Re: Old Albanian manuscript or a forge ?

Of course one should see more of the manuscript to decide whether we
fully understand the spelling conventions, whether the spelling is
really inconsistent, and whether the inconsistency militates against
its authenticity. It may be the other way round: messiness is to be
expected, whereas perfection arouses suspicion. Perhaps if the
Praenestine Fibula had been less perfectly (fe)faked nobody would
have suspected anything.

Piotr

--- In cybalist@..., "mbikqyres" <a96_aeu@...> wrote:
>
> Doubts about the originality of the Albanian manuscript from 1210
are
> shed by dr.Ardian Klosi who retains himself as one of the best
> Albanian linguists and who says that he could have done in 4 months
> what dr.Ahmeti did in 4 years.
>
> Refering to the only phrase from this manuscript known to the
public,
> dr.Klosi says that every single word is strangely written.
>
> ("Mee nihemmen zze dessirnnee e phorte t' Lummnummitt ZOT e
mbaronjj
> n'Vitte MCCX dittn ee IX t' Mmarxxitee".
>
>
> THEODOR SSCODRAANNITTEE)
>
>
> Dr. Klosi says that the word 'phorte' was never written by any
author
> with 'ph' but 'f' even in Latin were this word is borrowed from.
>
> The groups 'nd', 'ng', 'mb' were not yet assimilated at that time
> into 'n' and 'm' in Geg, so why do we find 'nihemmen' instead
> of 'ndihmën'? Even later Geg authors have used 'nd', 'ng', 'mb'.
> In the other hand if the author writtes 'n' instead of 'nd' he
should
> writte 'm' instead of 'mb' thus not 'mbaronj' but 'maroj'.
>
> Dr. Klosi adds that the double vocals in the meaning above do not
> make sense since no one of them is in any such position to be a
long
> vocal.
>
> Dr. Klosi also says that it is strange that the author uses 'ss'
for
> Modern Albanian 'sh' and 'xx' for 's'. If the author was going to
> copy the Italian model he should have used 'sc' for Modern
> Albanian 'sh'.
>
>
> Any other comments ?
>
> Alvin E.