Hello Piotr,
First, I'm very sorry that you became nervous on this discussion.
There was no intention on my side....
We can stop this thread here if this discussion arrive to disturb
you...
> Just wait till tomorrow. I can only tell you in advance that you
are
> completely wrong about the diphthong /ye/, which _can't_ result
from the
> contraction of *u: with the vowel of the next syllable. Such
> contractions yield long vowels with the colour of the stressed
vowel,
> not diphthongs. Also, you ignore completely the Albanian dialectal
> material. I didn't mean to offend you, but you really need to learn
a
> lot about Albanian historical phonology. I refuse to discuss
complex
> "derivations" based on ignorance: it's a waste of time.
Rom. flu-ier 'pipe' and Alb. fyell 'id.' are here, and show you
that what you written above is not true: this kind of theories
on 'what is possible' and 'what is not posible' when you have 'the
oposite facts in front of you' ...needs at least some additional
facts to be added on your side...
I hope that I know well the dialectal material of fluier because
Rosetti indicated it well...
Maybe you will arrive to say that Rosetti is an ignorant too,
because he put also together fluier with fyell?
Unfortunately he is not here to reply you on the idea 'that there
is no link between fluier and fyell' ...
But ok. Let's wait until tomorrow...
> The development of the <ci:vit-> part was approximately like this:
> *ki:wit- > *kiwët- > *kjut- > qyt-, with the /u/ fronted by
> assimilation. This should not be directly compared with
> developments in stressed syllables.
I don't see you point here....is obvious that ju uj iwi (with or
without long i) gave y ...I cannot see any distinction regarding
stressed or unstresed syllables: iu,ui,iwi > y is available
everywhere...maybe you have another examples to show the difference...
>I can see the cause of 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.
a) Until Aromanian form is ocl'u I cannot see how somebody can
raise any doubt Regarding Latin oculus > PRom *oc(u)lu [cl>ki] > Rom
ochi(u) /oki(u)/
b) Secondly, there isn't any a > o in Romanian so Romanian
ochi /okiu/ cannot be from /ac^iu:/ (In Romanian only *wa can give o)
(on teh other hand, we cannot have Rom a(d)zi 'today' from Latin
hodie (see also Skt adya 'today') because there isn't any o>a in
Romanian too)
So the Latin source of Romanian ochi-u /okiu/ is 'Above Any
Doubt' Latin oculus ...Please don't suspect me again of 'idée fixe'
here (I work on the Computer Science field where the programms need
finally to run well....so there, at least, the model in my head (pro-
Dacian or not) is tested every day....and needs to run properly...)
But I will explain you exactly what I think:
The process of Romanization in Balkans (and not only there) took
place on a bilingual population with a native language closer linked
to ProtoAlbanian (is an 'idée fixe' not to accept this...)(of course
lot of colonists arrived there too..)
Based on this, it's normal that the native population(s) have
applied some analogies using the words and the phonetism that they
already know (making some phonetic adjustements on the new words,
operate with analogic transformation etc...) , applying their syntax
in some cases to Latin (like they have translated their def. articles
with Latin ones by keeping the same sintactic rules etc..) ...
So is better to have this model in head when we discuss about the
evolution of Latin in Balkans (than to suppose that the Balkan Latin
was completly isolated from the Native Balkan languages (with the
excuse that we don't know that languages: because we know one of
them)...So if we talk about 'idée fixe' here, I think that you can
easy detect where this 'fix idea' is place regarding the two options
above...)
The Next Fact is that the Single Native Balkan language that
survive is Albanian. Is not by chance that this language has closer
links with Romanian-Subtratum too..
So to ignore the Analysis of Romanian-Substratum or even of The
Romanian evolutions from Latin when we discuss about Proto-Albanian
forms is in my opinion a big mistake => this is the real fix idea.
Now to come back to Romanian ochi-u /okiu/ 'eye : (that is for
sure from Lat. oculus).
If the PAlb/Dacian? word was *ac^iu: (or even *ac^u: as you have
proposed) could you say that any influence (I mean any analogy,
similar adaptation etc..) between /ac^iu:/ (the word of the native
population) and Rom /okiu/ (the word of the Romanized population
adapted from Latin oculus) was impossible?
(when also the ORom oc^ii 'eyes' with c^ is attested in Codicele
Voronetean sec XVI and we know also the ORom. evolutions ORom.
copac^u > Rom copaku 'tree'; ORom melc^u >Rom melku 'snail')
But now to come back to our topic : even it was Only Dacian
ac^u: 'eye' , as you have proposed, this don't change anything on the
possibility of the above analogy because the phonetic difference was
minimum ...
And I insist on this aspect to can show you that my discussion 'on
the existence of i' in *ac^iu:, is first, more important, and next
is 'Not Related In any way to Romanian /okiu/' because *ac^u: is good
enough to suppose an analogy or at least an influence of the native
lanaguage (PAlb/Dacian?) in Romanian => the discussion was only to
can really understand what was the evolution of this word from PIE
because y, there, couldn't be explained by *h3ekW-ih1 => Viewing
this: next I ask myself 'who may I asked?' => and next I address 'to
you' my question...=> but sorry if I insisted to much with my
doubts....
Best Regards,
Marius
P.S. I don't want to hide you also that the derivation or Rom
doi 'two' is regular:
PIE *dwo-ih1 > PAlb/Dacian? *dwai(:) > Rom doi => (see PRom
wa > Rom o in Lat.una>o 'a fem.)) and I don't need here any u: to
properly derive the Romanian doi...
You like it or not : this is possible to happen (if Romanian
mazãre (showing a 'pre-Roman' PAlb/Dacian? a: > Albanian o) is
alomost sure from PAlb/Dacian? too, why not Rom doi 'two', to be at
least influenced by the Dacian word for 'two'?)) =>everything fits:
the derivation above is 'clean' (we don't need any 'ad-hoc' u: 'as
ornament') especially when the alternative is to suppose
a 'brazilian' tranformation of the Latin duo (where we don't have any
i)
Finally, if we could suspect that the local native population
could have had a form for 'two' like *dwai (because in this case we
know well the PIE root and the phonetic rules from PIE)) and in
addition if this form could at least, influenced the Latin duo:
regarding the presence of i, is really better to ignore this
possibility, and to prresent it as a 'fix idea'?
But to come back, the discussion on Albanian dy is really linked
to can well derived y...in dy, not in Romanian doi, because in doi we
don't have any issue if the intention would be to derive it from dwo-
ih1 ...
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
>
> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > 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'
>
> Just wait till tomorrow. I can only tell you in advance that you
are
> completely wrong about the diphthong /ye/, which _can't_ result
from the
> contraction of *u: with the vowel of the next syllable. Such
> contractions yield long vowels with the colour of the stressed
vowel,
> not diphthongs. Also, you ignore completely the Albanian dialectal
> material. I didn't mean to offend you, but you really need to learn
a
> lot about Albanian historical phonology. I refuse to discuss
complex
> "derivations" based on ignorance: it's a waste of time.
>
> > 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)
>
> The development of the <ci:vit-> part was approximately like this:
> *ki:wit- > *kiwët- > *kjut- > qyt-, with the /u/ fronted by
> assimilation. This should not be directly compared with
developments in
> stressed syllables.
>
> > 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?
>
> I prefer concrete examples to a general question like this. In PIE,
> there was no *iu or *ui to begin with, so you need to specify the
source
> of the sequence. For example, the contraction of *u with _any_
following
> vowel (including *i) could yield *u: and then Mod.Alb. /y/. Of
course I
> can see the cause of 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.
>
> > 2. what was the intermediary stage of u:, if not iu or ui?
>
> /u(:)/ is often fronted to /y(:)/ without any diphthongisation, so
no
> such intermediate stage is needed.
>
> Piotr
>