Re: [tied] Re: Albanian Ethymologies

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 6437
Date: 2001-03-08

What you are saying is very true. The history of Albanian abounds in formidable complications (non-productive archaic prefixations, obscured compounds, reduction of unstressed syllables, a variety of plurals converted into singulars, etc.). This is one more reason to dismiss superficial "matches" between Modern Albanian and Etruscan or any other language spoken 2000 or more years ago if they are proposed without a careful historical analysis.
 
Piotr
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: lulzimshtino@...
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 3:32 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Albanian Ethymologies

Ethymologists do not have to speak the languages they study, although a
certain familiarity with their history will only help. In the case of
Albanian, the language has generally been considered as highly innovative
with respect to the IE model, and therefore a hard nut to crack for the
ethymologist (because of lack of documentation). As a matter of fact, once
the loan words have been identified (mostly Latin and Slavic), there still
remain many roots out there that have proved almost impossible to
ethymologize. A common mistake that the average non-Albanian ethymologist
will do is start with an Albanian word, and try to apply on it the well-known
(or less well-known) historical-phonetical equations that will produce an
alleged archaic formula, which can then be compared with IE roots. What is
being ignored here is that in many cases Albanian words are the result of
archaic word-forming processes (like affixation), reason for which cannot be
directly be compared to an IE root. It is well known that in Albanian, due to
the dynamic word accent, unstressed syllables tend to fade away with time and
eventually disappear (compare QYTET "city" with its Latin source CIVITATEM).
This syllabic reduction has wiped off many traces of archaic word-forming
processes, so that these today aren't visible any more. Unfortunately, there
are no written records of Albanian before the 15th century, and the dialectal
data can help up to a certain point. This notwithstanding, the school of
Albanian ethymologies started by Norbert Jokl, and continued by his disciple
Cabej (and maybe the Pole Waclaw Cimochowski, as far as I know) has pointed
out the necessity of carefully taking into account the processes of word
formation inherent of Albanian each time an ethymology is being tried, BEFORE
attempting any kind of adventure in the field of abstract IE roots. Cabej was
worshiped by Albanian linguists, but I am afraid he was considered rather old
fashioned abroad, in spite of his very well researched ethymologies, and his
solid formation in the field of Indo-Europeanistics (Vienna).

Lulzim Shtino