From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 30031
Date: 2004-01-26
> 26-01-04 13:42, Abdullah Konushevci wrote:forn
>
>
> > I was not aware that Pokorny does propose an Illyrian etymology
> > ancient Canda:via, but to this conclusion I came leaded by MilanTosk
> > Shufflay in the mentioned book.
>
> But Pokorny divides it into Can- + -da:via :-(
>
> > Exactly, only the Illyrian form explain the lack of rhotacism in
> > dialect, because we haven't intervocalic /n/, but cluster /nd/,which
> > regularly stop the rhotacism in Tosk dialect: cf. all verbs inthe
> > third person plural in ending -në testify that their primary formthe
> > was -nt (Lat. amant 'they love', Pers. darand 'they have'). In
> > same way we may explain participle in -në.from
> > In inherited dictionary we have also Alb. (g.) hânë, (t.) hënë
> > PIE *skend- 'to shine', etc. So, Illyrian <cand> is by all meansan
> > intermediary form of Alb. (g.) <qen>, (t.) qën, through i-Umlautto
> > (kandi> qeni/qëni). See also message 30003.
>
> The problem, as I have already pointed out, is that it's impossible
> get <qen-> (or older *kan-) from *k^wn.- in inherited words inAlbanian.
> You could at best claim a borrowing from Illyrian if it could be*kand-.
> proved (but how?) that the Illyrian word for 'dog' was *kant- or
> But why introduce words that are either completely unattested orcan
> extracted ad hoc from obscure placenames? This kind of speculation
> produce only fairy tales.************
>
> Piotr