--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3"
<alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
Marius: An intervocalic -kh- is never lost in Romanian in any period
that I know from any source language that I know: Latin, Slavic and
its derived languages, Greek, Turkish, Hungarian...).
Also (but I admit that I don't have deep Slavic knowledge) as I
know such a lost is not common in Slavic language either.
If you know similar examples in Bulgarian or Romanian indicating
such a lost as you proposed here please post them.
Konushevci: First of all, I can't understand in other way this
killing silence of other members, especially of very good Greek
scholars, than as some kind of soft protest against boring posts on
known issues.
To claim that -kh- in <ho khoros> is intervocalic is not sound, for
<ho> (pl. oi) is an article for masculine nouns, as is <he> (pl. ai)
for feminine ones and <to> (pl. ta) for neuter ones.
So, Greek /kh/ (hi) yields in South-Slavic languages /h/: khoros
(read horos in New Greek) > Bulg. horo, Rum. hora, until its ancient
form yields in Lat. chorus. From here we have choregraphy "The art
of representing dancing by signs, as music is represented by notes; -
also called choreography.", choreographic "pertaining to
choreography", etc.
Examples: New Greek /kh/ > South-Slavic /h/
NG: to khartí (read <hartí> 'paper' > South-Slavic <hartija>, but
Alb. <kartë>;
NG: to khaos 'chaos'> South-Slavic <haos>, but. Alb. <kaos>;
NG: to khlorio 'chlor' > South-Slavic <hlor>, but. Alb. <klor> etc.