***AK: Except Sl. <poroc^iti> that yields Alb. <porosis>, we have
also Sl. <zatec^i> Alb. <zates>, Sl. <trac^ina> Alb. Tosk <tërsirë>.
Your new examples are very good ones in order to exclude any doubt
regarding Slavic c^ > Albanian s.
1. Alb. Tosk 'tërsirë' is not from Slavic *torc^ina but is a loan (?
I'm don't sure exactly how recent it is) from Romanian 'tãrsinã' that
correspond also to Bulgarian 'tr&sina' 'horse-hair'. The loan path is
not 100% clear but in any case Having the Romanian form 'tãrsinã'
that shows also an *s (when c^ was->is well present in Romanian)
there is No Reason to consider that the Albanian word is from an
original Slavic *c^ (borrowed in Slavic Times).
Note: It is important to point out also that in 'tërsirë' we have
the rhotacism in the Tosk form and there is No Slavic Loan in
Albanian that shows the Rhotacism in Tosk (I will come back with
another message on this subject).
2. The Alb. <zates> has its main form Alb. zatet < Alb *zateti with
its reflexive form 'zatetem'. Especially the Reflexive form is very
important regarding the discussed point here : showing and original
Alb 't' for the Slavic form 'zatec^i' > Alb *zateti
Example:
'e zateti në ruggë' - He meet him in the street.
So its primary form was 'zateti' < Sl. zatec^i and the
form 'zatesi' is a secondary form from 'zatet(i)' shwoing a recent :
ti > si
Conclusion:
So once again there is no reason to consider Sl. c^ > Alb. s
(In addition, if an Albanian c^ would survive such a long time this
would be also in contradiction with Latin ci/gi that gave in Albanian
q/gj and not c^, g^ as in Romanian)
Happy New Year to you and to All Members in this forum.
Marius
P.S.:
> /tj/ > s in Latin loan, as well as in inherited words, is regular.
> So I agree that Lat. puteus yields in Albanian <pus> 'well' through
> diphthongation of /e/ > /ie/ > /je/. Same rule we found in Alb.
> <pjesë> 'part' from Lat. <petia>; arsye 'reason' < Lat. ratio, etc.
So why to not include Lat 'bestia' in this pattern too: Lat tj > Alb
s?