Abdullah Konushevci wrote:
> It seems that in Romanian <boasca> and Alb. <bujashkë> 'splinter,
> chip (of wood) we another concordance. To my view, Alb. <bujashka>
> can't be separable from <ashkë> 'splinter, chip, scrap'. If we agree
> that -kë is diminutive suffix, then we accept Orel's etymology AED,
> pp.11) that Alb. <ashkë> is derived from PIE *ak^s-, probably
> extended root of *ak^-, comparable with Skt aksa-, Greek akson and
> Lat. axis.
>
> Konushevci
Other scholars belives that Albanian "ashkë"(as^k&) is seen as Romanian
"aSchie" (as^kie) as being derivatives of Latin "ascla"( = "astula" or
"assula")
Assuming the etymology of Orel will be the right one how do you explain
the phonological development?
I assume you want to take just PIE *ak^- and you want to compbine with
"-ke" as diminutival suffix. Thus you will have a kind of *ak^-ke; this
word will work maybe for Albanian accepting the satem version of "ak" as
"as-" one will have *ak^-ke > *aske > as^k&
The word won't work for Romanian. And not because of the "s^" ; this can
be assumed is to explain trough "albanoid elements in Romanian" but it
won't work for the "kie" where we have no africated "c^" as expected.
Concret, the root *ak^-kë, even with the change of the stress for
allowing the diphtongation of /e/ to /ie/ and with an "s^" from Albanian
should have given an *as^c^e ; without diphtongation of "e" one should
have had an *as^k& which is the Albanian word "ashkë", but not the
romanian one (ashkie).
Assuming that the scholars which sustain a derivation from Latin "ascla"
I beg you for showing the transformations in Albanian and I will show
the trouble in Romanian.
Assuming that "cl" > "cl^" one will have an ascla > ascl^a; this
"ascl^a" shoud be reduced to an "ascia" we have trouble to explain th
"s^" since the group "sci" should have yelded "s^ti" in Rom; thus the
Latin word "ascla" should have given "aStia" in Rom. We have a lot of
phonetical curiosities in Rom. but no alternance "Sti" versus "Ski" for
thinking that a time the words have been co-existed together in the
forms as^kia/*as^tia and somehow the form "as^kia" imponed itself.
How we will drow this the problem which remains is here the Rom. "kie",
better said, the "clean" velar "k" there when followed by a front wowel.
Since the Rom. "ki" and "gi" (not "g^i") are seen just as the result of
Latin groups "cl" and "gl", one will have trouble to explain it. Which
phonetical alternatives remains open?
- there is a sufix "e" which was felt as suffix , thus the root should
have been *ask-
- there is an "h" after "k" whici did not allowed the change of k+ front
vowel to /c^/
Do I forget something here?
As for "boascã" < *boske/boska I cannot relate to anything very
sure.Maybe PIE gWos- (Pokorny #725);
Alex