Re: Alb. "vatër" ( it was (Re: [tied] Re: Albanian valle )

On 04-11-23 14:09, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

>
>
> Hello Piotr,
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> "I can only suspect some kind of analogical influence in Romanian
> (assimilation to the <varzã/verze> type). "
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. No. varzã/verze is like fatã/fete;masã/mese;panã/pene;mãr/mere :
> with no original 'a' inside only an original E.
> please see http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=varza&source=
>
> Lat. vir(i)dia > *verdza > veardzã > sg. varzã
> > pl. verze

That's precisely what I mean -- words with an original PBR *e (not *E!)

> ea > a/e when preceded by a labial. I don't believe <vatrã> was

originally one of them, but since the DR form of the word was ambiguous
(it could continue either *vatra or *vetra > *veatra), speakers may have
hesitated between the two types, and the word was eventually assigned to
the "wrong" one, just like Eng. <to ring> developed the forms <rang,
rung> (instead of "correct" *<ringed>) on the analogy of <sing>,
<drink>, etc.

> "Is *veatrã attested anywhere in the dialects?"
> ------------------------------------------------
> No. As I searched until now in all Romanian Dialects (Aromanian
> Megleno-Romanian ) is 'vatrã' never 'veatrã' (in contrary we have
> Rom. 'fatã' Mr. 'featã'). Also no *veatrã is attested inside Romanian
> (I'm not 100% sure because there aren't very much reference to vatrã
> in the books that I have but I'm almost sure viewing the dialects).
>
> So 'vatrã' is always 'vatrã'.
> However the Rom. plural is 'vetre'.

That's just what I would expect if the plural <vetre> were late and
analogical. It strengthens my impression that this indeed _is_ the case.

> My conclusion regarding the facts above is that the phonetism
> of 'vatrã'/'vetre' is not linked (more precisely I think that: it was
> finished before) with the diphtongation 'ea>e' that happened in
> Romanian during first wave of Slavic Loans.
>
> So the phonetism of 'vatra/vetre' is like in the examples that
> show 'e>ea'in the root (same model) but is not linked to these ones.
> pl. 'vetre' should be older than e>ea in Romanian and should
> reflect a older conjuctural PRom *ea or *ae in the root :
> *weatra / *waetra
>
> We have 'va'/'ve' in the Romanian forms and 'va~vo in the
> Albanians ones.

What you're trying to compare is paradigmatic alternation (sg./pl.)
versus regular dialectal variation (Tosk/Geg). This is totally without
rhyme or reason.

>
> Of course you can also consider Rom. 've' in 'vetre' as a kind of
> a-e -> e-e. I will check this path in the evening too.

I don't think this kind of vowel harmony can be proposed for Romanian,
except where the original vowel is /(i)ea/, not just /a/.

> But why to have a-e -> e-e in case of 'vatra' and not to have it
> in case of 'raTa/raTe' that should be as old as 'vatra' and where we
> are sure that we have an PAlb *a: too ?
>
> I think that *weatra or *waetra as proto-forms fit well the
> Romanian forms 'vatra'/vetre'.
>
> Also I cannot understand well why you refuse the idea (I mean
> here: what arguments you have in order to refuse this idea) to have
> something in addition to a single PAlb *a: in the PAlb root:

Ockham's Razor again.

> something like *wea: *wa:e

?????????????

> that should generate with no problem the
> dialectal variance in Albanian (by loosing a single length in one
> vowel)
> *wea or *wae > Tosk *wea/*wae>va
> versus *wea:/*wa:e > Gheg: weo/woe>vo.

I won't even bother to argue against such ad hoc speculation. There's
not a shred of evidence to permit such reconstructions.

Piotr

> (especially when we know that the passage of 'e:' to 'o' should
> happened based on an intermediary 'oe' or 'eo' form and the attested
> Gheg form (Buzuku) for 'egg' is OldAlb voe > Alb vo)
>
> This idea will well explain the Romanian forms either based on a
> common Romanian-Tosk form *waetra or *weatra and is not an obstacle
> to explain also how Latin 'orbus' etc.. was loaned and adapted (maybe
> via the Gheg dialect but this assumption is not necessary).
>
> Only the Best,
> marius
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
> wrote:
>
>>On 04-11-23 03:47, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>sg.'mãr' 'apple'/pl. 'mere' < Lat. variant 'me:lum'
>>>(see 'me:lum' at Rosetti,Densusianu) and not 'ma:lum' because
>>>accented Lat. a:/a always gives 'a' in Romanian but never 'ã')
>>>
>>>Note: I will come back with this second example in another
>
> message
>
>>>because based on Lat. ma:lum you establish once (Lat. a: > PAlb
>
> o
>
>>>see Alb. mollë and implicitly the timeframe of Alb a: > o ) that
>
> is
>
>>>not true in my opinion because based on Rom. 'mãr' the
>
> form 'me:lum'
>
>>>and not 'ma:lum' circulated in Balkan Romance.
>>
>>No big deal. I suggested that <mollë> could be an _old_ borrowing
>
> from
>
>>Latin (not a mainstream late Balkan Latin one), but *mah2lo- is PIE
>>anyway, so it may be inherited in Albanian, or it may be a
>
> borrowing
>
>>from Doric Greek.
>>
>>
>>>---------------
>>>Rom. raTa /ratsa/ 'duck' - pl. raTe /ratse/ -> Alb. rosë 'id'
>>>
>>>doesn't show any alternance a/e in the root between sg. and pl.
>
> forms
>
>>>in Romanian as 'vatra'(pl. vetre) shows.
>>
>>>And we have an original PAlb *a: in Rom 'raTa' viewing Alb. o
>>>(in 'rosë')
>>>
>>>So for sure that 'vatra' should have something different in its
>>>original root than a simple PAlb. *a:
>>
>>Romanian /a/ for Proto-Albanian *a: is regular, so it's <raTe> that
>>shows the expected development. I'm not sure how to explain
>><vatrã/vetre>, which looks as if the preform had been *vetr-a/e,
>
> but
>
>>this doesn't match the Albanian word, no matter how you etymologise
>
> it.
>
>>I can only suspect some kind of analogical influence in Romanian
>>(assimilation to the <varzã/verze> type). Is *veatrã attested
>
> anywhere
>
>>in the dialects?
>>
>>Piotr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>