From: alex_lycos
Message: 17960
Date: 2003-01-22

ovis= shep
Latin "ovis", Greek "ois", Skt. "avis", Pgmc="aue" PIE *ouis, Armenian
"ac", Thracian "aitsis/aizis".
The Romanian word "oaie" is given - clear - from Latin "ovis" with
syncope of intervocalic "v".
The Greek form "ois" seems more appropriate even for plural form "oaie"=
sg. "oi"= pl.
Interesting is the diminutive form of the word = "oitsã" and not so
often used form "oitzicã" which seems to be a "diminutive form of the
diminutive form"; these forms , "oitsã" and "oitsicã" which I see very
near at the Thracian "aitse/aize" and at the "aizike" ("aizike Thrakes
meros". )
How wide this diminutive form in Rom. lang. is used, I let my Romanian
colleagues here to say.(Oitsã bârsanã, de eSti nãzdrãvanã , Si de-o fi
sã mor, tu sã le spui lor...)
Unfortunately we are not able to say if the ancient Greek heard just the
diminutive form of the word , so it can be this is just a speculation of
me but I don't see at the authors which treathed this gloss ( all
treated it) any equivalence with Latin or Greek cognates.
Tomaschek, Detschev, Duridanov , Russu , all make connections with
Armenian "aic". Why? Because of the "ic" in armean "aic"?
But Armenian is a satem language; it has a sibilant for pie "k'" so
there cannot be made a relationship between Thracian "aitze" and
Armenian "aic". Can someone explain how the relationship between two
satem languages can be made when one present "ts" or "z" and the another
one presents "c" ?