Abdullah Konushevci wrote:
> I think that before him it was Meyer (EWAS, p. 207) who think that
> Albanian krushk < kurshk with derivates krushkë, krushqi, shkruqi is
> Latin loan from consocer, identifying it with Rumanian cuscru and
> cuscra
> We could explain it through metathesis sh-r > r - sh and falling of
> the first element of the cluster -ns-. I think that Rumanian form is
> much older, caouse hasn't metathesis
> With regards:
> Abdullah Konushevci
this is why I asked.
A syncopated form as "consocrus" wouldn't give " cuscru" in Rom. but an
"cusocru/cusucru".
There are explanations of syncopating the second "u" but I am not so
fine with them since from "socerus" we have there an "socru" and the
sincoping of the second "u" is not regular.
Interesting is the PIE form *suekuros.
I thought I must take it as a Latin word since it seemed to me just
Latin in the late period has this "cr" there from socerus > socrus
Searcing around, I found that the Celtic forms shows too the scr:
kymrish: "chwegr", chwegrun, and even the Germanic form is for "Mother
in low" identically with the Romanian one: gothic "swaihra" where "h"=
"c" versus rom. soacra. And even the slavic forms are too in the same
manner: svekr_ = father in low, svekry= mother in low.