This time Piotr seems that the 'fix idea' is on your side: seems that
you reject apriori any posible link between fyell and fluier....
I. > Piotr wrote:
> 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.
For sure there are formal juxtaposition too but your assertion is
so general that didn't prove anything, because Not All The Time we
have Formal Juxtapositions:
We talk here about 2 languages that share an important number of
common words and an important number of same phonetic rules. To
assert that <fluier> and <fyell> is a like to reject 'a priori' any
posisble link based on a "initial idea" that there is no link between
Proto-Albanian and Romanian Substratum
In this condition, to assert that the couple <fluier> 'pipe' and
<fyell> 'id.' represents a 'formal juxtaposition' finally is like to
reject 'a Fact'.
To give here formal examples like Greek versus Latin and Latin
versus Greek knowing the Albanian and Romanian shares at least
14 'ancient' phonetic rules, an important number of common
words ...so 'to reject 'a priori' any posible link' => this is not a
scientific method Piotr....
II. > Piotr wrote:
> 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.
I prefer Rosetti option that put the Facts before Any Theory ....
I saw a lot of theories that are constructed by excluding importanyt
Facts
So to put together All the Facts is More Important than any Theory
that will follow:
Like in this case: if Cimochowski didn't make any reference to
Romanian fluier and to any other Balkan word for 'pipe' his Albanian
analysis for fyell serve to nothing...
Even later he can find out that there is only a formal
juxtaposition he is Obliged to Put First all The Possible Forms in
that area to analyze them and only Finally to decide about.
Not specifying From the beginning the Romanian 'fluier' when he
knows that Albanian & Romanian shared an important number of words
presents Only in Albanian and Romanian is for sure very bad for his
Analysis
III. > Piotr wrote:
> 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).
To accuse me from 'Procustean stretching and twisting' when you
know (as I know) that all the below Rules are Regular:
1. e > je both in Albanian and Romanian (and in Dacian too)
2. ui > y in Albanian
3. and the rotacism of intervocalic l in Romanian (see Rom.
mazãre <-> Alb modhull"
is bad intention Piotr...
On the other hand, I agree that ye is a specific pattern in
Albanian (mainly it's source was a: and less o: as you present) but
this doesn't mean that: This is the Only Source of Albanian ye.
As you well know an ouput X can arrive from X1, X2, X3 inputs so
your below long demonstration indicating a link X1 -> X and ignoring
other possible sources didn't prove anything..
So if you want to really prove something here you need to show
that the Albanian pattern *uje could not give *ye in Albanian => but
only to indicate other sources of ye here doesn't prove anything...
Best Regards,
Marius
P.S.:
IV. > Piotr wrote:
> 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
Once again Piotr for this 'well known example' you ignore the
Romanian material (like Cimochowski did in case of fyell. please take
example from Rosetti that put together first All the Facts :) ) ->
that is 'a Must' when when we talk about loans from Balkan Latin in
Albanian -> because Romanian is in fact the Balkan Latin ...
In Romanian we have nuia (older var. nuie) Piotr, showing you once
again Rom. uie > Alb. ye as in fluier <-> fyell