Re: [tied] Re: Albanian "f" [...]

m_iacomi wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" wrote:
>
>> Take a look at the family of words you have here in Alb.:
> [...]
>> It seems the form with "fër" is a methatesised one, don't you
>> think?
>
> No.

to quote an older expresion here: Pe ce te bazezi?

>
>> Latin "prope" meant "near" but it does not fit with Latin
>> evolution from PIE if the root is something with *prokWe
>
> According to your wild guess, Latin word should not exist.
> Unfortunately for your reasoning, it does and it is preserved
> in Romance, despite what says the self-claimed expert Vinereanu
> about it.

Does Vinereanu say something about it?

> Compare "aproape" with Catalan "a prop" `near`.
> A PIE root "*prokWe" does not exist. Vinereanu's claim that
> "prope" should originate from an Oscan/Umbrian "*proque" is
> unsupported. It's useless to make assumptions over assumptions
> without any factual argument.

I repeat myelf. I am not aware of any comentar of Vinereanu on this
topic.

>
>> The Latin form "appropiare" appear just beginning with Itala,
>> thus after Latins entered the Balkan.
>
> Initial Latin form: "ap-propinquare" (conserved in Occitan Prov.
> "aprobencar") meaning `to get near (space or time)`, appears in
> classical authors; "approp(r)iare" is attested in Late Latin as
> substitutive, obviously linked to "appropinquare".

"prope" Adv. "nahe, aus der Nähe", und Präp. "nahe bei"; zeitl.
"gegen"(seit Plaut.), Komp. "propior", Adv. und Präp. -ius, Sup.
"proximus" "nächster" ( proximo die sowohl "am nächstvergangnen" als "am
nächstfolgenden Tage" Brugmann Sächs. Ber 69,1 p. 12 (seit Plaut. rom.
neben *propeanus [ ebenso propediem "nächster Tage" aus prope dies,
Wackernagel Synt. I 59], Kopm. "propior,-ius" seit Plt. "proximus" seit
Cato [-e: seit Cic.]; deprope Adv. seit Itala; proprio, -are "nähere
mich" seit Comm. bzw. Vulg. und Ps. Rufin [approppio ds. seit Itala,
rom.] propinquus,-a,-um, "nahe, benachbart, verwandt (seit Plt.[ebenso
Adv. -e] propinquitas, "Verwandschaft", "Nähe", seit Cic. "propinquatio"
ds. Aug., "propinquo, -are "nähere mich" seit Lucr. und Sall.
[appropinquo seit Trag. inc. und Cic., rom. -atio seit Cic.]):


Now the propincus you are talking about seems to be an another cup of
tea.
"propinquus wohl aus *prop-inqu- to Old. Ind. -an^c-, " wohin
gerichtet" in "úd-an^c-" , "aufwärts gerichtet" ( Brugmann II 1, 13;
compare "longinquus

>
>> 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.
>
> Unfortunately, for Albanian /p/ > /f/ only before /t/. I'm
> affraid that for Latin "prope" and Albanian "fër" the only
> thing in common is the "r" in both words...

Beside the example given by Abdullah I will give one more: afion
I suppose this is too a properly evolution in Albanian.

>
>> 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.
>
> There is no such a root.
>
> Marius Iacomi

Wegen "proximus" whol aus *pro-kW-e (Bersu Gutt. 62. 125. 153, Osthoff
M.U. 6, 144,Muller Ait. W. 363, Leumann-Stolz 129); doch ist die
Bed.-Entwicklung unklar ( kaum losgelöst aus doppeltem *proque proque
"immer vorwärts" voran, Walde-Pokorny II 47; sicher nicht aus *pro-pe,
Lindsay-Nohl 679).


Just for my curiosity. How do you explain yourself that in Rom. is just
the root and nothing from the Latin derivatives? What happened to this
romanisate population that they kept just the roots? This is a problem
where I have difficulties to understand. How can be possible that just
the roots are kept but no properly Latin derivative? Why?
I am aware of explanation of creating new suffixes, adapting the words
in "fel si chip" but, the roots are still very accurate mentaining. It
is explained simply :"it was lost". Was it lost or never existed? How
can one proove ( generally speaking) that there is something, a certain
X which is lost now when one another means " there was never a such
thing." ?

Alex

Alex