Re: [tied] Question on Albanian sy

Bravo, Marius!
To the point, documented and anti-elitist. Bravo!

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3"
<alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

>
> 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
> >
>