27-01-04 20:43, m_iacomi wrote:
> Assuming that the label is rather "corresponding", one should take
> into account not only "cioarã" <=> "sorrë" (`crow`) and "cãciulã" <=>
> "kësulë" (`(fur) cap`) but also "gresie" (AR: greasã, MgR: grEsE -
> `gritstone, whetstone`) <=> "gresë", "abeS" (`really!`) <=> "besë",
> "hameS" (`hungry`) <=> "hamës", "raTã" (`duck`) <=> "rosë" or
> "traista" (`bag`) <=> "tra(j)stë", not to mention other less clear
> correspondences, none of them exhibiting Rom. /c^/ for Alb. /s/.
> Is there any other example for your rule out of the two above-
> mentioned?!
For 'whetstone', the Ectaco dictionary gives Alb. grihë. I haven't
worked out its etymology yet (from *gHrendH-sk-?), let alone its
relation to Rom. greasã, which may be far from straightforward.
Word-finally, as in <abe$> and <hame$>, /s^/ is, I think, a reduced
reflex of *c^, not normally found in this position in Romanian. <raTã>
has /c/, which under my analysis is the intermediate historical stage
between Proto-Albanian *c^ and Modern Albanian /s/, so we may be dealing
with a post-Proto-Albanian loan. There must have been such loans (I also
think <hame$> is not exactly of Balkan Latin age, or it wouldn't have
kept its <h> /x/). Not everything that underlies a "correspondence" is a
substratal word: <trastë> does not look like a native or even a
particularly old word in Albanian. It's practically impossible to get
medial /st/ from anything in the language. A Mediaeval loan from a
common source (which, to be sure, I can't identify at the moment) seems
more likely than anything else.
Piotr