Abdullah Konushevci wrote:
>>
>> or B) nc^ (or a similar context o^c^)
>> Sl. poro^c^iti > Alb. porositi Rom. porunc^i 'to command'
>
> ***AK: Except Sl. <poroc^iti> that yields Alb. <porosis>, we have
> also Sl. <zatec^i> Alb. <zates>, Sl. <trac^ina> Alb. Tosk <t�rsir�>.
>
> Konushevci
there is no "poroc^iti" but "poro~c^iti" (for ~ speaks the Romanain word
"porunci") thus, the cluster "nc^" > "s". About "t�rsir�" I guess we have
mentioned it that this is to see comparate with Rom. "toarce","toarcere"
(usualy seen from Latin "torquere"). It remains this "zates" where I have no
ideea what the word mean . Is it eventually related to "zatet", "zaten"?
I doubt about this one as showing any Slavic "c^" > "s" since all the logic
speak against this . It is impossible to have no Romance "c^" and no Latin
"cy" > "s" but to have an Slavic word which should yeld "s" in normal
conditions. Maybe there is too a nasal in the Slavic word or what ever; fact
is, seeing the timeline one is obliged to explain this "s" in "zates" in
another way as from an "zatec^i".
Happy New Year to everybody too.
Alex
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.6 - Release Date: 28.12.2004