[tied] Prope (Re: Albanian "f" [...])

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:

>>> 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?

Different story of Albanian and Latin words. Quoting Abdullah's
words: "About <afër> 'near' I accept Çabej's etymology a- privative
suffix from PIE *n.- and <far> 'far' < 'not far, near' and I doubt
that it is connected to Romanian apro-"

>>> 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?

Don't imagine you can fool me.

>> Compare "aproape" with Catalan "a prop" `near`.

And don't elude facts. Catalan "a prop" means the same and has
a similar form with Romanian "aproape".

>>> 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" [...] proprio, -are "nähere mich" seit Comm. bzw. Vulg.
> und Ps. Rufin [approppio ds. seit Itala, rom.] propinquus,-a,-um,
> "nahe, benachbart, verwandt [...]

So what?! I was speaking about older form "appropinquare", not
about your...

> Now the propincus you are talking about

... which falsely you individuated.

>>> 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.

What is "afion" supposed to be linked to? What example gave
Abdullah supporting /p/ > /f/ in Albanian when not before /t/?

"All I can say is that Alb. <i aftë> and Rom. <apt> 'id.' are
probably from Latin <aptus> 'id.'. Stuart Mann see it only related
to Latin <aptus>. The evolution of cluster /pt/>/ft/ was noticed
also in place name Groftat < Crypta."

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

Ist _unklar_.
Pokorny doesn't give it. Don't you wonder why?! Besides that,
have you thought at the meaning of the "-"?!

> Just for my curiosity. How do you explain yourself that in Rom.
> is just the root and nothing from the Latin derivatives?

It is not "the root". Derivatives were adapting themselves over
the time (while still analytical). The explanation relies on
power of analogy.

> 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." ?

I didn't really get your point. Rephrase it.

Marius Iacomi