Hello Piotr,
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> Getting more and more ad hoc. Very probable? How many similar
examples
> of "prothetic <h>" does Romanian show?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
At least another one will be sufficient to proof the possibility
of a "prothetic <h>" in Romanian.
And here it is : "harmãsar" variant of "armasar". I'm sure that we
have others too in Romanian ...it's what I have in mind just now.
However, as I know, is you and not me that works with singularities
in your assumptions in order to establish a model:
a) see the Slavic c^ > Alb. s -> where you can propose a single
Slavic word (a doubtful word regarding its Slavic origin)
b) see also Latin a: > Alb. o -> where you can propose a single
word too (that could be very well also a Greek loan in Albanian).
So please don't tell me that 'huo'>'uo' is 'ad-hoc' and that I
work with singularities.
At least I put you a second example here of a "prothetic h" in
Romanian.
( I also hoped that 'hou' < 'uo' being obvious (we have here
this 'uo' twice) not to be raised by you as an impossibility. But I'm
wrong ...)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is directly contradicted by <vatrã>, where Alb. va-/vo- is
retained.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no contraction regarding 'vatra'. The contradiction is in
your model that supposed that 'wa' -> 'o' and 'wa' -> 'va' happened
on 'the same moment of time'.
Of course that in this case a contradiction will be obtain.
Is what I said in my previous message that based on this rule:
PAlb 'wa' > Rom. 'o' your Albanian timeframes (and Proto Romanian too)
will become false.
And I will come here with more examples regarding the PAlb
*w ,*v , Latin *v, and Proto-Romanian *w , *v.
Another issue with 'vatra' is: if "v" in vatra "is prothetic", the
situation is even more complicated in order to give this word as
example here.
So you need to review your model by including more facts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Whose "reconstruction" is this? *-rw- would have given Romanian <-rb-
>,
> as in corb < corvu- /korwu-/. Please stop multiplying absurdities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a wrong context in your example:
a) We don't have rw(u) in hora but a more complicated phonetic
context (more vowels) : 'rwo-a'/'rwã-a'/'row-a' (for a similar
vocalism see Rom. 'roua' : Romanian '(r)oua' is the most closer
example that I can show you regarding this 'uoa'/'oua'/'uãa' in hora.)
b) Secondly 'corb' is not considered by some linguists (like
Academia Romana) as an inherited Latin word in Romanian.
See DEX (
http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=corb&source=)
made by Academia Romana that clearly indicates:
"din Lat. corvus" and not "Lat. corvus"
This 'din Lat.' is the DEX indication that is not a Latin
inherited word BUT was loaned via other sources or is a later Latin
loan (for an inherited Latin word in DEX see : "ÁRMĂ [...] Lat. arma"
-------------------------------------------------------------
> Ever heard about Wanderwörter?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Is not the "Wanderwörter" idea that I qualified "contorted"
regarding 'hora' (this could be another topic we didn't even open it)
but the "chronology of loans in Balkans" regarding this word.
So the "the chronology" is the issue...based on the knowing facts.
Only the Best,
marius
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
> On 04-11-18 15:11, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> I skip the folkloristic comments as irrelevant. The same thing may
be
> known under different names, and slightly different things may bear
the
> same name. A round dance is a round dance, whatever the specific
> diffences. English <carol> (originally also referring to a kind of
round
> dance) is also etytmologically connected with <kHoros>.
>
> > Is not Romanian h for w.
> >
> > The h is only prothetic here and not from w: *huo-ra < *uo-ra.
> >
> > I hope that you will not tell me that uo>huo like in
uooooo!!!!
> > huooooo!!! is not possible and is a major issue. So a prothetic h
> > before a 'uo' is very probable to appear.
>
> Getting more and more ad hoc. Very probable? How many similar
examples
> of "prothetic <h>" does Romanian show?
>
> >
> > Next the explanation of h- here is sustained by the fact that
the
> > reconstructed Romanian form shows that the sounds 'uo' appeared
twice
> > in the word at one moment of time: *uoruo > *huoruo and that this
> > *uoruo was difficult to be pronounced in Romanian without an
initial
> > h-.
>
> Whose "reconstruction" is this? *-rw- would have given Romanian <-
rb->,
> as in corb < corvu- /korwu-/. Please stop multiplying absurdities.
>
> > and even you don't like the idea of a Subtratum in Romanian:
> > because the rule above (PAlb wa > Rom. o) will put in cause your
> > proposed timeframes for Albanian language.
>
> This is directly contradicted by <vatrã>, where Alb. va-/vo- is
retained.
>
> > I will come back with other examples that reflects the rule:
> > PAlb wa > Alb va <-> Rom o
> >
> > 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".
>
> Ever heard about Wanderwörter?
>
> Piotr