Re: [tied] Re: Albanian "ngujon"

tolgs001 wrote:

>> as counterpart of Albanian "ngujon" ther is the romanian "'ncuia",
>> literary "încuia" so, this word is given as deriving from Latin
>> "incuncare".
>
> Be careful when typing: incuneare! (in+cune-+are) < cuneus "nail,"
> which, in Romanian, is one "cui," [kuj] two "cuie" ['ku-je].

I was carefully by typing. In my dictionary there is Latin "incuncare".
Should be a mistake there? I wondered a bit since "cui" is given as
derivate from "cuneus" so a verb like "incuncare" seemed a bit strange
to me but I assumed this is the correct form.

>
> Even if it'd be an exaggeration to see R. încuiá < L. incuneare,
> the *Romanian* construction will do: în- + cui + -a, -are, -at
> (and subdialectal one further participle variant -et).

We discussed about this "'n/în" which is very suspicios. Since almost
everything points to en > în and not in> în, until there is not stronger
argumetnation I make the option for the substratual "'n" as in Albanian
and not for Latin "in-".

>
>> since it is crystal clear that the Albanian word and
>> Rumanian word is one and the same: ngujon / 'ncuia
>
> If A. guj = Lat. cuneus = R. cui. (And remember: 'ncuia
> cannot stand alone, it has to be preceded by another
> word.)

How it cannot stand alone? I am afraid I do not undestand.

>
>> In this manner we can assume safe that there
>> is no "incuia" from latin "incuncare" in Romanian,
>> but there is a substratum verb as Albanian "ngujon".
>
> And what are you gonna do if ngujon reflects the very
> same Latin pattern in- + cune(us) + -are?
>
>> Alex
>
> George

Nothing. Why shouldn't have had the "lost" idiom the same pattern?
BEcause this is not documented?That is no reason since the PIE root is
*ku:


Alex