From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 27281
Date: 2003-11-16
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 04:33:29 +0000, alexandru_mg3<alexandru_mg3@...>
> wrote:---
>
> > My Arguments Related to your basic explanation:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > I. "it can be derived without the slightest difficulty from---
> >*bHéndH-tah2 (*-twah2 would also work" are:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >(persuasion,
> > Argument 1: if it can be derived "without the slightest
> >difficulty" why Demiraj didn't derived Albanian
> > 'besa' "without the slightest difficulty" from the PIE *bhendh ?
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > As you can see the derivation is from "bh(e)idhi-"
> >oath) and not from the PIE "bhendh".the
> > If it is so obvious as you said, why Demiraj "couldn't find"
> >PIE "bhendh" in this case?say I
>
> Demiraj apparently preferred a derivation from *bheidh-. I must
> don't fully understand Demiraj's etymology. A derivation from thegenitive
> of *bh(e)idhi- (*bh(e)idiós?, *bh(e)idhéis?) could perhaps lead toAlb.
> *biz-, not to besë. I can't consult the Leiden online Demiraj atthe
> moment, so I can't parse the Proto-Albanian form you giveas "biTs/ia", but
> it appears to contain an extra suffix (probably *-tya:).Combinining a
> genitive *biz with a suffix *-tya: could conceivably lead to besë,but on
> the whole I prefer Piotr's expalanation.and under
>
> In Pokorny's IEW, by the way, besë is given _both_ under *bheidh
> *bhendh-.the
>
> > Argument 2: What I found also strange in your derivation is
> >fact that the meaning of the word "besa"IE
> > is COMPLETELY IGNORED : PIE *bhend -> alb. "besa".
> > There isn't an 'obvious word' related to "faith" in any other
> >languages that have derived words fromdifficulty
> >the PIE *bhendh.
>
> English <bond>, German <Bund>.
>
> > Argument 3: The derivation of pese: : indeed has no
> >as result Demiraj 'indicated very easy'Albanian
> > 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:"
>
> I'm afraid your grasp of Albanian soundlaws leaves to be desired.
> /s/ can be derived from many other sources besides *kW+front vowel.or "ts"
> There's *ty, *k^y, *k^w, etc.
>
> > Argument 4: What happens with original "dh" from your
> >PIE "bhendh" until you arrive to 'besa' ?
> > It dissapears "by contraction"? It becomes albanian "t"
> >(the (s) after t is there or not)? Or you completely ignored itthe clash
> >because you need ONLY the 't' fron 'thah2'?
>
> Piotr was assuming a basic knowledge of the soundlaws concerning
> of two dental stops in Proto-Indo-European. The gist of it is thata form
> *bhendh-tah2 will automatically become *bentsta: at some stage of************
> Pre-Albanian. And *bentsta: > *be~c^a > besë.
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...