From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 30041
Date: 2004-01-26
> 26-01-04 13:10, Abdullah Konushevci wrote:not
>
> > 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
> survived here.varfër 'orphan'.
>
> > , 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
>that
> Levelled out as above (no -n/-r- alrternation in Tosk). My guess is
> the "dog" word also underwent analogical levelling but in theopposite
> direction (i.e. in favour of -n).and
>
> > But, if we consider Illyrian (attested forms for <dog> are <can>
> > <cand>) as intemediate stage of Albanian, I think that we willhave
> > no difficulty to explain nor Albanian <qen>, niether Alb.no
> > <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
> such assimilation in Albanian, cf. <pjek> vs. Lat coquo:, both fromcalled
> *pekW-. Alb. -rr- doesn't derive from *-rk-. The Turkey oak was
> <cerrus> already in Classical Latin, hence the Albanian word. Ifyou
> propose something illogical, you may expect me to object, and ifyou do
> so again and again, I'll object constantly.************
>
> Piotr