Re: [tied] Re: Gland

m_iacomi wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci" wrote:
>
>> Can't you find more convincing <ghindura> to be derived from common
>> Alb.-Rom. form <glendërë>, for all latin words that contain
>> -ent/-end have outcome -int/-ind: mens, -tis > Rom. minte 'mind',
>> parens, -tis > Romm. pãrinte 'parent' [...]
>
> Latin "glandula" does not contain -ent/-end, so all discussion about
> the outcome of this ending has no relevance. Latin "glandula" > Rom.
> "ghindurã" is perfectly regular and in semantical fit, as well as in
> other Romances (see e.g. Italian "ghiandola" for that matter). Since
> phonetical evolution is specifical to Romanian (gl- > g(j)-, -l- >
> -r- between vowels), the most probable hypothesis is that Albanian
> word is a late loan from (Common) Romanian.

1) the begin of the word is problematic for Romanian. There cannot be
any "ghian" > "gin" unless one want to admit as follow:
- a > â (before nC) prior to gl > gl'> ghi
2) the end of the word make it problematic for Albanian. Alb. "ë" from
CommonRomanian "u" somewhere between V-IX century?
- any slavic word which can support a such treatment as well for
seing a such change in a such late period of time?

>
>> [...] so from a suffixed form *glend (Alb. <len(d)ë> 'acorn', Rom.
>> <ghindã)) could much easier be derived as Rom. <ghindura>, as Alb.
>
> Lat. "gla:nde(m)" > Rom. "ghindã" has no problem of derivation, be
> it semantical or phonetical.

Correct about semantical aspect for "glandem" > "ghinda"; not very
clean regarding the phonology since there is one_word_rule. The
Italian word here is "ghianda" and means the same as in Latin and
Romanian.

> OTOH, a parallel semantical evolution
> in Latin & Albanian from the meaning 'acorn' to the meaning 'gland',
> 'ganglion' at two different historical stages looks _very_ unlikely.
>
> Regards,
> Marius Iacomi

The same argumentation is for the development with the meaning
"Geschwür" in Italian since Latin did not know this meaning and this
meaning is considered by several scholars to be a "balkanic
development of the meaning". If they are true, then there is only one
explanation. The word is not inherited in Italian but it entered
Italia with the Valahian fighters in the VI century. For details about
a such scenario, see campains of Justinian and his wars in Italy. Of
course one can assume the development is a special "eastern Latin"
which appeared in "late Latin" and iradiated somewhere in East but
reached Italy as well:-))

Alex