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

Hello M. Iacomi,
Your said that :
1. " Since /*s/ > /sh/ happened for sure at some historical
moment in Albanian and since all Latin loanwords in Albanian exhibit
this feature, the most likely assumption is of course that the change
took place afterwards."

This is only one possibility. And it isn't 'the most likely' in
this situation (viewing the moment of the slavic loans)
The other one is that /*s/ > /sh/ was ALREADY active on all the
period of Latin loans, and that 'strunga','sterp','brusture' etc...
are older than this moment
(but I will come back tomorrow with my detail justification on
this point).

II. " Rather this phonological phenomenon ceased at some moment
before the first Slavic loanwords in Albanian."
You are right here. It could ceased just before, but as well it
could cease long before. In any case NOT one day before 'site' was
loaned.

III. "Assuming that the label is rather "corresponding""
I fully agree with you. I always write "loans" and not loans,
to put in evidence this. I can even accept loans until the final
demonstration, but in any case 'not from proto-albanian to proto-
romanian', but before this.
(but I also agree with what Piotr said, that not all these
words are inherited words).


Best Regards,
marius alexandru

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" wrote:
>
> > about the relation Alb. "sh"=Rom."s" we can say just that the
> > "loans" from Albanian into Rom.
>
> For the moment, the best label would be not "loans" but "words
> in correspondence" since their status is still to be clarified.
>
> > It seems there is no way to find out if this change in Albanian
> > of "s" > "sh" did happened before the first loans from Latin and
> > the Latin sound "s" has been rendered as "sh" or the change
> > "s" > "sh" did happened after the loans of the Latin words into
> > Albanian.
>
> Since /*s/ > /sh/ happened for sure at some historical moment in
> Albanian and since all Latin loanwords in Albanian exhibit this
> feature, the most likely assumption is of course that the change
> took place afterwards. The idea of perfectly regular rendering of
> Latin /s/ with /sh/ due to phoneme mismatch sounds pretty odd.
>
> > There appear for sure just when the phenomenum stoped and that is
> > beginning with the first Slavic loans into Albanian.
>
> Rather this phonological phenomenon ceased at some moment before
> the first Slavic loanwords in Albanian.
>
> Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
>
> > What I actually mean is that Proto-Albanian (or Albanoid) loans
> > in Romanian show Rom. /c^/ for Alb. /s/ (of whatever origin).
>
> 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?!
>
> Regards,
> Marius Iacomi