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

m_iacomi wrote:

> --- 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-"

this different story does not explain the forms with "afra-" in
Albanian. I wonder what Abdullah thinks about these forms.

>>
>> Does Vinereanu say something about it?
>
> Don't imagine you can fool me.

Excuse me. Si intre hoti exista un codex moral, mai ma faci si mincinos
dupa una si alta. Mda.. halal..nu poti sa mai vorbesti la persoana II pl
cand este vorba de astfel de aluzii. Eu unul am probleme de a arata un
respect fatarnic aici.

>
>>> 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".

It seems you forget the point where I was going from. I said, I look for
words which are corelated in Rom. and Alb. words which have been not
considered until now. Which are the facts I elude?

>> 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/?

afion= Opium

>> 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 "-"?!

Die Entwicklung ist unklar. And this because the authors corelate the
word with proximus.

>> 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

Explicatia pentru lipsa derivatelor latinesti in lb. Româna, este data
prin faptul ca ele s-au pierdut in timp si ca noile derivate pe teren
intern românesc se explica prin noi constructii . Asta este o pozitie.
Pozitia a doua este a lui Gica Contra care spune ca aceste derivate
presupuse a fi existat , nu ca au fost pierdute, dar ele nu au existat
niciodata in limba. Care este argumentul pentru a arata ca totusi aceste
derivate au exista in limba si ca s-au pierdut/modificat in decursul
timpului?

Alex