--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
>
> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > 1. SPITZER -> treats va as cognate of vadum
>
> Well, it even seems to be the same word :-)
>
> > 2. JOKL -> admits the possibility of an Indo-European source
of va
>
> Inasmuch as Lat. vadum is IE, so is Alb. va.
>
> > 3. MANN -> reconstructs *wadhom
>
> The reconstruction is needed for the Latin word, but this would
have
> yielded Alb. *vad(h) rather than <va> (m.)
>
> Piotr
>
Hello Piotr,
So at least four respectable persons (JOKL, MANN, SPITZER,
C^ABEJ) believed that Alb va could be of IE origin...and you
expediate them in 3 short notices? (as you did with Rosetti regarding
fluier<-> fyell...
My argument against a Latin source for Alb va is the following:
Because the intervocalic d cannot be lost in bi-syllabic words
(by the way I don't see yet any explanation on your side for <<Ne
hedhim>> eng 'We throw, where the intervocalic dh (from < d) is well
present)
Why? Based on this, the Alb. va cannot be sourced from Latin vadum
=> Because we need a proto-form with 3 syllables to can explain the
lost of d and Latin vadum has Only two.
A PAlb *wa-da-wa < PIE weh2dh- really explain the lost of
intervocalic v (see also Germanic cognates of Latin vadum indicating
a PIE *wada-)
Best Regards,
Marius
P>S>
In fact the real timeframe was
1. V-d-V > V-dh-V (together rd > rdh)
Timeframe: sec V - VI CE : no Slavic Loans shows this
transformation (we have discuss here 3 possible words that finally
could be borrowed from a different source)
and next it was dh (and not d) that was Really lost (via h)
2. V-dh-V => V-h-V => VV (in words with more then 2 syllables)