>Sorry about that, I was just grabbing the words nearest to hand to
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, "Abdullah Konushevci"
> > <akonushevci@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Romanian cãciulã /c&c^ul&/ 'hat' / Alb kësulë 'id.
> > > > > should belong here too...
> > > > > and if so, this is more likely an IE-word rather than a
> > > > > substrate one.
> > > >
> > > > Erh, why? If you think so, what is its IE etymology?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Couldn't it be *kadh- 'to cover; guard': Latin cassis, -idis
> > > 'helmet', MIr cais 'love', mis-cuis 'hate': OHG huot, English
> > > Alb kësulë (Rom cãciulã),
> > > beside Alb kacole 'kind of hat weaved together with the coat' <
> > > *kadh-s-,
> > Why not instead *katt-jo:- > Alb. kacole, Rom. cãciulã (> PGerm.
> > hatt-jo: > ON heita (same meaning), and *kass- > Alb. kësulë (not
> > I'm familiar with the relevant rules for Albanian and Alb. loans in
> > Romanian)?
> > Torsten
> Torsten, Rom. cãciulã is not 'an Albanian loan in Romanian' :
> This is a false theory that asserts that Romanians has nothing to do
> with the Dacians: in order to demonstrate this, this theory needs to
> assert next : that there is no Substratum in Romanian : all the
> Romanian-Substratum words being in fact 'later loans from Albanian'
> Rosetti was among the first that demonstrates with solid argumentsSo you are claiming that cãciulã/kësule is from PIE *kWekWVl- or what
> that this theory is false : showing that the timeframes of the
> phonetic transformations (as we can deduce them from the Romanian<->
> Albanian common words) don't correspondant to the assertion of this
> theory, that says : 'these are later loans ino Romanian from
> Now to tell you my opinion:
> Romanian-Substratum and Proto-Albanian are genetically linked and
> come back to a same Language (around 500BC) that most proably was
> the Dacian language because:
> e: > a: (Dacian -da:wa:)
> e/accented > ye/ya (Dacian Diegis)
> gW/+,gw/+ > g^ (Dacian Germisara)
> r. > ri (Dacian Crisia)
> (to give only you only some examples) 'are shared' by Dacian,
> Romanian-Substratum and Proto-Albanian.
> To come back to our subject:
> s in Albanian kësulë reflects and Older Proto-Albanian c^ preserved
> by the Romanian-Substratum and next by Romanian too : /c&c^ul&/
> The source of Romanian c^ <-> Albanian s => Proto-Albanian/Dacian?
> is one-Of :
> 1. k'w
> 2. kw/+
> 3. kW/+
> 4. k'y
> also a
> 5. Dental + Dental => Albanian s
> (but I don't have here a Romanian c^, as example)
> maybe also
> 6. Dental + s => Albanian s , Romanian c^ but I don't have other
> examples too
> Romanian c^ <-> Albanian s correspondance belong to a
> timeframe "Before Roman Arrival in Balkans" =>
> When The Romans arrived in Balkans there was no c^ in Proto-AlbanianI thought Alb. 'q' was /c^/. Did I miss something?
> (this sound already passed to ts /c/ at that time)
> On the other hand, the c^ was preserved by Pre-Romanians, that later
> were Romanized.
> This is proved by the fact that Latin loans in PAlb don't have any
> trace of c^ (for Latin ce/ci we have Alb qe/qi), as PRomanian shows
> (Rom. cer /c^er/ 'sky' etc...) .
> And this is not the only argument here: THE CHRONOLOGY of all theSee above on *katt-/kass--
> other PAlb transformation (in Relation with what is reflected by the
> Latin loans in Albanian) push the end of PAlb c^ > PAlb c (> later
> Alb s) to a very early stage.