[tied] Re: Albanian valle 'circular dance'

Hello Piotr,

------------------------------------------------------------------
"You do well to respect DEX; it's a pity you don't accept the
etymology of <horã> given there."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course that I respect DEX. I tried to learn or at least to
consult each of its etymologies. And I respect you too: as a person
from where I learned new things...
But to respect somebody doesn't mean that he is always rigth (I
have other clear example of PAlb *w - Rom o - Alb *v so hora is not
an isolated case).
But even in this case (or especially in this case), the respect
that I keep is the same...so for me DEX is a reference book.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Rom. 'hora' from PAlb *walwo:-
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now to resume the discussion: Rom. 'hora' from PAlb *walwo:
Romanian Rules are:
a) Rom. 'o' from PAlb 'wa -> there is no doubt.
(see Rosetti unã<*uã<uo(attested)<o)

b) rothacism (no doubt)

c) "prothetic h" in Romanian *huo > *uo
I already posted :
harmasar / armasar

now I can add:
hurui / urui
huTa / uTa (see DEX for all these forms)

So to answer to your question: are there other examples of
prothetic 'h' in Romanian? Yes, they are see above.
Is possible 'huo' < 'uo' in Romanian ? Yes it is.
I hope that we can close this topic as Ok now.

d) remain the adaptation to the Rom. feminine ending:
PAlb *walwo- - Rom. horuo-ã
(final 'ã' being the fem. undef. form in Romanian)

I come back again and tell you that I didn't add anything new:
we have here : ruo-ã from *howrwo + ã so we don't have Only 'rwu' as
you show me and talk about it...
The most closer phonetism that I could found in Romanian for this
cluster of 3 vowels is:
a) 'rouã' (with exactly an 'r' context, only the stressed is
different)

and others 2 like:
b) 'nouã' pers. pron. 'we' -> dativ form
(attested in variants: like 'nuoã' (good example, that shows us
that '-ouã' and '-uoã' can be interchangeable, isn't it?) and 'nuaã' -
see variants of 'Tatal nostru' in Romanian).

c) 'ouã' 'eggs'.

As an example of what you have done here by changing the context
of *rwo-ã with *rwu and talking next only about 'rwu':
is like to talk about the derivation of an 'a' in PAlb in a word
where we have 'ai'

So once again you should apply 'Okam rasor' or other similar
rules (by the way, why you haven't apply "Okam Rasor" regarding
your "contorsed" chronology?) on a similar context not on a different
one....

If you want to talk about 'r-ouã' or 'r-uoã' in Romanian (in an
stressed and unstressed context) please do it, but not talk about
*rwu in place.
If you don't like to talk about r-ouã or r-uoã in Romanian
please don't make any conclusion regarding the outcome of this
cluster based on other clusters.

If I resume based on the 4 Rules above, the derivation of 'hora'
from PAlb *walwo:- PIE wel-7 raised no issue.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alb. s derives from earlier *c^ also in NATIVE words,
Just as above: *a: > o is a NATIVE change
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, this is TRUE. But I'm not talked about this.

When you are in difficulty you changed very quickly the context:
Of course PAlb c^ > Alb s (<-> Rom c^: cioara)

I said ONLY "not in Slavic Times" (In this case c^ > s even for Latin
times is difficult to proof it, because we have Lat ci/gi - Alb
q/gj )

So you fixed the ending of c^>s transformation very late 'in Slavic
Times' based on a SINGLE example (that has a dubious Slavic origin))

b) PAlb a: > Alb o (<-> Rom a)
Once again of course is TRUE.
But not "in Latin times" when Lat a:/a - Alb a.

Once again you put the timeframe of this change very late based on a
SINGLE example that could be very well a Greek loan.

My reserves was about your timeframes and not about the rules.

In both cases a second example for your timeframes above would be
welcome (as you have requested me in case of a prothetic 'h' in
Romanian).
Or you don't apply the same rules on both sides?

------------------------------
vatra
-------------------------------

I don't see any reaction regarding the possible timeframe of
the "prothetic v" in vatra....Rom. "va" - Alb "va" in this case.

Only the Best,
marius

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> On 04-11-19 11:44, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > a) see the Slavic c^ > Alb. s -> where you can propose a

single

> > Slavic word (a doubtful word regarding its Slavic origin)
>
> Alb. s derives from earlier *c^ also in NATIVE words, as any

historical

> grammar of Albanian will tell you; cf. pesë < *pêc^ë < *penkWe-. We

can

> reasonably expect some of the earliest Slavic loans to have joined

this

> relatively recent change. The examples cannot be many for

historical

> reasons, but any loanword with *c^ simply takes a free ride -- the
> change has been independently established for inherited Albanian

words;

> I didn't make it up.
>
> > 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).
>
> Just as above: *a: > o is a NATIVE change and any loanword taken at

> sufficiently early date will undergo it together with the native

lexical

> stock. I don't invent any special changes to push my point through.
>
> > 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"

> > 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 ...)
>
> It's nice to see you admit it ;-)
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------

> > This is directly contradicted by <vatrã>, where Alb. va-/vo- is
> > retained.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------

> > There is no contraction regarding 'vatra'. The contradiction is

> > 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.
>
> Thank you, but I try to respect the facts out of my own accord.
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------

> > 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.)

>
> Sorry, but the "complications" are all a figment of your

imagination. It

> seems there are no lengths to which you could go to make the

derivation

> appear to work. Ockham's Razor applies here.
>
> > 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=)
>
> You do well to respect DEX; it's a pity you don't accept the

etymology

> of <horã> given there.
>
> > 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"

>
> This is getting ridiculous. Since when does "from Latin" (<din

Lat.>)

> means that the word cannot be in from Latin (whether borrowed or
> inherited, as in this case)? Where does the dictionary mention such

> convention? But if you have any doubts, take any other word of

similar

> form, such as cerb < cervus. Here DEX says simply "Lat." BTW, if

the

> 'raven' word were a later loan from Romance or book Latin, not
> inherited, it would have yielded Rom. <corv> (like <nerv>). <-rb->

gives

> away its status as an old word.
>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >>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.

>
> I rest my case.
>
> Piotr

[tied] Re: Albanian valle 'circular dance' - Proto-Albanian form?