Re: [tied] Re: Albanian origins and much more

tolgs001 wrote:

> Agreed. I compared these worlds only to underline a thing
> that, in the case of Albanians and Romanians, might suggest
> that both ethnogeneses were sort of... catastrophes: a
> Romanization which for parts of the population (esp. those
> who were to become Albanians) was slow and by far incomplete;
> this also could be valid as interpretation for the Romanian
> language if one takes into consideration big chunks of
> Romance vocabulary absend in Romanian (due to oblivion, ie,
> replacing it by autochtonous substrate vocabulary and esp.
> Slavic one? or due to the fact that those parts were never
> learnt? This could (I don't know if what I'm suggesting is
> correct after all) imply some kind of simplified vulgar
> Latin of low social strata, berieved of contacts with
> the main "corpus".

the denomination for that was long time established by G. Reichenkron. That
was "Verkehrssprache". And it appears to be right so since taking just the
body (of animals, birds or humans), only for the body there are a lot of
words wich are not to find in any language, mostly of them having in
Albanian no counterpart. A little look make one to think about:

gur� (mouth), buz�(lip), gush� (goiter), ceaf� (nape), burt� (belly),
tsurloi (tibia), picior (leg), g�oaz� (asshole), pul� (penis), spr�ncean�
(eyebrow), gean� (eyelash), mats (gut), crac(leg), c�rc� (back), pleoap�
(eyelid), g�t(neck), beregat� (throat), buric (navel), puts� (little
penis/vulva), cot (ell), ts�ts� (teat), r�nz� (part of the stomach),bojoc
(lung), etc

BTW, there have been several assumtions to bind some words to some Latin
words with the usual explanation of "semantic change". But the big gulp of
the words remains with the stamp "unknown origin".

Alex