[tied] Re: PIE *kwokt

I agree that are to many similarities between Albanian and Romanian
words beginning with affricate ^c. And not only in the words
beginning with affricate ^c. But the common words of Albanian and
Romanian is the complex question to be treated now.
I think that Albanian and Romanian languages was in very tight
connection before the invasion of Slavs and Avars, the period after
which these relations wre broken up. So many common words in
Albanian and Romanian Languages testifies in one or other way that
these peoples were in close neighbourhood.
I will try to help on explaining some of these common words.
First, I thing that Rom. word sminti testify for my soundlaw of
afrricatization of the spirant in the beginnin of the word, cause
the loans preservs much older forms. Latin form should be
demens "crazy", but not sminti. In many place names (Suka e
Biteshit, Suka e Cermjanit) is preserved also the oldest form of
c^uka < suka "high point of a hill". As we could conclude from
Albanian verb cokat "to sharp" (subject: ax, knife, etc.) < sokat >
c^okat, we may deduce that words like c^ukat, c^ike are derived by
this stem, very similar with latin ex- +actus, if not the latin
loan. There too variation between sak "exact" and cok "exact", like
between disa/ca "some", etc.
About the verbs c^irrem, I think that English word scream, like OIr
scaraim "to separate" of Albanian verb c^jerr, aor. c^orra.
It's worth to mention that sllavic loans: sana < sll. sena, sundoj <
(?) suditi and oriental loans: sokak "road", sarme < trk. sarmak "to
fold" didn't take part in our soundlaw. So, this rule stop to have
any effect after Slavs and Osman inavsions.

With respect:
Abdullah Konushevci

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:
> 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.