[tied] Re: illyrian lexicon or inventory

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> Some of Demiraj's etymologies are unacceptable, and this is one of

them. The

> idea (reappearing on this list) that <zot> is derivable from *djeu-

is a

> ghost that should have been put to rest a long time ago. A so-so

explanation

> of the vocalism could be offered, but the final <-t> remains

unaccounted

> for. Furthermore, one can't accept any etymology that doesn't deal

with

> <zot> and <zonjë> together and fails to explain their "lord and

lady"

> semantics. The following etymologies fare much better:
>
> *wik^á:-pot- > *dz^a:(p)t- > zot
> *wik^á:-potn(i)ja: > *dz^a:(pt)nja: > zonjë
>
> *w(i)k^- > *dzw- > *dz^- > z- as in *wik^m.tih1 > *dz^ati- > -

zet '20'.

> Strange but true.

Yes, yes, every database on web in shotty, amateurish, not reliable
at all, I have heard this story many times. Does exist some
etymological work that is acceptable? I see only criticisms but no
reference of better, reliable works. I find only sparce etymological
discussion that hardly clarifies something. Nobody agrees in anything
with anybody else, it looks like a continuous and vain skirmish.
I'm sorry, but I consider all this as a clear symptom of the
decadence of Science.

I hardly can separate zot from *djeu-, despite of the final -t. And,
I have an idea, why it can't be

> *dieu-pot- > *dz^o:(p)t- > zot
> *dieu-potn(i)ja: > *dz^o:(pt)nja: > zonjë

It is quite simple, we have other occurrences of initial *j- > z-.
It is less convoluted than your explanation, that implies loss of an
initial syllable and preservation of a thematic -a:- in *wik^á:.

Regards

Marco