Re: [tied] Samus -> Zomus : Albanian transformation?

Hello Alex,

The transformations in my opinion are :

Samus -> Zomus
---------------

1) s -> z (but z didn't arrive next to gj as in 'South'
Albanian)

The transformation is located by Piotr in pre-Roman Times:

"Before Late Proto-Albanian (i.e. in pre-Roman times) *s underwent
voicing prevocalically in stressed syllables but remained voiceless
elsewhere (unless already lost). "


*serpm.no -> *ziärpan -> Geg gjarpën, Tosk gjarpër 'snake'
*supno -> *zum(n) -> gjumë 'sleep'

In my opinion we are here in a zone where the second transformation
z->z^->gj didn't take place.


( See also Dacian : Salmoxis -> Zalmoxis, for s->z)



2. a: -> o normal transformation
like in ma:kHana: > mokën/mokër 'millstone'.

(see Dacian : Patavissa -> Potaissa )


3. us -> ush ( I marked ush because in the Medieval Latin is
normal that 'sh' to be marked only by 's')

Here -us is not a Latin termination so is not necessary to be
lost in all its positions like in Balkan Latin and to be borrowed as
a lost termination e: etc.. So your examples with Latin -um,-us are
not appropiate.

Please see : *h2o:(u)s -> vesh 'ear'

(as you can see here a final 's' is conserved in 'sh')

So the form *Zomush attested Zomus (in Hungarian Medieval Latin
Texts), seems a very likely Albanoid Form (only the transformation z-

>z^->gj didn't take place in this region).

Any other opinion is welcome here.

Best Regards,
marius alexandru


P.S. :
What about the possibility to be Slavic, Germanic or Latin?
(that in my opinion this is not possible)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> > Hello All,
> > Could you validate if the transformation :
> >
> > Samus (sec I en) -> Zomus ( sec XII en) represents a normal
> > Albanian transformation. (In my opinion, yes, it represents).
> >
> > "Qui cum fugeret, properans ad castrum suum iuxta fluuium
> > Zomus positum, milites Tuhutum audaci cursu persequentes, ducem
> > Geloum iuxta fluuium Copus interfecerunt."
> >
> > Some additional validation - could be :
> > A valid Latin transformation ? (in my opinion no)
> > A Slavic one ? (in my opinion no)
> > A Germanic one ? (in my opinion no)
> >
> > If we have an afirmative answer, this could indicate that an
> > Albanoid population (a Dacian population) survive in Transylvania
> > between sec I AC - sec XI AC.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > marius alexandru
>
> Samus > Zomus does not looks as a valid change in Albanian.
> the "s" from Roman times > "sh" in Albanian
> the "u" from "-um", "-us" at end of the word generated "-ëm" in
> Albanian, se Latin "balsamum" > "balshëm"
> (short "u">"ë", long "u:" > "y" as in amicus > myk
>
> The initial sequence "sa" >" shë" in Albanian like in "sanctus"
> >"shënt" but there is an exception considered
> that "sa-" >"za" as in "sabulum" >"zall" where I think the etymology
> given by Mihaescu is wrong.
>
> Due the known soundlaws I should say that apparently the ancient
> "Samus" should have yelded "*Shëmë" in Alb. but not "Zomus".
>
> Alex