From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 25710
Date: 2003-09-09
> m_iacomi wrote:privative
> > --- 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-
> > suffix from PIE *n.- and <far> 'far' < 'not far, near' and I doubtmincinos
> > 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
> dupa una si alta. Mda.. halal..nu poti sa mai vorbesti la persoanaII pl
> cand este vorba de astfel de aluzii. Eu unul am probleme de a arataun
> respect fatarnic aici.look for
> >
> >>> 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
> words which are corelated in Rom. and Alb. words which have been notthe
> 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
> word with proximus.another
>
> >> 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
> >> means " there was never a such thing." ?data
> >
> > I didn't really get your point. Rephrase it.
> >
> > Marius Iacomi
>
> Explicatia pentru lipsa derivatelor latinesti in lb. Româna, este
> prin faptul ca ele s-au pierdut in timp si ca noile derivate peteren
> intern românesc se explica prin noi constructii . Asta este opozitie.
> Pozitia a doua este a lui Gica Contra care spune ca aceste derivateexistat
> presupuse a fi existat , nu ca au fost pierdute, dar ele nu au
> niciodata in limba. Care este argumentul pentru a arata ca totusiaceste
> derivate au exista in limba si ca s-au pierdut/modificat in decursul************
> timpului?
>
> Alex