Re: [tied] Re: Dog

26-01-04 13:10, Abdullah Konushevci wrote:

> Retention of the final /n/ we have also in: Lat. fraxinus > (g.)
> frashën, but Tosk <frashër> 'ash(-tree)'

Levelled out in favour of -r in Tosk. The alternation *-n/*-r- has not
survived here.

> , Lat. arena > (g.) rânë, but
> Tosk <rëra> 'sand',

Non-final (and, of course, non-alternating).

> Lat. ordo, -inis > (g.) urdhë, (t.)
> urdhër 'order', Lat. orphanus > (g.) i vorfun, (t.) i varfër 'orphan'.

Levelled out as above (no -n/-r- alrternation in Tosk). My guess is that
the "dog" word also underwent analogical levelling but in the opposite
direction (i.e. in favour of -n).

> But, if we consider Illyrian (attested forms for <dog> are <can> and
> <cand>) as intemediate stage of Albanian, I think that we will have
> no difficulty to explain nor Albanian <qen>, niether Alb.
> <qerr>/<qarr> 'cerris, oak'< *kWerkW-(attested Illyrian forms
> <Kerkyra>/<Korkyra), the thesis that you object constantly.

*kWerkW- is not PIE but Italic (from assimilated *perkW-). There's no
such assimilation in Albanian, cf. <pjek> vs. Lat coquo:, both from
*pekW-. Alb. -rr- doesn't derive from *-rk-. The Turkey oak was called
<cerrus> already in Classical Latin, hence the Albanian word. If you
propose something illogical, you may expect me to object, and if you do
so again and again, I'll object constantly.

Piotr