[tied] Re: derivation rules from later latin to romanian

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

> m_iacomi wrote:
>
>>> As for Latin *f- from PIE *dh- .... hmm. I don't want to make any
>>> comment in the case of Pokorny #380 and Pokorny #381 :-))
>>
>> You are not supposed to make any comment on a phonetic law you
>> obviously ignore (about Italic exitus of initial PIE voiced
>> aspirated stops).
>
> voiced aspirated stops became devoiced aspirated stops and later
> fricatives. Are you talking about this rule in Italic?

Can't you read?! "Italic exitus" means something precise enough:
all these voiced aspirated stops finally give /f/ when initial,
either in Oscan-Umbrian or in Latin.

>> About Pokorny 380 there is nothing to be said relative to this
>> discussion. Pokorny 376 & 381 hint out that Latin words are not
>> related to the same root. Albanian word is not inherited and
>> cannot be used in speculations about supposed substratal word
>> similar to Latin "familia". The same Pokorny 381 hints out that
>> PIE *dh > Alb. /dj/ (in "djalë"), no way for /f/, end of the story.

... but mostly *dh > Alb. /d/ (derë `door` < *dhwo:r, see also
Pokorny 435, dra `sediment` < *dhrogh, see also Pokorny 398, etc.)

> Well, I wonder about:
> 1)which is the etymology of Albanian "foshnje"= Säugling,

Not inherited according to Demiraj -> of little interest for
substrate. Meanings are not supposed to lie after the sign "="
but between `` or ''.

> [...] and Romanian "fecior"= son;

Had plenty of information on that one. Refresh your memory:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/19442

> 2)I do not forget that Albanian as living languages has an /th/
> versus /f/ ( therrmë/ferrimë): voiced aspirated-stops became
> devoiced aspirated stops and then fricatives. (dh > th> f).

Plain nonsense. PIE voiced aspirated stops just lose aspiration
in (Proto-)Albanian and mix up with voiced stops.

> Is Albanian an Italic language?

No.
Marius Iacomi