------------------------------------------------------------------
In a such logic, questions as "why should one take that
word from an another" play no role, since they are irrelevant due the
fact words simply are loaned for various reasons.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The contorsion" is not related to "why" here. Its related to the a
minimum logic to be applied on the following facts in order to
establish the chronology of these loans :
a) "hora" is the same dance all around the Balkans: in Albanian,
Romanian, Serbia, and Bulgaria.
b) The Greek word is not the name of this dance. The origin of this
dance in Balkans is not considered to be a Greek one.
c) Albanian word 'valle' can be derived directly from PIE so seems
to be the oldest name for this dance. It has no direct link with the
Greek word regarding the naming of this dance.
d) Usually we don't have 2 names in Balkans for the common tools
and customs, see: "dalta" , "coasa", "caval", "Craciun" etc...will be
very strange (I mean less probable) for such a common dance to have 2
Balkans origins regarding its name.
e) Albanians and Romanians live together for at least 600 years
before the Slavs arrived in Balkans
f) This dance is not a Slavic dance regarding its origins but
really a Balkan dance.
Knowing all these facts you cannot establish any chronology you
want on the loan chain (of course if there is no issue to show that
Rom 'hora' and Alb 'valle' can be derived based on the knowing
phonetic rules from a common word (like PAlb *walwo:- < PIE wel-7)
So is a logical problem here related to the right chronology to be
applied knowing all these facts....and not a question of "why"
Of course somebody can ignore all the facts above, and to
establish any 'contorsed' chronology that he wishes ...
But why do to this?
Because in order to can keep an existing 'well accepted'
linguistical model, sometimes some obvious facts like those that I
described above are completely ignored.
But why to keep "an existing 'well accepted' linguistical model"
with this price ?
Well maybe because not to become the next thing that will be
ignored next time...and not only on this forum.
Sorry to say this but sometimes is the single explanation that I
could found...on some topics discussed here. I hope to have wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- there is no diphtongation of "o" in "horã", thus this should be an
argument, this is a late loan, later as the diphtongation of "o"
to "oa"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At the first sight this could be a serious issue regarding my
derivation. But I think that is not applicable in this case. Why?
The Albanian word is 'valle' with 'e' and not with 'a' at its
end.
The Albanian 'e' could have different sources in Albanian (ai,
o: ...but in any case not 'a').
The most probable source of this 'e' viewing Bulgarian 'horo' and
the missing of diphtongation in Romanian 'hora' is o: (o: > e is a
later transformation in Albanian (if we compare with ai>e for
example) so the timeframe of this transformation fits very well with
the timeframe of Bulgarian loan moment.
As result: an "o:" or an "wo:" (and not an 'a'/'ã') was originally
the context of the next syllable Old.Rom. *hworwo-a > hora and not an
a/ã.
For an 'o'/'uo' in the next syllable we don't have any the
diphtongation (o>oa) in Old Romanian.
Only the Best,
marius
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> >
> > On the other hand talking about "contorsions" here, your logic
> > regarding the "loan path" among Greek, Albanian, Bulgarian and
> > Romanian regarding the same (very specific) dance is a
> > very "contorted one".
> >
> >
> > Only the Best,
> > marius
>
> the linguistic logic here should speak for variant supposed by
Abdullah and
> sustained by Piotr. In a such logic, questions as "why should one
take that
> word from an another" play no role, since they are irrelevant due
the fact
> words simply are loaned for various reasons. Thus why should the
linguistic
> logic in this case for a loan from Greek:
> - we do have Greek word "khoros" which means "to dance"
> - we do have the change of "kh" > "h" within Greek, thus the
pronunciation
> is "horos"
> - the meaning of the word in Greek was "a place where to dance"
and "the
> whole dancers"
>
> Why should speak the logic for a loan _via_ Bulgarian. I don't know
exactly
> but I suppose that:
> - there is no diphtongation of "o" in "horã", thus this should be
an
> argument, this is a late loan, later as the diphtongation of "o"
to "oa"
> under influence of "ã".
> - the change of the stress
> Beside of this there is no other equivalence of "ho-" to "va-" in
the ROm.
> Alb. equivalencies, even if there are "o-" versus "va-"
equivalencies.
> What should speak against Greek "xorós, xorevo" form the linguistic
logic
> here? Apparently that:
> - the stress which in Rom. is on "o" (hórã) and in Alb. too on "a"
in
> "vállë", thus different form Greek.
> - Diodorus (2.47)wrote the Hyperboreans ( people north of Greece )
have had
> the tradition to sing and to make such dances (kitarizein kai
horeuin) and
> Suida which means the olds have called the dance with
songs "xoreia".
> on these considerations there is the question, should be the Greek
word of
> not Greek origin? Well.. maybe Piotr and the people who know better
about
> Greek can tell us something here.
>
>
> Alex