Re: [tied] Terminology (Re: Piotr-)

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

>> I wonder how you wonder. They are the satem forms of the IE root. Why
>> should I mention the centum forms here? Comparation should be done
>> within the same group in this case, imho.
>
> What was the point of your listing all those Satem forms? The people
> potentially interested in this discussion know them better than you
> do.

I understand it so: because there are people which - if interested- they
knoow the reflexes of a certain PIE root in the actualy languages, there
is no need to show any forms when I compare something. OK, I will keep
it in my mind.

>> The coresponding sound of Alb. /dh/ is not Rom. /dz/ or /z/ but
>> simply /d/
>> Alb-Rom: hurdhë - leurdã; shkardhë - zgardã
>
> Partly inaccurate, and completely irrelevant. We are not talking about
> _these_ <dh>'s.
>
>> The Alb. /d/ should be the result of PIE *g^ and *g^h ( Pekmezi, Gr.
>> Alb. Spr. 29)
>> And for this example I shoued by myself the PIE *g^her- which gave in
>> Alb. "dorë" and in Rom. "ghearã".
>
> ??? -- The PIE word was actually *g^Hesr. (check the archive), and
> <ghearã> has nothing to do with it.

I am speaking about PIE *g^her- which as phonetic form and meaning is
exactly what I expect for the Romanian "ghearã"

>
> Thus, the Albanian form of
>> '*h2arg^-es-jo-' should have been '*ardes-'. No /s/, no /z/ but
>> simply "d".
>
> /d/ _and_ /ð/ (<dh>), actually, and the latter is regular after /r/
> (I've written about this before!). In a similar context we have Alb.
> bardhë 'white' < *bHr.h2g^-. The substratal cognate in Romanian is
> <barzã> -- you _do_ see the <z>, right?

No.I don't see the "z" there _as you see it_. And you know why? And I
will ask you something. Which is the reason to not compare words with
the same phonetical aspect _and_ the same semantism but you want to
compare words with the same phonetism but not related semantic ? Because
someone explained that it is possible from "white" to make a bird just
because this bird has more white as black? Why don't you compare
"bãrzãune" with the feminine form in Alb. "bardhë" then ?
I wonder how easy one will to link the words with each other.As for me,
I am not at all convinced that Romanian "barzã"(stork) is the same as
Albanian word in its feminine gender "bardhë" (white).
In fact the word "stork" is in Rom. Lang too and this is "stârc" and the
another form is "cocostârc".The "stârc" form is given as comming from
Slavic " strUkU"


Question: do you have any idea how many birds's denominations in Rom.
Lang. end in "-zã"? Do you know how many of them have a similar
counterpart in Albanian?


We normally find Rom /z/

> (dialectal /dz/) in substratal words that have Albanian cognates with
> /d/~/ð/ from *g^(H). I take the affricate *dz (partly surviving in
> Romanian) to have been an intermediate stage between PIE *g^(H) and
> Mod.Alb. /d/~/ð/.
>
> Piotr

I am afaid the PIE *g^h has given "g" "ghe" or "ghi" in Rom depending on
what kind of vowel followed this group. The "dz" and "z" in Rom is for
me stil not entire clear. I have stil to search about.

Alex