alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> 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...
The juxtaposition of <fluier> and <fyell> proves absolutely nothing by
itself. Similar words with the same meaning don't _have to_ be related.
Cautionary examples like Eng. day vs. Lat. dies or Gk. tHeos vs. Lat.
deus are surely familiar to everybody on this list.
> 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?
No, he wasn't ignorant, which doesn't mean that all his suggestions (not
to mention wild guesses) were correct. In order to demonstrate the
relationship between two words you have to establish a plausible formal
connection between them as a necessary prerequisite. I'm not aware of
anything like that in this case: Rosetti only mentions the Albanian word
but doesn't add anything of substance. Fortunately, he doesn't engage
into the sort of abitrary Procrustean stretching and twisting by which
you try to make <fyell> look relatable to the Romanian word, regardless
of the Albanian facts (see below).
> 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...
I partly have to disappoint you. My memory has failed me. Cimochowski
mentions <fyell> (and its forms in Geg dialects), but doesn't discuss
its etymology. The article is devoted to the similar dialectal word
<dyell> 'plantain'. Cimochowski, however, presents the development of
the whole lexical class in question -- words with /ye/ alternating with
/e/ in that dialecta area (with <fej> as the plural of <fyell>), and
this part of the article is useful for our discussion.
The diphthongs in question derive from PAlb. *a: and *o: (> o, e, or
from such vowels when found in sufficiently early loanwords) before
original liquids and nasals in word-final stressed syllables. /ye/ may
also be the result of palatal umlaut affecting /ue/ ~ /ua/. (Some Geg
dialects monophthongise /ue/, /ye/ to /u:/, /y:/)
Cf. derë, pl. dyer; dorë, pl. duar; ftua, pl. ftonj; Geg shuell, pl.
shyej (standard Tosk shuall, pl. shoj) 'sole of the foot' < Lat. solum.
The pattern of <fyell, fej> (standard pl. fyej) may have arisen in two
ways only: either directly from *fel-, *felj- or indirectly from *fol-,
*följ-. In the latter case we would expect Geg *fuell, fyej, but the
vocalism of the plural has very often been generalised in Albanian. A
well-known example of such a development in a similar word is Geg. nue
'knot (in wood), ankle' < *non (with a secondary -n-) <-- Lat. no:dus,
which varies dialectally with the new umlauted singular nye, def. nêni,
pl. nej. Cf. also krye, krerë 'top, head' (Gk. kra:n-).
This means that looking for a protoform of <fyell> 'reed, flute, pipe'
we should take ino account anything that could have been reflected as
*fol or *fel before the diphthongisation. If the word is inherited, the
vowel may represent pre-Albanian *e:, *a:, or *o:.
Piotr