Terminology (Re: Piotr-)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tolgs001" <george.st@...> wrote:

> >One of the reasons why I doubt that palatals behave differently,
> >preceded by nasals, are the word <dorë> 'hand' < *g^He:r-so-,
> >metathetic variant of suffixed form *g^He:s-ro-, because I think
> >that
> >Alb. verb <ngjesh> 'to press, to compress, to condense' (see also
> >Latin <press> from *ghes-to-) I suppose is derived from prefixed
> >unmetathetic form *n-g^Hes (*e >je, g-j>gj), besides many

dialectal

> >forms, like: i gjelbtë 'salted', i njelmtë 'id.'.
> >
> >Konushevci
>
> In the context of <ngjesh>, let's also have a look
> at some Romanian lexical occurrences:
>
> (A) <a înghesui> means the same, roughly; there's the noun
> <înghesuiala> made out of it, and means "crowd(ed)" i.e.
> crowding together too many persons, who are... <înghesuit,
> -a, -tzi, -e> (past participle of the verb). Then the
> word <ghes>, as in the locution <a da ghes cuiva> which
> chiefly means: "to nudge someone" & to impulsionate, to
> stir up to do sth.
>
> (b) <des> "dense" as well as "often" (if adverb); this
> one has a verb "a îndesa," (+ îndesare; îndesat - this one
> means inter alia "compact") which covers the meaning of the
> Alb. <ngjesh> and perhaps much more (whereas <a înghesui>
> mentioned above covers only *some* "com/pressing"
> situations).
>
> (<dens> is a mere "doublette" in Romanian, i.e. after
> being included in the vocabulary as a neologism).
>
> But in some (vast) Romanian subdialectal regions (roughly 1/2
> of the Romaniandom) there is practically no difference
> between <a înghesui> and <a îndesa>, except for the ending
> (from the viewpoint of the native-speakers there).
>
> Because only one kind of lingual-palatal sound is pronounced
> in both cases, as I mentioned in the previous message when
> referring to <gheara>. Thus, in those subdialects, the native-
> speaker wouldn't know how to write "a-i da ghes" unless
> told in school, since, for them, <ghes> and <des> are one
> word -> phonetically (homophonous, and semantically *still*
> akin).
>
> So, in Romanian not every <ghe>/<ghi> thing has a
> genuine [g] in it, etymologically.
>
> George

************
Dear George,
As you see, there are much work to be done relating to the Albanian
and Romanian languages: there are moments that I doubt or I get
impression that we have to deal, I mean in antiquity, with two
dialects of the same proto-language, even my knowledge of Romanian is
so poverish.
Some concordances was treated by Romanian and Albanian linguists,
but, as we may notice, from many messages discussed in this forum,
there are too many others that no one had noticed them before.

Konushevci