a_konushevci@... wrote:
>. 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".
I given the word "c^uka" in Romanian not just for phonetic aspect but
maynly for the semantic aspect. There are still today toponyms like
"Ciuca lui Soare" or "Muntii Ciucului".I hate making just phoneticaly
annalogies when the semantism is far away in the two analysed words.
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
Stop a bit. That is crazy. There is the Romanian word "cutsit"= knife
which is given from Latin *excottire, and there is the verb " a
ascutsi"= to sharp .Now that you explain some of the Albanian rules I
see how amazing their affinity are. An Albanian friend of mine ( he is
not a linguist either) told me he understand a lot from Romanian when I
speak and he cannot clarify it how does it come that he understand. The
phonological development of Romanian which looks similar with Italian
should be the answer here? Ok this was just a little meditation on a
sentence someone told to me once and first, I did not given importance
to it as I now do. But now, to some concrete cases.
I see there is generally "c^", and when a nasal follows , Romanian keep
the old "s" where it was an "s" and Albanian changed it in "c^". In fact
is the mirror phenomena of Moldavian which made from Romanian "c^" an
"s" and Albanian made an "c^" from an "s":-)
But what about these two exceptions we have here? ( I am sure there are
more if we study all the lexic, in the examples I gave we could observe
some). So we have:
to flow= rom. curge, alb. c^urg
Why here the Rom. has no affricate but a clear "k" in Romanian and an
"c^" in Albanian?
The Romanian word is explained as usual trough Latin. The Latin word
here should be "currere" which got an "g" in analogy with Romanian word
"merge"= to go ( see Sanskrit marga= path, and not Latin mergere=
submerge, go under water)
knife = rom. cutsit, alb c^okat, but the verb "a ascuti"= to sharp which
will explain Albanian "c^" (sc).
Here we should loose more thoughts about:
Miguel speaked about Latin "ci" which has some "debil" comportment in
Romance. The Romanian "ci" is pronounced by Aromaninas as "tsi". For
theyr habit of using too much "tsi" there is a nickname , and they are
called "Tsântsari". In so far I see the connection as fallow:
a (a)scuci= in Aromanian (a)scutsi, participle form= (a)scutsit.
In so far it resemble the Albanian word 'suka', but wee need an "i"
there for explain the "ts" in Romanian. There is not a "k" which is able
to change anything but "ki" in Aromanian which allows the speaking with
"ts". Since in Romanian we have (a)scuti, then the form should have been
"sc" if from this form we can get an Albanin "c^". The word "sminti"=
Alb "c^menti" doesn't help too much since it shows just the s=c^ and "m"
remains. Maybe an "sc" could too give an "c^". If so, then we have to
explain the missing of "i" in Albanian after "k" in "suka".
*skukia= rom. (a)scuti
= alb. suk(i)a > c^uka
I guess I need some more information here because it can be, some
Germanic forms are related here too. I am thinking a the germanic word
"spitz", "scharf", english "sharp", "splint" which suppose the root
"scV-" here for "making sharp". The PIE *root is given as being *sker"=
to cut. But the change of PIE "e" in "u" is seems unusual, so maybe this
is not the right root even if rom. word "ashkie"= splinter can be made
too a derivative from here (DEX gives it as from Latin "ascula", with
syncopated form "ascla").
P.S. intersting , the Dacian toponyms Genuncla and Brucla " where we
have the ending "cla". I remind about this "cla" because later in the
study of Romance, it is said , there is _need_ the syncopated form of
latin "-cula" ="cla" for explaining Romanian "chi" (ki). But that is an
another story.