Re: starling

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci"
<akonushevci@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci"
> > <akonushevci@> wrote:
> > >
> > > *storo- `stalring'. Alb shturë `red-coloured starling; starling
> > > (Sturnus vulgaris L.)' from *str.H1r-eH2: NE starling: OHG star
> (a)
> > > from Germanic *staraz: Lat sturnus `id.': Old Prusian stranite
> `gull,
> > > seagull': Russian strentka `yellowhammer'. Seems that perform
> was
> > > *storH1o-, because *r.H1 > Alb –ur (cf. *gWhr.H1-u > Alb gur
> `stone'
> > > (Watkins). (Pokorny storos 1036.)
> > >
> > > Konushevci
> > >
> >
> > 1. The quality of the laryngeal in *gWhr.H-i is considered
> Unknown at
> > least by Lubotsky :) => see Leiden, Indo-Aryan Etymological
> Dictionary
> > Based on what you wrote h1? What are the arguments?
> >
> > NOTE also: that we have an i-stem here, not an u-stem
> >
> >
> > 2. NExt we have : PIE *r.h1 > PAlb/Dacian? ar
> > as in Romanian barza & Alb. bardh& (see Piotr's message on this
> forum
> > related to the quality of the laryngeal in Albanian bardh&, with

a

> very
> > good argumentation)
> >
> > So once again : if rh1 > ar WE CANNOT have rh1 > ur (SAME

CONTEXT -

>
> > SAME RULE)
> >
> >
> > Marius
> ************
> About the nature of laryngeal in *bherHg'- 'shine': NWels
> berth: 'shiny', NE bright, Liath brekšta 'dawns', Pol

brzask 'dawn',

> Alb bardhë 'white' and underleis the Proto-Indo-European word
> for 'birch' (Alb bredh 'fir-tree') because of its shiny white or
> silver bark (Mallory-Adams *bherHxg'- 329), the authors think that
> it is of unknown origin Hx, but based in Albanian 'bredh' I guess
> that the preform was *bhreH3g'-, IE *bhro:g'-, as far as concerned
> the Albanian form. But, no one is forced to accept such
> reconstruction. Based on NE birch, Lat fraxinus, Skt bu:rja- is

hard

> to get any further conclusion.

>I guess that the preform was *bhreH3g'-, IE *bhro:g'-

'Your guess' is wrong:

1. Romanian form is BRAD 'fir tree' so your proposal *bhreH3g'-, IE
*bhro:g'- is completly wrong because there is no A in *bhro:g'..what
is strange here is that you can see this as I see too...but 'next'
you simply decide to ignore this...proposing *bhro:g' ...by
supposing 'suddenly' that Romanian brad has nothing to do with
Albanian bredh 'id.' ...

This is (for me at least), an unbelievable mental mechanism
trigerred more by emotions ('I don't like to link bredh to Romanian-
(->Romanians)') than by a rational thinking.

Your conclusion makes me perplex too: "But, no one is forced to
accept such reconstruction [*bhro:g']" => I translated this (for
me): 'I'm tired regarding your objections so finally I think what I
want'

2. ALB. BREDH 'id.' is only the umlaut of BRADH (due to the plural
in -i, see ORom bradzi > Rom brazi) so we have here a common
PAlb/Dacian? ACCENTED short A (preserved in Romanian).

3. ALB. BREDH < BRADH (Rom. BRAD) has no link with ALB. BARDHE/(Rom.
BARZA)
Why? Because in both words the accent is on 'A => so is a non-
sense to consider BR'A and B'AR from the same root and in the same
time accented on 'A
It should be either BR'A or B'AR but cannot be Both in the same time

Seems that you continue to have problems to apply the rules coherently

Marius