Abdullah Konushevci wrote:
> Dear Alex,
> I have here cited another author, but, because Your are curious, I
> will give some examples:
>
> *aim- Lat. aemulus
> *aiw- Lat. aevum, aeternum, suffixed from *aiw-t-erno-
> *ayes- Lat. aes
> *kaH-id- lat. caedere
> *prai- Lat. prae
> hetaera < Gr. hetairos
>
> Konushevci
> ************
I have no problem with it and it seems to be very OK to me. I am on the
search of the origin of /ai/ in Rom. lang and it seemed to be very
obscure this one. If I remember right, the Dacian Prister Dekaineos, in
Latin rendered as Dekaeneus, the Dacian tribe Caini( how coincidentaly
look this one as actual Câini= dogs), in Latin rendered as Caenes etc.
How I said, I don't have trouble with this /ai/ which is more appropiate
to me ( see Rom. caier, faima, ) as the Latin /ae/.(This /ae/ is kind of
magic one . It became /E/ in PBR and it could then become everything: e,
ã, ei, ai as per wellknown Romanistic theory.)
There was in your posting something more interesting, and that was
"cleve" which have given Albanian "quaj" if I remember right.I thought
about Latin "clamare" and italian "chiamo", but Rom. "chema" . And I
remember the wondering tone of Tomascheck when discuting the Dacian
plants about the "lateinischer Ausgang" of them.
It is hard to me to accept that an "-lla" became "-ea" but an "-llu" has
no change. The palatalisation or elidation of /ll/ before of /a/ seems
very strange (see "ciocârlia" for instance) but there is still work to
do for challenging this thesis of /-lla/ > /ea/. Thank you for these
examples which make stronger some of my thoughts.
Alex