Re: [tied] Question on Albanian sy

--- 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. 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/.

since you are quoting Cimochowski I cannot say you are kidding but I
must say Chimochowski appears to be wrong. The Alb. word is the same
as the Rom. word and there are no phonetic troubles in linking the
both words with each other. I wonder one disputes a such evident
relation; was Chimochowski not aware about the Rom. counterpart of
the Alb. word? I doubt he wasn't. If he does not mention
Rom . "fluier", then his etymology is of no use. If he mentions the
Rom. word , then he has showed for sure _why_ the pair "fyell/fluier"
is not a the same reflex of a common protoform.

> The fact
> that you don't even know _that_ much about
> phonetic developments in Albanian should prevent you from
> discussing Albanian etymologies.

that is an add you don't need. Marius knows meanwhile a lot about
Albanian and having as background Rom. lang he has almost the best
prerequisite to discusse about.

> I'll post Cimochowski's etymology tomorrow (I
> haven't got his article to hand).

that is the best you can do; we can take a look at together:-)

> Piotr

Alex