> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Seems that Cimochowski didn't know the Romanian Substratum
word:
> > viedzure when he did his analysis (Once again? as in case of
fluier<-
> >
> >>fyell):
>
> He was well aware of it. He does cite the Romanian forms in the
article.
So Very Bad for him, if he also knew the Romanian forms and he
reconstructed *ved- in place of *weg^h-
>
> > Otherwise nobody can suggest 'an original *vjed' when the
> > Romanian words is viedzure, isn't it? (there is no du>dz in
> > Romanian... )
> > The PAlb/Dacian? form was *wedzula (see Romanian dz(>z); and
the
> > l-rothacism) => that goes to the PIE *weg^h-ulo < PIE root
*weg^h-
> > 'to drive ; to pull' (cognate: Skt. váhati)
> How do you know that Proto-Romanian *3 wasn't used as a substitute
for
> Old Albanian *[ð]?
As you know Piotr, the Whole Reconstruction of PAlb c^, c, dz,
g^ are mainly based on the Attested Romanian dz, c and c^ still
present 'in the PAlb/Dacian? loans of the Balkan Latin' and not Only
on the Albanian dh, th, s, z ...so please do not open this subject
(when even you, didn't trust in it)....because this will affect the
WHOLE MODEL only because you cannot justify the preservation of
intervocalic dh based on your own local rule...
I learnt that is better to reject some 'local rules' first that
to directly put in cause the WHOLE SYSTEM.
But of course if you Really wants to put in cause this...I'm open:
So here is my argumentation (I already said this but seems you
didn't read it)
Fact-1: PAlb a: > Alb o <-> Rom a and PAlb a: > PAlb o finished
before 0CE (because no Latin loan in Albanian shows a: > o (Please
remember again that The Balkan Latin form for apple was me:lum )
Deduction-2: So as result of the Fact-1: Rom. madzãre 'was
present' in the Language of the Population that next became the
Romanized one in Balkans, 'At Least' Before 0 CE (otherwise it would
be loaned as 'modzule' that is not the case (Note also that Romanian
a never passeed to o)
Deduction-3: a) As result, at least before 0CE the suffix -ullë
was attached to madzãre...(and to vjedhull too (see below my
explanation that the suffix was 'already inactive' in Roman times))
b) Before 0 CE is 'very probable' that PAlb/Dacian
*ma:dzula still has the dz (< PIE *g^)
(And even it was dh in what became next 'the Albanian' the dz was
present before 0CE to a Balkan local population that was next
Romanized and became Romanians)
> > => this is fully understandable: the reduction to 2 syllables
> > took place later in that dialect. Having 3 syllables the lost of
> > intervocalic dh happens...
>
> But the etymological affricate seems to have never been lost, even
in
> trisyllabic words cf. <madhështi>.
I suspect that <madhështi> is ma-dhështi 2 syllable (Abdullah?)
=> as in Romanian: RomâneSti is Ro-mâ-neSti
> And if the <dh> of <vjedhullë> goes
> back to *g^H, where do the variants with d/t come from?
From some extensions made after the lost of dh ...in the dialects
that preserved the tri-syllabic form vje-dhu-llë also in the times
when dh>zero ...
In addition : we cannot have old forms with d (my opinion) because
d passed to dh globally
As regarding vjetullë there is also no d/t alternance (as I know)
in Old Albanian, so even is a 'corrupted quotation' or is 'a later
adaptation/extension of that dialect' as I said above.
> BTW, the fact that the suffix -ullë is old does not mean that it
didn't
> remain productive in the further history of Albanian and could not
be
> attached to new words.
>
> PIotr
>
Of course, but I said something different:
1. Because No Latin loans was derived in Albanian (and even In
Romanian) with this suffix (please check this yourself) =>I can say
that the suffix 'became inactive' already in Roman Times....(so I
took here each Latin loan in Albanian and their derived forms one by
one...)
2. also this suffix shows the l-rothacism in Romanian so Nobody
can say that 'it was added after the final phonetic shape of
vjedhull took place'...because Romanian rothacism took place earlier
than d>zero.