Re: Romance Pequeno, Pequeño, Petit, Piccolo

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci" wrote:

>>> According to Watkins, this root is treated in satem languages as
>>> not ending in palatal, but like in pure velar.
>>
>> Latin is not satem but centum, as well as Celtic & Germanic.
>
> [AK]
> What are talking about? Is everything OK with you? Do you here about
> different treatment of palatals in centum and satem languages?

Just look the Subject line of the thread. That's what I am talking
about. Aren't you?!
For your claimed phonetism *k^ > Alb. /ts/ see e.g.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/28110
(#11) or Piotr's detailed explanations on Albanian phonetism (1).
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/29877
Actually *k^> Alb. /T/ (th) or /k/, no way for /ts/

[...]

>> The evolution *peik^> Alb. pikë was exclusively your own proposal:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/21193
>> reiterated in:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/25917
>> (heralded by none) and has some semantic difficulties in order to
>> get `point, drop, small quantity` from `paint` (one can advocate
>> for a path `paint` -> `painted, coloured` -> `with paint spots` ->
>> `spot` -> `drop producing the spot` -> `drop` -> `small quantity`,
>> but a basical meaning `drop` looks much more realistic since a
>> (falling) drop of paint (or even water, depending on involved
>> surface) naturally creates a `spot`).
>
> [AK]
> Does it matter are you heralded or not by anyone,

It doesn't matter as long as you don't imply that your favorite
theory was accepted as logical result of debates on cybalist. Being
treated "in length" (actually mentioned in other contexts by others)
doesn't account for correctness of your guess.

> if you believe that you have right.

Being right or wrong is a matter of probability. I already pointed
out in the first answer why your theory sounds semantically not so
convincing; I added now also some phonetical reasons which speak
against it. I do not claim your theory is wrong, but it is _highly
unlikely_ -> _very probably_ wrong.

> After all, from the beginning I find myself strange in this very
> unfrankly forum and really I am thinking to leave it forever.
> Maybe you and others like you will much enjoy in self-delusion.
> But, this force me to not give up.

I don't get your point. AFAIK, this is a linguistic forum and I am
not concerned with other (personal) purposes.

>> By no means one should separate Romanian word from other Romance
>> words, in the first place. Demiraj says nothing about any "mic-"
>> word, the first guess is either VL or Greek, languages known to
>> have had some influence on Albanian.
>
> [AK]
> I didn't like once to react when you reiterate this claim, but I am
> warning you that Alb. /c/ is equal to Rom. /T/

Thank you for the kind (though unnecessary) warning that Albanian
_spelling_ <c> (not /c/) reflects the phoneme /ts/ (transliterated
in Romanian language words and only on cybalist as <T>).
You are referring probably to your own message:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/28200
in which you
You are the one claiming up that "Rom. <mic> 'small' [cannot be
separated] from Alb. <micërr> 'trifle', <mickël>". Therefore, you
accept that Romanian /k/ should be considered as corresponding to
Albanian /ts/ but you deny firmly the same could held for Latin /k/
in *miccus/*micca:

> and in no case you could derive Alb. <micërroj> 'to trifle' or
> <mickël> from any Greek or Latin words.

Existence of VL form is well argued with modern Romance words, so
the most likely theory about Romanian "mic" is the one of "mic" being
a banal inherited word. If you insist on linking it with Albanian
longer words, you must face the same phonetical problem in the
opposite sense.

> Until, Rom. form I think is <mic> not <misk> to avoid
> the homonymy with verbal suffix -sc.

I do not get your point on this.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi