From: m_iacomi
Message: 25481
Date: 2003-09-03
> 02-09-03 19:46, alex wrote:[...]
>>> /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).
> You must be kidding. Alb. dh corresponds to Romanian substratalOf course it's the same substratal word. Alex doesn't mention the
> /(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?
>> The "dz" and "z" in Rom is for me stil not entire clear. I haveThat qualifies for the phrase of the month. :-)
>> stil to search about.
>
> I'm glad you're willing to learn.