin loans and used also with native bases, just
> as English can use the agent suffix -er (ultimately from Lat. -a:rius)
> with almost any verb, or the adjectival suffix -able (of French origin)
> with many "good Anglo-Saxon" verbs (readable, drinkable, thinkable).