Re: [tied] Some new etymologies

From: alex
Message: 44906
Date: 2006-06-08

Piotr Gasiorowski schrieb:
> 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.

as you see, the link between Alb. "peshkoj" and Rom. "pescui"
appears to be stronger since they are supposed to derive both from
an older *peskonj

> > 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).
> Piotr

in the said connection Alb and Rum have followed different paths
since for Alb. peshkatar, Rom. knows "pescar", using an other suffix
(-arius) while for instance for a word as hunter, Rum. use the same
"-tore" (vânãtor) but Albanian has in use the suffix "-arius" here
since the word is "giahtar".

it appears very interesting to me due the common history of both