alex wrote:
> Any terms from religion/church for instance?
>
> Alex
I sorted up all the material I have and there is no latin "e:" which is
reflected as Alb. "o". The 33 pairs established by romanists as being loans
in Alb. from Latin and where we have a long latin "e:" are as follow:
e: > o
-------------------------------------------------------------
a:e:r > aer , be:stia > bish�, de:tegere > d�ftoj,de:si:de:rare > d�shiroj,
e:sca > eshk�, fide:s > fe, quadrage:s(i)ma > kreshm� , fe:mina > fem�n,
fre:num > fre, e:riciu > iriq, cande:la > k�ndell�, le:ge > ligj�, mane:re >
m�noj, misere:re > m�shiroj, place:re > p�lqej, p(o)enite:re > p�ndohem,
*perdole:re > p�rd�llej, pe:(n)sum > peshoj, pe:(n)sare > peshoj
pri:mave:ra > prendver�, prophe:ta > profet, ce:pa > qep�, are:na > r�n�,
re:ge > regj, re:gulu > rig�, re:te > rret, excande:re > shk�ndej, secre:tu
> shkret�, *splene:ticum > shp�netk�, te:gula > tjegull�, vale:re > v�jej,
*ve:ra > ver�
vene:num > vner
-------------------------------------------------------------
So, there is no "e:" > "o". The reflex of Latin "e:" appears to be "e" or
"i". The ending "-oj" in some verbs is the typically Alb. verbal desinence.
Since we are here one has to check if Latin "o:" is reflected as Alb. "e".
Here we will find some words where Latin "o:" appears to be reflected once
as "e", once as someting else. The conclusion should be seen when we have
all the words. Thus, let us beginn with the 34 pairs which are established
by romanistic school as being Latin borrowings into Albanian:
o: > e
-------------------------------------------------------------
ratio:ne > arsye, testimo:niare > d�shmoj, docto:re > doktuer, to:tum > dot,
draco:ne > drangua, do:nare > dhuroj,
falco:ne > falkue, cocto:rium > koftor, coto:neum > futue, io:hanes > gjion,
ho:ra her�, o:tu > hut, io:sephus > jozef
cano:sa (avis) > kanush�, capo:ne > kapue, coro:na > kunor�, qua ho:ra >
kur, anto:nius > ndue, no:du > nej�, conso:lare > ngush�lloj, ho:rae > or�,
pavo:ne > pagua, po:mum > p�m�, *plo:pu > pl�p,ro:ma:nu > r�m�, ro:bur >
rre, ro:bur > rrobull
sanito:su > sh�ndosh�, terrae mo:tu > t�rmet, temo:ne > timue, timo:re >
tmer, o:rdine > urdh�r, o:rare > uroj
sco:ria > zgjyr�
-------------------------------------------------------------
So, that is the lexical material one has. we have as follow:
o: > y, u , o, e
That cannot be. That is too much for being true thus one has here to make up
his mind about. A possibility is we have to deal with loans which happened
in several historical times, or we have here false pairs. Since we know IE
"o:" yelded "e" in Alb. , I suggest a good way is to take all the Latin
words where we have an Latin "o:" and the output in Alb. is "e". So we have:
ho:ra > her�, no:du >nej�, po:mum > pem�, *plo:pu > pl�p, ro:manu > r�m�,
robur > rre, terrae m:otu > t�rmet, timo:re > tmer.
From these 8 words where apparently we have an Latin "o:" > Alb. "e", common
with Rom. are the words:
Latin / Alb / Rom
------------------
ho:ra, her�, oar�
no:du, neje, nod
po:mum, pem�, pom
*plo:pu, pl�p, plop
ro:manu, r�m�, rum�n
for "terrae mo:tu" I have my doubts since for "earth quacke" there is Rom.
"cutremur" & "tremura" where Alb. word "t�rmet" can derive from a root as
"*trem-".
So, the questions for me here is if the change of IE "o:" and IE "e:" to
Alb. "e", "o" happened in the same period of time? Yes or no, how can we
verify this?
Alex