From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 42598
Date: 2005-12-22
> > You must have misunderstood something. The Albanian word comesfrom
> > 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 accountfor
> > the shape of its Romanian relative.where
> >
> > Piotr
> >
>
> apparently I stil misunderstand something. Is the "bH" not the
> notation for the aspirated "b"(bh)? If not, then maybe here is
> I have the first problem in understanding. If yes, thenthe "bhr.h1-"
> shows some strange things in the -good said- this Rum. relative:Alb.
> -the "r." should be refletect in Rum as "râ" and not "r"
> -there is already the methathesis which appears to be later in
> ( that is, the Rum. word should have been *brâzã" and not barzã)Accepting "o"
> -the g^> z just when the next wowel was a palatal one.
> > "e", you got the g^e > z but this is too unknown in the otherwords
> we know in Rum-Alb pairs.semantism
>
> 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
> of the both words is not the same -despite the try to explian it-You cannot do 'direct links' with current Romanian or Albanian words
> will underline the pair barzã-bardhë is a false one.
>
>
> Alex
> ulzë (note also m3 > 3 here similar with n3 > 3 in mëz <-> Rom. mân(d)z)