m_iacomi@... wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" wrote:
>
>> I see it otherways since Albanian "c^ok" is the same with Rom
>> "c^oc (cioc) meaning beak.
>
> No. It's onomatopoeic and it means simply "knock!"
Mr. Iacomi. Please do not make confusion here. I don't speak about the
onomatopoeic "knock" but I am speaking about the "mouth of the birds"
which in Romanian is "cioc ( c^ok) and in Albanian is too "c^ep".
I understand you see the word "ciocanitoare" as a compound of " a
ciocani"= to knock + sufix "-oare".
I understand you see the participle form of the verb "a ciocani"=
ciocãnit+oare= ciocanitoare.Even what the woodpecker does, it is
knocking, so I don't complain about the composition a ciocani +oare.
I was just thinking of "cioc" and the possibility of deriving from this
one but it is not important for me where from the "ciocanitoare"
derives.
For me is important the word "cioc"= Schnabel, beak and this "c^" here,
the affricated one.
In this direction I try to find out the relationship between albanian
"cuk"
There are too much similarities to ignore them, inclusive the Torsten's
"shiboleth"in both languages
rom. c^ukit/ciupit = alb c^ukit/c^upit= to pinch
rom. c^ukã = alb c^ukë=
rom. curge = alb c^urg = to flow
rom. c^omag= alb. c^omagë =club, stick, cudgel
rom. c^ca = alb. c^ka
rom. c^ocani= alb. c^okanit= to knock
rom. c^ocan= alb. c^okan= hammer
rom. c^urui= alb. c^rret =to riddle; to screen; to sieve; to sift
rom. mac^uka= Alb.
The examples can go along since is a very big list here. I guess it is
enough to see that when followed by an vowel both languages have an "c^"
there.
The situation is curious when after "c" is an nasal for examples.
It is said here the Albanian has an "c^" initially from an "s" . It
seems Romanian has this "s" there where an Albanian "c^" occurs if the
next sound is a nasal. Examples:
rom. sminti = alb. c^menti = to become crazy
So, I am not trying to see what about this funny woodpecker but to
understand the connections here.
>> Funny is that "ciocani"= to peck is given as a derivative from
>> "ciocan"= hammer and this one should be an loanword from slavic
>> "cekanU"
>
> Probably yes, since the root is (not surprisingly) very similar
> but the suffix looks Slavic
see the examples and Albanian too for hammer and to hammer. I
>> And it is interesting the rule applies again. Some scholars
>> belive that
> [my labels here:]
>> PIE kW > p and gW > b in Romanian when not followed by /e/ & /i/
> [statement #1]
>> and kW >k and gW > g when not fallowed by /e/ and /i/
> [statement #2]
>
> No scholar could "belive" that. Statements 1 and 2 are mutually
> incompatible.
> The rule is: _Latin_ qua > Romanian pa & _Latin_ gua > Rom. ba
> with exception of wh* words (in Miguel's notation)
> Otherwise, the normal evolution is elimination of labial /W/
>
> Cheers,
> Marius Iacomi
Sir, please. None spooked about your Latin here. There are many words
which do not derive from Latin and not about _Latin_ transformation I
was speaking here, but it seems some people are too busy for showing the
Latinity of a language with a bit over the half of the pan-romanic words
and where, for these 300 words ( where from over 100 with a funny
semantic shift) are around 170 derivations rules.