>>If there are questions regarding Rom. "brãdish", then this mean
>>'fir-tree forest' .
>
>Albanian -(ë)sht(-ë) and -ishte are not the same. Only the
>latter is of Slavic origin.
>
>Piotr
In Romanian, the most productive suffix attached to tree names
for the collective meaning "forest" is: -et (as in other Romance
languages).
This is also the case of the (substratic) word discussed here:
brad + -et => brãdet [br&-'det]. Within the natural borders of the
DacoRomanian dialect, brãdet is by far the most frequent.
Brãdi$ is a synonym thereof, and by far not as frequent as
brãdet. Besides, brãdiS can be ambiguous in unclear contexts,
since it also means 2 kinds of lacustrine herbs/plants:
Ceratophyllum and Myriophyllum. A further usage of brãdi$ is
extended to water areas where these two plants thrive.
The suffix -i$ (e.g. stejãri$, pãltini$, cãrpini$ - replace-
able with stejãret, cãrpinet; but on pãltinet the dictionary
keeps mum) is second to -et, but it can be applied to words
describing areas outside of or surrounded by a forest: lumini$.
For such collectiva as fãgét, ulmét, nucét there are no
synonyms like *fãgi$, *ulmi$, *nuci$. Nor for scorãget/scoru-
get *scori$ (here, it'd be even more difficult to add -i$,
since the name of the tree that generates the collectivum
with -et is scorú$ (e.g. Sorbus domestica)).
The 3rd suff., the Slavic -i$te, is of less importance (almost
none) in the context of "forest". It is relevant for other
aspects of landscapes (priveli$te!) (incl. cultivated lots,
e.g. with corn, porumbi$te; incl. surfaces (barely) covered
with grass, e.g. miri$te; as well as in toponyms (sometimes
as reflexes of these): Sãli$te, Sili$tea, Lovi$tea, Pocioveli$te,
Mosti$tea, Scrovi$tea (-i$te makes fem. nouns). Of course,
nobody mixes up -i$te with the plural suffix -e$ti, as in
Bucure$ti; the singular counterpart thereof is -escu, which
is similar to suffixes in other IE languages such as -isk
and -esca/-o/-esque.).
George