Re: [tied] Question on Albanian sy

Like Marius vs. Sylla :-) Id est Ale :-)

Piotr, be good sport, like you always have been! Admit you have to
throw the towel from time to time, it's only to your honor :-)

Yours, both,
Dan

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Waniek" <irismeister@...>
wrote:

>
> 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
> > >
> >
>