From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 27315
Date: 2003-11-17
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski"Well, Demiraj is hardly a database on the web. Neither is Pokorny, despite
><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 someProbably not. Etymology is always work in progress.
>etymological work that is acceptable?
>I see only criticisms but noThe etymology of <zot> is due to Hamp, if I'm not mistaken. It's been
>reference of better, reliable works.
>I hardly can separate zot from *djeu-, despite of the final -t. And,*eu does not give Albanian /o/ (it gives /e/). To explain <zot>, you need
>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:.