Re: Albanian Names (2) -> Bessa comeback

> Here is Demiraj derivation for besa:
>
> Albanian form: bese' [f] (tg)
> Meaning: faithfulness, faith
> Proto-Albanian: biTs/ia: {2}
> Other Alb. forms: besoj [verb] (tg) {3} `to believe'
> Page in Demiraj AE: 96
> IE reconstruction: bh(e)idhi- {1}
> Meaning of the IE root: persuasion, oath
> Greek: `persuasion'
> Notes: {1} Based on the genitive. {2} Phonetically, a full
> grade form PAlb. *beiTs/ia: is also possible. {3} Denominative
> formation in -o- of Alb. origin.

[AK]
I support Meyer's explanation of Alb. <be> 'oath' and its
derivatives: besë 'word of honor', besoj 'to believe', besim 'faith,
religion', betohem 'to oath', etc. Meyer derives it from PIE *bheidh-
'to trust, confide, persuade'. Indeed, from o-grade form *bhoidhes >
be (cf. Lat. foedus < *bhoidhes 'treaty, league' > Alb. fe 'faith').

> As you can see the derivation is from "bh(e)idhi-"

(persuasion,

> oath) and not from the PIE "bhendh".
> If it is so obvious as you said, why Demiraj "couldn't find" the
> PIE "bhendh" in this case?

[AK]
PIE *bhendh-, as I have explained once, derives in Alb. <bind> 'to
convince, pesuade' (cf. also përbindsh 'monster') due to Proto-
Albanian soundlaw eCC > iCC (cf. PIE *gherzdh-/g^herzd > Alb. drithë,
PIE *pezd- > Alb. pith).

> Argument 2: What I found also strange in your derivation is

the

> fact that the meaning of the word "besa"
> is COMPLETELY IGNORED : PIE *bhend -> alb. "besa".
> There isn't an 'obvious word' related to "faith" in any other IE
> languages that have derived words from
> the PIE *bhendh.
> As you can see Demiraj TRIED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE MEANING

OF

> THE WORD TOO:
> He proposed 'bh(e)idhi' --> "Meaning of the IE root:
> persuasion, oath"
>
> My question is : did you ignored the meaning of the word in
> your derivation? Seems yes...
>
>
> Argument 3: The derivation of pese: : indeed has no

difficulty

> as result Demiraj 'indicated very easy'
> IE : *penkwe (as you did too).
>
> But there is a problem with "bese:" and from there
> some 'obvious' workarounds :
>
> a) your workaround : "tah2 (*-twah2 would also work; both
> suffixes form nomina actionis)".
>
> b) Demiraj workaround : '{1} Based on the genitive' etc...
>
> A "real" IE root for 'besa' have to contains a "kw" or
> something related in the stem...as in "pese:"
> My question is : where is the PIE root that has a "kw" or
> something related for bese:?
>
>
> Argument 4: What happens with original "dh" from your
> PIE "bhendh" until you arrive to 'besa' ?
> It dissapears "by contraction"? It becomes albanian "t"

or "ts"

> (the (s) after t is there or not)? Or you completely ignored it
> because you need ONLY the 't' fron 'thah2'?
>
> In any case, here is a well known example where IE "dh"

simply

> became alb. "d"
>
> IE : *dhwer-, *dhwor- ----> Albanian derë
> Meanings: a doorway, a door, a gate ----> Meaning : a
> gate.
>
> So the main transformation is : IE.dh -> Alb.d .
>
> Could you give us similar transformation of IE "dh" ->

alb. "t"

> or "ts" ? Could we have 2 transformation quite different

where 'dh' -

> > t,ts and dh-> d? Or 'dh' in 'bhendh' dissapears and the 'magic
> word' 'tha2' appears again to explain the inexplicable...
>
>
> Argument 5: Why a 'nomina actionis' form for this derivation?
> Why not a verbal form?
> Only to 'can arrive' to derive 'besa'?
> (at least both have the same probability (we have also the
> verb 'besoj'...).
>
> Viewing this my conclusion is the following :
>
> a) the PIE root for 'besa' cannot be easy explained by IE
> root 'bhendh'
>
> b) even more, there is not easy to derive albanian "besa" from

a

> known IE PIE
> (see Piotr's 'tha2' or Demiraj 'genitive form').
>
> As result : <alb. besa is an ancient loan (why not

from 'bessi'

> attested around 500BC by Herodot (485 - 425 BC), quite old isn't

it)

> and because it is an ancient loan could be very well viewed
> as 'inherited' compared with quite recently 'slavic loans' in
> albanian.
>
>
> II. Now to come back more closer to our days : from the "IE

times"

> to "proto-albanian" or why not "pre-albanian" times, and take a

look

> on the problem of Albanian "c^" :
>
> Here are the "loans" from Romanian to Albanian regarding the alb.
> and rom. fricatives :
>
> (better to say "supposed to be from Albanian to Romanian" ->you
> need to make a demonstration here too
> regarding the direction of these loans (see below)) ) of the
> alb. and rom. fricatives :
>
> #-----------------------------------------------------------
> Alb. , Rom. ,Alb. <-> Rom.Words, Alb. sounds
> #-----------------------------------------------------------
> ç , ci ,çok <-> cioc , alb. ç as ch in church
> # , ,çukë <-> ciucă ,
> # , ,çufkë <-> ciuf ,
> # , ,çupis <-> ciupi ,
> #-----------------------------------------------------------
> c , ţ ,cap <-> ţap , alb. c as ts in

cats

> # , ,cjap <-> ţap ,
> #-----------------------------------------------------------
> q , ce ,qafë <-> ceafă ,alb. q as ch in chair
> #-----------------------------------------------------------
> s , ci ,sorrë <-> cioară ,alb. s as s in see
> , ,kësulë<-> căciulă ,
> #---------------------------------------------------------
> th , ţ ,thep <-> ţeapă ,alb. th as th

in three =

>
> # ,-------,---------------------------,-------------
> th , ci ,thump -> ciump ,alb. th as th in three
> # ,-------,---------,---------,-----------------------
> th.........
>
>
> if you go on with your assumption "loans from Albanian to
> Romanian" as you can see the situation of these loans is quite
> complex and your afirmation "ancient albanian ci kept by romanian"
> became "today albanian s" ...is at least not complete:

[AK] It is generally known that borrowed words preserved much oldest
forms, the phenomenon noticed at all languages in close contact.

> It generates the following doubts.
>
> a) If all these words are "loans from Albanian to Romanian"

the

> albanian "ancient" "ci" (c^) ("borrowed and kept by romanian"
> as "ci") could have as correspondants sounds in today Albanian
> not ONLY an s but also a th or a ç :
> 1. ci <-> th (thump <-> ciump)
> 2. ci <-> s (kësulë <->

căciulă)

> 3. ci <-> ç (çok <-> cioc)
>
> As you can see from this examples an 'ancient' albanian 'ci'
> could very well remained today "ci" as from "cioc->çok" or could
> evolved to a "th" as in 'ciump->thump'...or (as you supposed)

evolved

> to an s as in "căciulă->kësulë" or in "cioară-
>sorrë".
> The "Babylonie" of such conclusion results in my opinion due to

the

> first assumption :
> 'all these are loans from Romanian to Albanian'==> that is either
> completely false or in any case
> if it is not false you should clearly indicate the TIMEFRAMES for
> each of these changes...if you want to give
> a serious explanation on 'ci' <-> 's' transformation.
>
> b) As regarding the slavic earlier loans (if they are really
> slavic loans, I have doubts here too) in albanian the s remain s as
> in :
>
> 1. <rom. sitã , <eng. sieve, grill , <sl. sito , <alb.

sitë

> 2. <rom. coasã , <eng. scythe , <sl. kosa , <alb.

kosë

>
> so the albanian transformation (so s->sh seems finished at that
> moment, by the way you have to indicate the
> TIMEFRAME(->start,->end) of Albanian "s->sh" transformation too)
>
> My doubts are :
>
> 1. You have to indicate why the Albanian-Romanian common

words

> you considered Romanian loans from Albanian.
>
> 2. You have to indicate with arguments why and especially

WHEN

> the "ci<->s" appears in Albanian
> ( related also to "ci<->th" and "ci<->ç" timeframes)
>
>
> Best Regards,
> marius

Konushevci