--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
>
> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
>
> > 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?
> .... your obsession with "iu, ui" -- the idée fixe that
> Rom. ochi does not derive from Latin oc(u)lus but is a "Dacian"
> word closely related to Alb. sy. This is another piece of nonsense
> below the level of serious discussion.
>
> Piotr
I guess you are wrong here. Marius follows an regional word mentioned
by Densusianu where the form for "eye" is "oci" and not "oki". The
form with the affricates "c^" is the one who appears to be the reflex
of the form which gave Alb. "sy".
The idea that Rom. "ochi" is not from Latin "oculus" was mine and
despite of the unanimously appreaciation that a such supposition is
a "nonsese", the phonetic development is explained alone trough
Romanian due its post posed definite article.
In fact here I was struggling to find arguments pro and contra since
once we have latin diminutives "oculus" with the presumabely
sincope "oclus" which should have given (adapted) italian "occhio"
and the posiblity of a development via the o.m.. post posed article,
thus a regular form, not a diminutival form. To be honest I find
questionable the explanation via "diminutive" in Latin. Too many
diminutival forms can mean that one does not know better how to
explain some forms. But this is an another story.
Alex