From: alex
Message: 30288
Date: 2004-01-29
> 29-01-04 18:39, alex wrote:I agree. Just keep in mind that Latin "torquere" > toarce in Rom with
>
>
>> hmmmm.. hmmmmm. something deos not fit well here. It cannot be that
>> latin "ke" becam palatal but Slavic "c^" became "s". Simply ,
>> chronologicaly it does not fit.
>> Assuming ProtoAlbanians loaned some words from BalkanLatin, there
>> must have had the sound "c^" which should be reflected by Albanian
>> as "s" if there are indeed Slavic loans where "c^" is reflected as
>> "s".
>> The exampel of "t�rsira" .. from Slavic "trak" from an *tark...
>> strange... there is Latin "torquere" which should give in PBR
>> "torc^e and will fit for Albanian "t�rsira" as well, don't you find?
>
> <torquere> is the infinitive of a verb meaning 'twist, wrench'. It
> fits the Albanian word neither semantically nor formally (Lat. <que>
> doesn't give Alb. s, the stress pattern is all wrong, Albanian didn't
> borrow Latin infinitives, let alone changing them into nouns). Now
> *torkU 'ribbon, string' is an attested Slavic word, and *-ina is a
> very productive Slavic suffix which originally meant 'a piece of ...'.
> *torc^ina is therefore a perfect match for <t�rsir�> on all counts.
> I'm grateful to Abdullah for this beautiful example, because it shows
> no fewer than three features of a very old loan: absence of
> metathesis, /s/ for *c^, and rhotacism.
>
> Piotr