pielewe wrote:
> Note that the monophthongization of PIE *au in Albanian cannot easily
> be pre-Roman because it affects such well-established Latin borrowings
> as _pak_ < _paucus_ and several others.
>
>
>
> W.
We are talking abotu initial "a" here. The examples where "au" is inside
the words cannot be proove too much since there the "au" can be reduced
to "a". For underlining this aspect, I give examples in Alb. and Rom.
*auso > v�sh in Alb.
*auso > auz in Rom.
The "au" inside the word can get reduced. Example " eu caut" ( I am
looking for) is the same as "eu cat" ( I am lokking for).
Now, the funn beginn here.
There is Alb. "ar"= gold, there is Rom. "aur"= gold both considered to
be loans from Latin "aurum"
On another side, there is Rom. "ureche" from Vulgar Latin *oricla and
there is Alb. "ogur" (fate)
which I suspect this is a loan from Vulgar Latin *ogurus < augurs.
If these things are correct, then we cannot have two treatmens of the
same Latin word at the begin of the word. Where should be the
explanation? "ureche" from *oricla and *ogur from *oguri should be words
which entered both languages from Vulgar Latin and "aur" and "ar" should
be considered as loans from a previous contact with the Romans. (this
because we don't have stil strong examples for a rothacism of
intervocalic "s" in Alb. and "Rom."
OK, initial "a" cannot come from Latin . My opinion is this "a" we mean
here was a demonstrative for feminine which in both languages stil is
the definite article for feminine. In Rom. this is "-a" and in Alb. this
is actualy "e"(< a)
in the compositum with "jo" and "j" the "a" remained stil "a" in Alb,
thus today there is ai and ajo for "this male, this female"; the forms
with "t" are new building since even for genitive/dative/ablative of
ai/ajo ( which are: i atij/atij/atij and i saj/asaj/at�/asaj) the older
forms are with "s" and "sh".
See "ai" with Ablativ "asi" or "si", for feminine "ajo" there is older
forms for Ablative "asish", "sish" or "syresh" and for feminineplural
"ato" we have older forms of Ablative "asosh" and "sosh"
I will like to conclude, the initial "a" here in these composita is the
original demonstrative which was compouded with
the person which was meant. a+j (this he) > ai, a+jo(< *ja) > ajo (this
she)
the same in Romanian : a+l (this he) > �l, a+ja(< *ja) > aia (this
she)
Observation: considering the examples from Romance brought by Miguel
where apprently there is an accidental "a", in Rom. this is a general
aspect. All the demonstrativa and locative adverbs have "a".
Pronouns:
(he,she there sg /he, she there pl) :
Set I) �la, aia, �ia, alea
Set II) acela, aceia, aceia, acelea
(he,she here sg /he, she here pl) :
Set I) �sta, asta, �shtia, astea
Set II) acesta, aceasta, aceshtia, acestea
Locative Adverbs:
there - acolo
here - ici
For the adverbs I do not mention the great diversity of the forms for
"acolo" and "aici".
Completing this presentation with the fact in Italy the forms with "a"
are as well as not present, that in Dalmatian they not present either,
one can _safe_ conclude, the evidence speaks for a inherited form of
composita in Rom and the sporadic presence in Vest Romance should be to
explain due local factors which are hardly to connect with the Rom. and
Alb. aspects.
Alex
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.1 - Release Date: 03.06.2005