From: Abdullah Konushevci
> Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:root. Why
> >> I wonder how you wonder. They are the satem forms of the IE
> >> should I mention the centum forms here? Comparation should bedone
> >> within the same group in this case, imho.people
> > What was the point of your listing all those Satem forms? The
> > potentially interested in this discussion know them better thanyou
> > do.they
> I understand it so: because there are people which - if interested-
> 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 willkeep
> it in my mind.about
> >> 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
> > _these_ <dh>'s.Gr.
> >> The Alb. /d/ should be the result of PIE *g^ and *g^h ( Pekmezi,
> >> Alb. Spr. 29)gave in
> >> And for this example I shoued by myself the PIE *g^her- which
> >> Alb. "dorë" and in Rom. "ghearã".is
> > ??? -- 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
> exactly what I expect for the Romanian "ghearã"after /r/
> > 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
> > (I've written about this before!). In a similar context we haveAlb.
> > bardhë 'white' < *bHr.h2g^-. The substratal cognate in Romanian isI
> > <barzã> -- you _do_ see the <z>, right?
> No.I don't see the "z" there _as you see it_. And you know why? And
> will ask you something. Which is the reason to not compare wordswith
> the same phonetical aspect _and_ the same semantism but you want toBecause
> compare words with the same phonetism but not related semantic ?
> someone explained that it is possible from "white" to make a birdjust
> because this bird has more white as black? Why don't you compareme,
> "bãrzãune" with the feminine form in Alb. "bardhë" then ?
> I wonder how easy one will to link the words with each other.As for
> I am not at all convinced that Romanian "barzã"(stork) is the sameas
> Albanian word in its feminine gender "bardhë" (white).and the
> In fact the word "stork" is in Rom. Lang too and this is "stârc"
> another form is "cocostârc".The "stârc" form is given as commingfrom
> Slavic " strUkU"Rom.
> Question: do you have any idea how many birds's denominations in
> Lang. end in "-zã"? Do you know how many of them have a similarwith
> counterpart in Albanian?
> We normally find Rom /z/
> > (dialectal /dz/) in substratal words that have Albanian cognates
> > /d/~/ð/ from *g^(H). I take the affricate *dz (partly surviving inand
> > Romanian) to have been an intermediate stage between PIE *g^(H)
> > Mod.Alb. /d/~/ð/.depending on
> > Piotr
> I am afaid the PIE *g^h has given "g" "ghe" or "ghi" in Rom
> what kind of vowel followed this group. The "dz" and "z" in Rom isfor
> me stil not entire clear. I have stil to search about.************