Re: Albanian pre and Romanian prada (was: Question on Albanian sy)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>

wrote:

> >
> > altamix wrote:
> >
> > > I am not sure either. The plural form shows an "ã" instead of

the

> > > expected "e" if there has been an earier "e" > "ea" > "a".
> > > I should have expected "*prezi" but the plural is "prãzi" and

that

> > > will speak for an "a" there, not for an "e".
> >
> > Not if we assume that the effect of /pr-/ is similar to that

of /p-/,

> > which retracts an unstressed *e (as well as *ae, *i, e:, *oe) to

ã,

> cf.
> > <pãcat>.
>
> How are you removing the stress in the derivation of "prãzi"?
>
> > Cf. also Rom. prãdá < praeda:re.
>
> But the present singular has prad- - prad, prazi, prádã. The -ã-

is

> what one should expect from the lack of stress.
>
> Richard.
>

You are right, Richard. And in addition the Aromanian forms (that
never lost an accented e contains the accented á also: Ar. prádã pl.
prãdz
So Only a proto-form with á could explain these outputs: Latin
praeda > Balkan Latin *pra-a-da > Romanian pradã <-> Alb. pre

And as I said: we have here the famous 'Second Example' that I
always request to Piotr:
Lat. aeramen < Balkan Latin (and not only) *a:ramen < Romanian
aramã <-> Alb. rem 'copper'

So the rule is "assimilation ae<->a => aa<->a" (next a:>a)

This indicate us that this are very ancient loans from Latin (in
the times when Latin ae didn't pass yet to the Latin e) (but I will
come back with an 'exact date' here)

Best Regards,
Marius