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

02-09-03 19:46, alex wrote:

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

Sorry, but the correct reconstruction of the 'hand' word is *g^He(:)sr-
(Hitt. kessar, Gk. kHeir, Alb. dorë, etc.) How on earth would you derive
<ghearã> from it?

>> /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"

You must be kidding. Alb. dh corresponds to Romanian substratal /(d)z/
quite regularly (remember <mazãre>?). _Ciconia ciconia_ is white enough
to be called "der Weissstorch" in German and "the white stork" in
English (the birch-tree has black patches too, but its name is derived
from the very same IE root). Finally, if <barzã> isn't the same word as
Albanian <bardhë>, where does it come from?

Isn't <stârc> a loan from Germanic (*sturka- > Ger. Storch, Eng. stork
etc.)? I'd be surprised if it weren't.

> 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?

I don't, but if you do, please provide a list. It might be interesting.

> I am afaid the PIE *g^h has given "g" "ghe" or "ghi" in Rom depending on
> what kind of vowel followed this group.

Ther's nothing to be afraid of. Nevertheless, you've got it all wrong.
PIE *g^H > Lat. /h/ or /g/ depending on the context, but the former more
often than the latter. Lat. /g/ has Romanian reflexes as above, but Lat.
/h/ is simply dropped, as elsewhere in Romance. For example, *g^Hjes- >
heri: > ieri 'yesterday'. This is the straight-line path of development
from PIE to Romanian. But in substratal lexemes we may get *g^(H) >
Romanian (d)z.

> The "dz" and "z" in Rom is for
> me stil not entire clear. I have stil to search about.

I'm glad you're willing to learn.

Piotr