--- In cybalist@..., alexmoeller@... wrote:
> I just doubt about this. And this is because the albanians
> have the same pattern as rumanians.
...simply because they share the same source of borrowing.
> And that today they
> still use this patern and the sudic slavs have a methathesis
> here ( i am not sure about the other slavs).
> it is unlikely that two folks to get a word from a thirth
> and to mentain it as in the ancient proto_slav, and then the
> proto_slavs to make the methathesis and to change it but
> these folks to keep over milenium the same form. Dont you
I do mind, actually. Different languages change differently, both as
to the speed and the character of change, yet loans are usually more
persistent to change. Eg., Finnish preserved Proto-Germanic *kuningaz
nearly intact (_kuningas_), while the Germanic languages themselves
changed the word rather substantially (_king_,_könig_)
> And if you got it, which are "most" slavic languages without
> the south slavic? Where do we have it and where not? "Most",
> here says almost nothing. I should like you to get please
> the languages , other as south slavic where we have these
> best examples like *bolto, *dolto and because we are here at
> the methatehesis of liquids but we talked just for "l" let
> us talk about "r" too.
If I get it right, you're trying to be a bore. OK, here's the list:
High Sorbian _bl/óto_
You might argue that you can't see how and why *bolto [bá:lta] has
been reconstructed on the base of this evidence. The reconstruction
is generally received, but, unfortunately, it's impossible to provide
you with the arguments in the limits of a message -- I can only refer
you to a book on Slavic historical linguistics.
By the way, this specific word has indeed been suspected to be a
Balcanic substratum word, _shared_ by Proto-Slavic, Albanian and
Romanian, but in that case Old Prussian -balt (in toponymy) demands
explanation. Albanian _baltë_ is usually treated as a native word
rather than a Slavicism, while for Romanian c both -- substratic
(Balcanic) and adstratic (Slavic) origins are equally possible.
*dolto (<*dolbto) or *delto (<*delbto)
Polish _dl/uto_ < _dl/óto_
Interestingly enough, the South Slavic languages (at least
contemporary ones) mostly continue *delto rather than *dolto,
continued in West and East Slavic (Illyrians in the vicinity of
Pskov? I'm not sure). Cf. also related Proto-Slavic *dUlbti 'peck,
hammer', *dolbU 'pale;groove'.
> Let us go on:
> rom. gard, old slav grad, alb. garth
High Sorbian _hród_
Low Sorbian _grod_
Albanian _garth_ is a native word, I'm not aware of the Romanian
lexeme, but a borrowing from Slavic at least can't be excluded. Cf.
also Lith. _gar~das_ 'fence', Gothic _gards_ 'house' -- there's
nothing specifically Balcanic about the word.
> rom. ta:rg,old slav tru:gu:, alb. terg
> rom. ga:rba:, old.slav gru:bu:, alb. ge:rbe:
Proto Slavic *tUrgU and *gUrbU are equally well attested in most
( ;) ) Slavic languages as well, but I don't feel like typing two
Albanian _tregë_ is a native word, and I'm not aware of _gërbë_ or
the like. Romanian _tãrg_ [t&rg] and _gãrbã_ [g&rb&] (if you quote
them correctly) fit like a glove with Proto-Slavic *tUrgU [t&rg&] and
> Dont you mind that it is very unlikely that both albanians
> and rumanians to get the same patern but the slavs to have
> an another one?It shows the vector of this loaning, don't
Consider Proto-Slavic rather than Old or Middle Bulgarian forms.