Re: Against the theory of 'Albanian Loans in Romanian'

For the Case 1 : rom. brusture - alb. brushtullë

I can add :
rom. strung~a - alb. shtrungë
rom. sterp - alb. shterp

so OLDER in 'Romanian' that the Latin loans in Albanian...

Because /sht/ is also present in romanian see 's,tii' /shtii/ or
a really albanian loan :

rom. s,tir~a /shtir~a/ - alb . shtjerrë


Regards,
marius alexandru



--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

> Hello Piotr,
>
> Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> > 1. The development of PIE dorsal stops
> > Proto-Albanian loans in Romanian give us some indication of the
> > pronunciation of the reflexes of *k' and *g' at the time of the
> > borrowing: their Modern Romanian reflexes are /c/ ~ /s/ and /z/

(~

> > dialectal /3/).
>
>
> It is not for the first time when you used this concept

of "(proto-)

> albanian loans in Romanian" (first time I heard this when we have
> discussed on the Bessa word...)
>
> In other words your afirmation said that :
>
> A romance language, Romanian, "borrowed" some words from "proto-
> albanian" in a regular manner like we have : Romanian loans from
> Slavic, Hungarian, French etc...
>
> Let's take some cases:
>
> Case 1 : rom. brusture - alb. brushtullë -> "burdock"
> Based on the latin loans in Albanian we know that the
> transformation s->sh was already active in Albanian in
> the Romans times. So the romanian 'brusture' should be loaned in
> Romanian as "brushture" or "brujture" (see rom. ghiuj - alb.
> gjush). As result, if 'brusture' is a loan in Romanian from

Albanian,

> this should be BEFORE the Latins loans in Albanian. But before

this,

> there wasn't any Romanian or Romance language in Balkans, and I can
> add no Albanian, either, in the modern sense of this word.
> There were ONLY three languages in Balkans in the later
> Romanized zones, attested by the ancient greeks-latins scholars :
> Illyrian, Dacian and Thracian (very possible with less or more
> dialects).
>
> We usually talk about Latin loans in Albanian and not Pre-

Romanian

> loans in Albanian, so we should talk here of an equation of at

least

> 4 Languages : Balkan Romance, one (or more) Balkan Ancient Language
> (s) and the modern Romanian and Albanian languages. To talk about
> a 'pre-albanian' concept is like to talk about a 'pre-romanian'
> concept in place to named it as Latin.
>
>
> Case 2: Let's take other examples of such words in Romanian :
> "brad" / "viezure" / "maz~are"
>
> All three of them have the reflex of <dz> /3/ that arrive in
> Romanian as "z" (dz in dialects) and in
>
> Albanian <dh>. Viewing today great difference <dh> versus <z>, we

can

> easy say that "at the supposed loan
>
> moment" the sound "loaned" by the "romanians" was "dz"
>
> Now, yourself (when we have discussed Beekes list) said that the
> Albanian transformation g^(h) -> d(h) is
> EALIER (I can say or at least equal regarding its /dz/) than the
> Latin loans in Albanian.
> If we consider also the romanian transformation from
> Latin : 'dies' - romanian : 'dzi', we see that the
> 'pre-romanians' (to use your concept, and not to say the Dacians)
> already have this sound /dz/ when the Romans arrived, so we don't
> have to take it from Albanians. (Also I don't remember at all a

sound

> like /dz/ in Latin).
>
> As result the "loans" "brad" / "viezure" / "maz~are" should

be

> EARLIER (or at least equal) with the Roman presence in Balkans. But
> once again there wasn't any Romanian language before (or during)
> Romans presence there, so we have to named a 'pre-romanian' non-

latin

> language where these words existed before (or at least, following
> your theory, where this 'proto-albanian' words were borrowed).
>
> Case 3. I can add here as argument for this language : lat. ct -
>
> rom. pt, that clearly indicates a previous PIE *ct reduce to -> t
> at 'pre-romanians'. And no 'Albanian loans' scenario is implied

here.

>
> Case 4. Other words that are against the "loan" theory are :
>
> 4.1 rom. zgard~a -alb . shkardhë
>
> 4.2 rom. s^ambure - alb. thumbullë
>
> that I will not detail here.
>
>
> Conclusion :
> Viewing the great similarities that we have here a correct
> model is to talk about An Ancient Balkan People (and an Ancient
> Balkan language). Part of this people was fully Romanized :
> Romanians, the other part was only partial Romanized : today
> Albanians. (of course we cannot exclude from the beginning that we
> have more than one Ancient Balkan Language in this equation)
>
> In place to talk about 'pre-albanian' we should clearly
> indicate who this people was in the Ancient Times. We correctly

talk

> about the Romans and not about the 'pre-romanians' (Also we are not
> talking about 'pre-french language', 'pre-english language' etc...)
>
> I cannot understand why the Language of this People : is not
> clearly named by you in this equation, when all the evidences

clearly

> indicate it.
>
> Also regarding your theory of "albanian loans in romanian"

as

> Hamp said related to this subject :
> "the loan situation may easily be more complex than

this"

>
>
> Best Regards,
> marius alexandru
>
> P.S. : But the most difficult case on the "supposed albanian

loans

> in romanian" is regarding c^. I made an albanian-romanian list
> regarding c^, during Bessa discussions but with no answer from you
> side. I will try to redo this list in the next days.