[tied] Re: Plural of 'vatra' in Aromanian -> I found trace of 'e'

From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 35444
Date: 2004-12-13

Piotr wrote:
"Do you seriously believe professional linguists are fools who
can't notice a clue right under their noses?"

I will skip this argument that invoke an external authority...
(if I remember well is you that in a discussion with Abdullah
rejected the using of such 'external' arguments as 'valid ones'. But
seems that you don't apply your own rules in a consistent manner)

However I want to point out here that the author only said 'cf.':
<<V. veatrã s,i cacavatrã - cf. s,i alb. vatrë "focolare; cammino">>
so 'cf.' -> means 'conform','also as found in', but 'conform'
doesn't means 'from'.

Also, if we talk here about 'Authorities' : Rosetti at his turn
talks about 'common words' between Romanian and Albanian but he
didn't try to indicate a loan direction between the 2 languages (for
good reasons, see in ILR his explanations). Also he said in his ILR's
dedicated chapter that this 'common words' are the OLDEST words in
Romanian (so older than the Latin words) and his supposition is that
these words belong to an Ancient Balkan Language that preceeded both
Albanian and Romanian.


> is that we find <vatrã, vãtzrî> elsewhere in Aromanian -- _that_ is
> incompatible with earlier *veatra, since Aromanian has had no
> post-labial monophthongisation.

Not a valid argument: please don't mix e>ea transformation in
CommonRomanian that is a recent phenomen (affecting also the first
wave of Slavic Loans) with a Pre-Albanian(Dacian?) word *weatra
(where 'ea' is etymological and not a result of an 'e'), because this
*weatra existed :
1. before a: > o shift (viewing Albanians forms vatër/votër),
a: > o shift that ended before the first Latin Loans in Albanians
(see my message showing this)
2. before *w>v shift in Pre-Albanian and Pre-Romanian (see Latin
va - Rom va - Alb va in contrast with PAlb *wa - Rom. o - Alb. va in
my message that present this)


> [traces of e] It isn't a surprise. It could be expected especially
> in dialects transitional between Aromanian and Daco-Romanian

Northern part of Aromanian Dialect means northern part of
Macedonia so faraway for any Daco-Romanian speakers. Please note also
that Aromanian variant 'veatrã' is related to the singular form (no
trace in Romanian regarding any 'e' in the singular form) and
Romanian 'vetre' is related to the plural form (no trace in Aromanian
forms related to this). So if I have to choose between : "Two
coincidences in the 2 Dialects to be explained only by 'similarities
with other words'" in place "to suppose the traces of an old 'e' ", I
prefer the second variant.


> Your strange reluctance to accept the most economic reconstruction
is
> incomprehensible to me. You prefer to run into all kinds of formal
> difficulties just to save a pet idea -- e.g. that the initial /v/
in
> this word must be etymological.

Your 'most economic reconstruction' don't explained at all:

1. the derived meanings of 'vatra' that exists both in Albanian
and in Romanian : 'homeland','place of my ancestors','center
of','originar place' indicating and 'own' particle in the inner
meaning of the word.
2. Not only initial v but also the alternance va-vo in Albanian
dialects.
3. The traces of 'e' in a variant of an Aromanian singular form
The traces of 'e' in Romanian plural form.

Also there aren't 'formal difficulties' regarding my idea :
why 'w' couldn't be etymological?
If a Pre-Alb.*(s)wai+a:tra , well explains the 3 things above and
your 'economic reconstruction' doesn't explain them at all, and if I
can identified a clear PIE that respects all the known rules and also
explains today forms in the 4 Dialects of the 2 Languages?

Why is better to explain like you did:
"a PAlb a:tra that:
1. becomes va~vo in Dialects by adding a prothetic 'w' or 'v'
with no explanation of va~vo
2. all the e-traces in Romanian pl. 'vetre' and Aromanian
var. 'veatra' are secondary evolutions in the 2 Rom. Dialects.
3. the derived meanings 'originar place','homeland','center
of' are normal to be related to any kind of fire"

So 'most economical' maybe, but also 'not sufficient'.

Only the Best,
marius