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

alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> b) The start of s->sh. Piotr himself indicate that this is
> started after 600 AC (in my opinion no later than 650 AD -700AD ).

We

> can only say that s->z finished before this.
>
> a) The Semi-romanization of Albanians. In my opinion,this took
> place, after the Romanization of Romanians (so the main interval is
> 300AD - 600 AD).
> Based on Latin Loans we can only say the s->z finished before
> 300AD. So it can well be attested as 's', before this, around 50-70
> AD. As result an attested 's' in sec I AC could be very well

possible.


Let me beginn with something else. The Romanistic School invented this
term as "semi-romanization" of Albanians. There is no
"semi-romanization" in Albanian. Albanian has a huge lexical Latin
words, but less as Slavic words; neither Slavic, nor Latin changed
anything in the structure of Albanian language. In the same way one
has to agree with Cabej, there is no "substrat" as such in Albanian,
but the language with diference lexical loans from Greek, Latin,
Slavic, Romance, NeoGreek, Italian etc.

Piotr could not indicate the start of s > sh since this is undatable;
Piotr showed up that some Slavic words considered to be very old loans
in Albanian suffer too the change s > sh. When the s < sh started is
imposible to say so far I know since all lexical loans from OldGreek
or Latin are all affected by this change. So , Piotr just showed that
in the time the Slavs came, eventually the change s > sh was still
active.

>
> Also it is possible that :
> *supno -> *zum(n) -> gjumë 'sleep' is not inherited but
> loaned from Latin as the Romanian 'somn' is.
>
> If true , this could show us a LATER timeframe for s->z than
> Piotr's supposed 'pre-Roman times'.

hard to say here; latin group "mn" is rendered in Albanian once as
"mb" and once as "m"( damnum > dam; scamnum > shcâmb).

>
> Some Albanian Latin examples here with a stressed 's' syllable
> that becomes 'sh' in place of 'gj' should be very helpful to can
> clarify this.

I am not aware of any Latin "s" yelding "gj" in Albanian: Latin "s" is
represented trough "sh". There are though two words where there is an
"z" , coincidentaly exactly the words where Rom. has too an "z". For
these words there is considered to be a Latin etinom. The words are
"scabia" > "zgjëbã" ( Rom. "zgaibã"), "sco:ria" > "zgjyrë" (Rom.
"zgurã"). I don't make any comment here on the changes let be said
that the Latin etinom here is very doubtfully.

> 4. " Actually Alb. "vesh" is Rom. "auz" with "au" > "ve" "
> I don't see what is the link here ...I wanted to show that a
> final s is still there in Albanian and became sh. This is the case
> in 'vesh'

the point is that the diphtong "au" yelded Alb. "ve"; IE "o:" as in
h2o:(u)s yelded if I remember right "e" in Alb.

>
> 5. " Assuming a living Dacian population in the XII century "
>
> I don't assume a Dacian population in the XII century, when
> the Romanian people already finished his formation for a long time
> and no Dacians are attested in Transylvania.

if you do not assume it you should ask yourself where should have had
the Hungarians the name as "Zomus", right?

> 6. << Fact is, that the Romanian name is "somesh"; how would you
> explain the "e" and the "s" in Rom. ? >>
>
> 6.1 Romanian "s" in "Somesh" indicate that a Romance

population

> learn this River name when they haven't any 'zV' in their language.
> As I told you before this population had ONLY 'dzV' see 'dzi'
> or 'sV' see 'somn', but not 'zV'. So a 'z' could ONLY be learned by
> this population as an 's' or as a 'dz'. In this case was an 's' as
> in 'somn' -> 'somesh'.

Hmmm... I am afraid we are here on a very unsure terrain. Since "buzã"
and "byzantium" appears to be thracian, one has to assume the "z" was
known to everyone ther, be they Albanians, Dacians, Latinizedos. I am
not sure one can sustain there was no "z" in the language of
Latinizedos and even if there was just an "dz" they could rendere the
supposed "Zomus" as "Dzomus" not as "Somesh"

>
> 6.2 The presence of 'sh' in 'Somesh' indicates that this
> population learned the river name after s->sh ended so after 650-
> 700AC.

I am afraid there is just the suffix "-esh" and has nothing to do with
the idea about Albanians living there.

>
> 6.3 But also the presence of "s" in place of "z" shows that
> this population learn the river name before 800-900AC when the 'zV'
> re-appears in his language (see Slavic loans).

It doesn't fit. the contacts of Romanians with the Slavs should be as
early as these of Albanian with the Slavs. Assuming there has been no
"z" but "dz" ( which is almost the same thing); the Romanians should
have got the "z" from the Slavs as per your idea; thus there shouldn't
be any problem to borrow the word from the Albanians as "Zomus".

>
> In any case this is the more likely scenario that I could found
> to explain 'Samus->Zomus' and also the Romanian "Somesh'
>
> I appreciate any help to can clarify this issue.
>
> Best Regards,
> marius alexandru

You can try to explain all the name of the rivers which does not
support the Latin -> Romanian sound laws. Usually the common shcolar
view is that the language which served as intermediating there should
have been a kind of Slavic dialect. The idea of a "Daco-Slavia"
existed already 200 years ago but it was abbandoned due missing
linguistic support.


Alex