--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
>
> altamix wrote:
>
> > From the root you mean here I expect in Rum. a "*breaz-" and the
> > word exists as such. This is an adjectiv but it is considered to
> > be a loan from Bulgarian "breaz".
>
> You must have misunderstood something. The Albanian word comes from
> the PIE _word_ *bHr.h1g^ó-, not from "*bHérH1g^-". The regular
> development of interconsonantal *-r.H- in Albanian is into -ar-,
> so the PAlb. form was *bar3-, exactly what you need to account for
> the shape of its Romanian relative.
>
> Piotr
>
apparently I stil misunderstand something. Is the "bH" not the
notation for the aspirated "b"(bh)? If not, then maybe here is where
I have the first problem in understanding. If yes, then the "bhr.h1-"
shows some strange things in the -good said- this Rum. relative:
-the "r." should be refletect in Rum as "râ" and not "r"
-there is already the methathesis which appears to be later in Alb.
( that is, the Rum. word should have been *brâzã" and not barzã)
-the g^> z just when the next wowel was a palatal one. Accepting "o"
> "e", you got the g^e > z but this is too unknown in the other words
we know in Rum-Alb pairs.
If all I mentioned here is not too far from the truth, then the
word "barzã" has nothing to do with "bardhë"; the fact the semantism
of the both words is not the same -despite the try to explian it-
will underline the pair barzã-bardhë is a false one.
Alex