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

alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> 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'

How Piotr mentions here; "before PreRoman time" IE "s" > "z". The name
of the river should have been in Dacian then "Zamus" and not "Samus";
the recorded name is however "Samus"

>
> In my opinion we are here in a zone where the second

transformation

> z->z^->gj didn't take place.

"zone"=?

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

where?

>
> 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'

Actually Alb. "vesh" is Rom. "auz" with "au" > "ve"

>
> (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.

Assuming a living Dacian population in the XII century , the migrating
Romanians in their region should have got the word directly from them
thus "*Zomush" with posible variant "*Zãmush" as you postulate. Fact
is, the romanian name is "somesh"; how would you explain the "e" and
the "s" in Rom. ?

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

that does't look as any Slavic, Germanic or Latin change.