Alex wrote:
> and Rom. "pânzã" where "-zã" was presumabely a suffix now not felt
> as such anymore.
The Suffix "-zã" reflects the Proto-Albanian suffix *-dja (see Alb.
vajzë 'girl', pejzë 'muscle') reflecting the PIE suffix *-dyo/*dya:
So pânzã cand be derived as:
Rom. pânzã 'linen; tissue' > *PAlb. *pan-dja: > PIE *poh1n-
dyah2 "fabric, cloth" (sorry for my h-s , please correct them)
reflecting the transformation:
PIE *dy > PAlb *dj > Rom. dz (later z) <-> Alb dz (later z but much
earlier that in the case of Romanian)
Examples:
Latin loans in Romanian and Albanian reflecting this rule
=========================================================
Lat. radius 'ray' > Rom. radzã(>razã) <-> Alb. rezze
Lat. spodium 'ash' > Rom. spudzã(>spuzã) <-> Alb. shpuzë
(maybe from a Romance form *spudia)
Lat. Dia:na > Rom. dzânã (>zânã) 'goddes of forests' <-> Alb zërë
(Gheg) zanë 'id.'
Albanian - Romanian Common Words reflecting this rule
=======================================================
PAlb *budja 'lip' > Rom. budzã(>buzã) <-> Alb. buzë
PAlb *mandja 'foal' > Rom. mândz(>mânz) <-> Alb. mëz (Gheg) mâz
Timeframe: This transformation is located in the last period of the
Roman Empire => ended before 500 AC (see also Note-1)
(see also Rosetti ILR I page 91 that I try to resume here: the Latin
assybilation of t+i+V is attested in sec II AC. There is no
indication in the Latin Grammars related to the assybilation of
d+i+V however a lot of inscriptions indicate this)
So to suppose the end of this transformation before 500 AC is more
than sufficient...
Note-1: dy > dz didn't affect any Slavic Loans in Albanian or in
Romanian.
In addition Romanian dz was preserved in Romanian for a long time :
it started to dissapear only in the sec XV - XVII. Also all the
Slavic Loans in Romanian reflect z but never dz
(see Sl. zidU 'wall' > Rom. zid 'id.').
For all these reasons I have considered that Rom. budza, mândz were
present in Proto-Romanian at least before 500AC (despite other
opinions posted here or in Balkanika: I remember for example Miguel
assertion that 'buza' should be a new loan in Romanian)
Note-2: In addition to this all the Romanian words related to this
rule can be derived directly from the PIE forms following mainly the
Proto-Romanians Rules that we can deduce ONLY by using the Latin
Loans in Romanians.
Note-2: As I already said in another message the transition of this
transformation in Proto-Albanian wasn't (is my opinion) : dy > g^ >
dz > z : the tranzition was only dy > dz > z as it was in Proto-
Romanian too.
(also to note here that the original proto-Albanian g^ (<PIE *g'(h)w)
was already dz when this transformation took place)
Note-3: Based on this timeframe I could also deduced the timeframe of
PAlb dz > PAlb dh: when this transformation started we need to
consider that the 'original' PAlb dz (from PIE *g') already passed to
dh otherwise the final result would have been Alb. z too that it
wasn't the case:
see: PAlb ma:dzula 'pea' > <-> Alb. modhull <-> Rom. madzãre(later
mazãre)
For this reason I considered that the transformation PAlb dz > PAlb
dh have finished at least around 200AC, otherwise there is no room
for both transformations.
Best Regards,
Marius Alexandru