[tied] Re: illyrian lexicon or inventory

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:26:19 +0000, Marco Moretti
> <marcomoretti69@...> wrote:
>
> >--- 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.

> Well, Demiraj is hardly a database on the web. Neither is Pokorny,

despite

> it being available on the web at the same site.

I found Demiraj as a database on web, although I know that the
original work was a book. I've got Pokorny's books.
At this moment the site is not accessible, so I can't control Demiraj
work in details.

> >Does exist some
> >etymological work that is acceptable?
>
> Probably not. Etymology is always work in progress.

> >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:.
>
> *eu does not give Albanian /o/ (it gives /e/). To explain <zot>,

you need

> PIE */e:/ or */a:/. Moreover, the combination *dieu- + *pot- is not
> attested anywhere else, whereas *w(e)ik^- + *pot- is a common

variant of

> *dom- + *pot-, attested in Sanskrit (vis'páti-, vis'patni:) and

Baltic

> (waispattin, vies^pats, vies^pati). Additionally, the derivation

zot <

> *wik^a:pot- ipso facto explains zet "20" < *wi:k^m.ti:, so it must

be true.

Now, I have studied something on Pokorny. I have found no etymology
for zot. For zonjë there is a simple derivation from *gWenja:, from
the IE root for "woman". It is even more simpler than my proposal and
needs no root *djeu-, but I have some doubt about its reliability.
Perhaps there are other problems. Your criticism of the evolution
of /eu/ seems to be right. I'll reexamine all the matter later on.

Marco