--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci" > > > Lat.
far 'large' doesn't exist!
> > >
> > > Piotr
> > ************
> > I was in big trouble how to translate Alb. <fër> in <afër>
'not
> far, near' from oldest form <far>, according to
> > Çabej, akin to English <far>, so I try to do it through Latin.
> > I am not sure, am I now clear?
> >
> > Konushevci
it does not help either. I wonder how does Cabej comme to this
explanation.
Take a look at the family of words you have here in Alb.:
afër afëri, afërm (maybe afërmenndsh too) but:
afrazi, afrim, afron, afruar, afrueshëm
afrazi= aproape
afrim=apropiere
afruar= apropiat
afrueshëm= apropiat
It seems the form with "fër" is a methatesised one, don't you
think?
Latin "prope" meant "near" but it does not fit with Latin evolution
from PIE if the root is something with *prokWe
The Latin form "appropiare" appear just beginning with Itala, thus
after Latins entered the Balkan. It can be this is a simply
coincidence, but since we have for sure pt > ft and the Rom. sense is
identical with Alb and the Latin word prope meant the same, a closer
relationship between thes words should not be excluded.
To mention again, Rom. has not the derivatives which existed in Latin,
but its own derivatives from "aproape". If the root is indeed *prokWe
I cannot explain it trough Rom. either. I need an root like *prokWV
where V = a ,o, u for having kW>p like in "potârniche" , latin
cocturnix.
Alex