From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 42382
Date: 2005-12-02
On 12/2/05, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:Abdullah Konushevci wrote:
> Why not we assume that much more straightforward and most likely source
> is *preu-k 'to hop' (cf. *reug- 'cloud' > Alb. <re>) with compensatory
> lengthening of dropped velar. Further more, they belong to same
> paradigm: undf. pre, def. pre-ja; undf. re, def. re-ja.
(1) Its Latin origin is likely because reflexes of <praeda> with the
same meaning are found throughout the Romance offspring of Latin.
Formally and semantically, the connection is unassailable, and as for
its historical plausibility, the partial relexification of
Proto-Albanian vocabulary with Latin words is no secret.
(2) The *preuk- etymology doesn't work formally, since the final *k
would have either stayed or else dissapeared in pre-Albanian times
without any compensatory effects (in the unlikely case of the noun being
athematic). The derivation of <re> (<rê>) from *reug- (or *h1regW-, see
Demiraj) works only if we start with a form with a nasal suffix (like
Gk. eremnós), giving PAlb. *reN, so despite having a similar declension
it isn't a parallel case.As far as I know, nasalized forms are characteristic only for zero-grade forms, so I can't see how to derive Alb. <re>, without any trace of nasal, from *rung-. Indeed, suffixed form *reug-n-yo should have yielded Alb. <(g.) v-rânj> 'to beconme dark', Alb. Geg <i v-rân-të> and Tosk <i vrër-të>, as well as in <vrân-si> 'cloud'. You may ask anyone you like that there is no articulatory distinction between Alb. <re> 'you fell' and <re> 'cloud'.Furthermore its certainty is questioned too. Curiously you have no objection about Alb. <be> 'oath', derived from *bhoidh-eH2 (cf. Sl. beda, Lat. foedus), but such possibility you deny for <re> and <pre>.PiotrKonushevci