Re: Some Albanian-Romanian concordances

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

>> As a general matter, it is methodologically wrong to look for
>> vague similarities between a modern language and reconstructed
>> PIE roots and inferring without any transformation rules there
>> must be a relationship between the so-called similar words. That
>> explains my "so what?!".
>
> My answer was based just on the meaning of "lãbãrTa". One should
> be aware: if one got the word from Hungarian, then this word

Your "this" probably stands for "labã".

> entered the language with the precise meaning of hand or foot.
> But from hand and foot, one never get a verb like "to go out
> of shape".

Actually, "labã" designs more or less the sole (of the foot),
the plantar part which is wider than the shank.

> To be more precisely, the verb "labãrTa" means "to become wide";
> thus it has in its composition the meaning "wide" which simply
> could not be understood as such from a foreign loan .

Can you understand it now?!

> If one will ask for the semantical special sense of "foot" and
> "hand" it appears simply to explain. These are the most "wide"
> parts of these members.

Well done. Now you should be able to understand semantical
evolution from "labã" to "lãbãrTa" (`to became wider` -- just like
the foot becames wider in the plantar part).

> To me it appears very clear. If I make any failure in my argument,
> please show what seems rotten in my argumentation.

Arguing that "lãbãrTa" which is obviously a _derivative_ has a
decisive importance in order to claim that "labã" cannot derive
from Hungarian is of course your main mistake.

Marius Iacomi