--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
> pielewe wrote:
>
> > Sorry for speaking out of turn, but according to Huld, Basic
Albanian
> > Etymologies, p. 71 it is attested in the Dushmani dialect as
> > described by Cimochowski.
>
> ... and, for example, in the dialect of Tetova as described by
Hamp. One
> can hardly say anything sensible about Albanian etymologies if one
> ignores the dialects and relies exclusively on the official
variety of
> Tosk. In particular, if one wants to discuss nasalisation in
Common
> Albanian, the knowledge of Geg forms is absolutely obligatory,
since, as
> Abdullah has already pointed out, the Tosk dialects have lost the
> relevant evidence.
>
> Piotr
Of course, Piotr, any dialectal variant is a Fact and every
reconstruction should be based on All known Facts.
To deny a Fact is a stupidity: a Fact is a Fact.
When such a form like g^uh 'appears' and if is proved as an OLD
one (this still remain to be done by you...) any other discussion
that will further ignore this Fact is non-sense.
I fully agree, on this.
On my side I didn't know about this form gu^h, and of course I
should know this, before to talk about gjuhë.
It's not a problem on my side to agree on this point.
At the end the truth is only one doesn't matter who said it, who
didn't said it or who repeat it or not.
Unfortunately on my side, I couldn't find some basic books and
articles that I wanted/needed to read...like Huld, Pedersen
etc...So its not that I didn't want to take that information it's
only because 'from here' I couldn't obtained that books...
Huld for example is not available even on Amazon
url:
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0893571350/002-3814718-0993654?
SubscriptionId=09FVDRT8TEJ64C2A7Y02
Not to talk about Pedersen...
Now to come back to the subject: each dialectal form should be
proved to be old and not a local new evolution, especially when the
dialects/sub-dialects are not isolated ones.
When we talk about Aromanian and Daco-Romanian mainly there are no
issues because these dialects were well separated long time ago.
When we talk about Moldavian variants like shja for c^a we need to
know how old shja could be because Moldavia is just nearby
Transylvannia or Vallahia.
Similar when we talk about some Kosovo sub-dialects, that weren't
so isolated along the time, we need to know the specificity, the
variations, the phonetic rules of that dialects in order to find out
how old could be such a form: it's a local new evolution or an old
one.
Did you know the phonetic features of the sub-dialect of Tetova ?
Maybe you do. In this case you need to present its main phonetic
rules here and to demonstrate how old this form could be, because it
was you that have introduced this form as an argument in this
discussion.
So if you have started to present the methodology to be used
related to this form, please do it until the end...it's your
argument in this discussion...
Otherwise to quote you :
"One can hardly say anything sensible about Albanian etymologies
if one ignores the dialects and relies exclusively on the some
quoted variants official variety of Tosk."
I was surprized also that this 'well known form' was posted by
you only after several days...of discussion on that topic.
Talking now 'about that ones that can hardly say anything
sensible...if they ignore the dialects...', I need to remember you,
that you have talked 'a lot' on this forum about Albanian 'vatra'
without to know the Aromanian subdialectal variant sg. 'veatrã'.
This form clearly shows the trace of e in 'vatra'-> this time in
the singular form.
We have also the persistence of this e in Romanian
plural 'vetre' -> sg. 'vatrã'.
I also remember, that after I have quoted you this form from
Papahagi's Aromanian dictionary (in fact the best Aromanian
dictionary that exist) you have denied that the Aromanian variant is
old suposing an import of e from Rom. pl. form 'vetre' to this
Aromanian subdialectal sg. form 'veatrã???
And of course that the Romanian plural 'vetre' was considered by
you a new evolution too.
As result, despite 2 dialectal forms clearly showing an e : Rom.
pl. vetre and Aromanian dialectal sg. veatrã, the first quoted by
Alex the second one by me, you still derive today vatra from
*a:tra ...
Best Regards,
Marius
P.S. I really didn't want to post this message...
But viewing your phrase that sounds 'somehow strange' for
me': "One can hardly say anything sensible" ... I needed to show
you, my reserves regarding such a message...
The discussed situations were/are more complicated than such a
simple conclusion...
Also, the persons that 'transport' some ideas represent one
thing and the discussed ideas are completely another thing ...even
this Fact seems not to be always obvious ...
So on my side, sorry for my message above.