Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> I'll be hanged if I understand what you mean. Anyways, to get <besë>
> from *pak^- (even ignoring the question of *p- > b-, which mustn't be
> left unaccounted for) you'd need something like *pak^wih2 (so that *a
> can become umlauted to give modern <e>, and *-k^w- can produce <s>)
> transformed into an *-a: stem. But what the heck is *pak^wih2? An
> unheard-of derivative (and the embarrassing question of *p- > b-
> remains). Your proposal creates lost of problems and solves none.
>
> Piotr
*pak^wih2 can be "pãciui"= to make pace; to agree together; to make a
pact with each other.
See here Rom. "impãca"= to conciliate, to make it up.
the Rom. word " a impãca" with noun "împãcre"is given as from Latin
*impacare.
Of course it could not be derived from Latin "pax" or from "pacis"
because there is no way of getting "-ca" at the end, thus it was
supposed already the "-ca" in the joker which is the Vulgare Latin.
The problem which I have in this case is with "sorrë" and "cioarã; on
your idea there should have been an *k^wore for having the actual Rom.
and Alb. words; does it works? Only with the condition "k^w" > "cio" and
that will mean the /k^/ have had an kind of frontvowel, something which
allowed to become actual "c^" for giving later the Alb. "s".
I have a bad feeling that one of the languages of the Balkans have
changed the old /p/, /t/, /k/ in /b/,/d/,/g/ but we don'T know to name
it ( illirian, thracian?) either we know in which exactly conditions
this happened. Or it was the /bh/, /dh/, /gh/ which undergone this shift
to /p/, /t/, /k/ ? Stil a lot of fog here. I guess I have to re-read a
bit about Deçev's suggestions on this aspect. I have had this idea when
we spoked about "ognis" and the "bher-" root. You accentuated now this
feeling that there should be done some more research.
Alex