--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
>
> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > From my mind now I can give you :
> > a) Rom fluier <-> Alb. fyell showing Romanian ui <-> Alb y
>
> The etymology of <fyell> was explained in great detail by
Cimochowski a
> long time ago. First, it has nothing to do with <fluier>, whatever
the
> latter's origin.
I have importants doubts that fyell has nothing to do with fluier:
a) The Meaning is Identical => eng 'pipe'
b) The phonetism fits perfectly:
b.1 e>je both in Romanian and Albanian ,
b.2 rothacism in Romanian for Albanian V-ll-V
b.3 Rom ui <-> Alb y, where ui>y is regular in Albanian despite
your doubts...
b.4 the single 'exception' is the disparition of first l in
Albanian word (but a 'later' dissimilation fl<->ll => f <-> ll is
fully understandable)
So to put a conclusion here on 'if Rom. fluier fits or not with
Alb fyell?': the match fits better than duwo: > dy (to
take 'randomly' another proposed derivation :) )
Cimochowski (and you, via him) can say what he wants : the Link is
Obvious.
I better trust Rosetti on this topic, that put the word in the
list of 'Common Romanian Albanin words'
> Secondly, the <y> in the Mod.Alb. form is part of a
> secondary diphthong /ye/ arising in a monosyllabic word before a
liquid,
> not an original /y/. The fact that you don't even know _that_ much
about
> phonetic developments in Albanian should prevent you from
discussing
> Albanian etymologies. I'll post Cimochowski's etymology tomorrow (I
> haven't got his article to hand).
You don't know my derivation of fluier<->fyell and you supposed
that I didn't derived well, fyell? (I never write any ofense to
you...if you see a mistake on my side please use any adjective you
want (I will do the same), but please please don't suppose in advance)
My opinion is: je in fluier is from a short accented e.
Next y is from u + the j of e (see Rom fluier that preserved the
full sequence uje). But if you know better the developments I suppose
that you know also better the timeframes :
For this case: The e > je ended before uj > y so my example is
correct once again showing ui>y in Albanian (as it was *dwai:-u: >
*deju > dy where dj > dz finished before ju > y)
So if j in uj is from je < e , why to suppose on your side that
the rule rule uj > y is not applicable in this case, if the second
transformation finished later?
> > b) Also Alb. qytet (Latin loan) showing Lat. -iwi- > Alb. y
(so iu
> > or ui or iui)
>
> This one's better, though here we have neither Lat. /ui/ nor /iu/
but
> /iwi/ in <civita:t->, and the contracted syllables are both
unstressed.
I really indicated iwi <-> y but seems that you have ignored that
part of my message...
I cannot see such a big difference between iwi, ui, iu as you try
to present here, all of them go to y ...If you know one please post
here....(in addition iwi could well be reduced via ui or iu doesn't
matter here)
Best Regards,
Marius
P.S. Finally Please Clarify on your side too:
1. what is the Albanian output of iu, ui in your opinion, if is
not y?
2. what was the intermediary stage of u:, if not iu or ui?