Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:38:08 +0100, alex <alxmoeller@...>
> wrote:
>
>> Something strange here. Not only Alb. but even Greek seems to have
>> developed this "y" in "gi". At least for rom. "jura" (< *giura) to
>> swear, the shcolars see it as a loan from Greek.
>
> Which shcolars? Latin iu:ra:re < iouesa:- (from the same root as ju:s
> "law") is not a loan from Greek.
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
Rosetti shows in its ILR )1968,pag. 113)the explanation of A. Philippide
in "Altgrichische Elemente im Rumänischen" where Rom. "jura" must be
explained trough Greek "giuros" ( gama-upsilon-tho-omikron-xi).
Now it is of course very strange to see in Rom. the "i" > "g"; this is a
change which cannot happen in a normal way.That should be an observation
(please keep in mind I know the explanation of i > g for explaining the
word trough Latin and I know all other examples where is considered the
same that i > g).
The second observation should be that for Latin "ius" the IE cognates
are very unsure. Old Latin "ious, iuris (< *ioueses)
could be comparated just with Indic "yoh" (Heil) and Avestan
"yaoz-dadaiti" ( macht heillig, reinigt rituell) which can be comparated
just with much indulgence from the semantic aspect.
What disturbs me here is that we know Latin lost in some cases the
initial velar "g"; in Greek we haven a "g", In Alb. is too an "g".
Seeing that one wild speculation should be there has been an "g^" lost
in Latin but mentained in the other language.
Alex