Re: [tied] Re: Dog

26-01-04 13:42, Abdullah Konushevci wrote:

> I was not aware that Pokorny does propose an Illyrian etymology forn
> ancient Canda:via, but to this conclusion I came leaded by Milan
> Shufflay in the mentioned book.

But Pokorny divides it into Can- + -da:via :-(

> Exactly, only the Illyrian form explain the lack of rhotacism in Tosk
> dialect, because we haven't intervocalic /n/, but cluster /nd/, which
> regularly stop the rhotacism in Tosk dialect: cf. all verbs in the
> third person plural in ending -në testify that their primary form
> was -nt (Lat. amant 'they love', Pers. darand 'they have'). In the
> same way we may explain participle in -në.
> In inherited dictionary we have also Alb. (g.) hânë, (t.) hënë from
> PIE *skend- 'to shine', etc. So, Illyrian <cand> is by all means an
> intermediary form of Alb. (g.) <qen>, (t.) qën, through i-Umlaut
> (kandi> qeni/qëni). See also message 30003.

The problem, as I have already pointed out, is that it's impossible to
get <qen-> (or older *kan-) from *k^wn.- in inherited words in Albanian.
You could at best claim a borrowing from Illyrian if it could be
proved (but how?) that the Illyrian word for 'dog' was *kant- or *kand-.
But why introduce words that are either completely unattested or
extracted ad hoc from obscure placenames? This kind of speculation can
produce only fairy tales.

Piotr