--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
>
> On 2006-01-07 02:59, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > 1. Latin niger 'dark;black' < PIE *negW-ro 'ressembling-with/like
the
> > dark-color' (but of course having a different nature)
>
> Why "of course", and what "different nature"? In what way is 'dark'
> different from 'resembling dark'? And "of course" Lat. niger means
just > 'dark, black' etc., not 'resembling a dark colour'.
Because, if "I am a man and they wanted to name me by saying that
I'm ressembling to a 'wolf', they 'also took care' and 'they wanted
to remember that I'm not Really a wolf' ".
So they 'wanted to keep in mind' that "I'm not a wolf" in the same
time with the fact that 'I'm resembling so much with a wolf' : to do
this they would have been constructed "'wolf'-ro"
But for the 'Night' that is really 'the dark'/'a kind of dark' they
contructed *nokW-t-is ('the complete dark').
Opposed to this, the 'Niger' by its nature is a man (and usually not
every known men, by its nature, were dark) so they have constructed
*negW-ro in this case, trying to remember that that person has a
property 'dark' but is 'a man' and not 'a kind of dark'
(I doubt that the original meaning of niger was the Color 'black' or
a 'darked' Color)
Opposed to this, the 'Sea' is 'Deep' by 'its nature' so they
contructed *dheubh-e-to '<<full-of>> deep' (Albanian det 'sea') and
not *dheubh-e-ro
Taking the example of Birds, the birds are usually not 'so white'
or 'so black' (by their nature) => so they named such birds 'white'-
ro and 'black'-ro
> > For cognates of the root *negW- 'to get dark':
> > See Albanian njegull 'dark fog' <-> Romanian negurã 'id.'< PIE
*negW- > ulo '
>
> You forget the variant <mjegull>. What we possibly have here is a
> contamination between better-known words for 'fog, mist' such
> *h3migH-lah2- and *nebH-elo-. There's practically no extra-Latin
support
> for this *negW- 'get dark' root as proposed by some.
1. There is the Armenian nerk, nerkoy 'color' supposed to be from
*negW-ro via gr > kr > rk (I hope that I remember well the Armenian
word)
2. Also we have three PIE roots here : *negW- (*negW-ulo, *negW-ro)
*nekW- (*nokW-t-is) and *nebh- (*nebh-os) all three of them
meaning 'dark, get dark' so is hard not to supposed a
common 'departure point' in 'Early PIE' (something like *negW- =>
*nekW- via gW/t > kW and *negW- => *nebh- via gW/o > bh etc..)
3. <mjegull> is a combination, I agree, but Alb. njegull (Rom.
negurã) isn't.
> *nokWt-s (gen. *nekWt-s) is a root noun (secondarily transformed
into an
> i-stem in some branches). There's no compelling reason to analyse
it as
> *negW-t- with an arbitrary extension, inasmuch as Hitt. ne-ku-uz-zi
> 'gets dark' may easily reflect *nekWt-ti.
It is a reason : The PIE Roots are contructed in an uniform way: CVC
(using 'a more general' definition for C and V) so we cannot have a
PIE root *negWt- *nekWt- (see also Derksen's decomposition *nokW-t-is
etc..)
> Sorry to have to repeat myself, but I derive Alb. bardhë (and the
> Romanian 'stork' word) from PIE *bHr.h1g^-o-. There's no need of
> anything more complex. I further speculated that _within PIE_ the
> adjective may be analysed as a simplified variant of *bHr.h1g^-ró-,
but
> this is of no direct relevance to the Albano-Romanian question.
Yes. But I 'go further' and I showed you, that we couldn't have any -
n- in Albanian sorrë 'crow' <-> Romanian c^oara:
1. Rom c^ <-> Alb > c (>s) is 'older than'
2. rn > rr in Albanian: Latin cornu:ta > Rom cornutã > Alb kërrutë
(see also Latin u: that remained Alb u here)
3. also Dacian Tsierna, Dierna shows that rn > rr couldn't remain
active several hundreds years (as you have supposed)
So the PAlb word c^wa:ra: 'crow', usually derived as *kwers-no or
kwers-n-eh2, didn't contain any -n-.
In this case the single (and the logical solution) that remains
for 'crow' is *kwers-ro (or *kwers-r-eh2).
Viewing this, I remembered your suposition that *bhrh1g'-ró- could be
the right source of Romanian bardza => and I say "yes" : it should be
a uniform way 'to construct' such 'similar-
to' 'objects,properties,...,man,birds' (thanks for you correction
related to my English, in Romanian is 'similar cu') : *nig-ro,
*bardz-ra, *cwa:r-ra
Also, next, I said: why to consider 'a PIE reduction' and not
a 'PRomanian reduction' *bardzra > bardza (knowing the evolution:
Latin fra:ter > PRom fratre (attested) > Rom. frate)
In this case the Romanian bardza 'storck' is from *bhrh1g'-ro and the
Albanian bardhë 'white' is 'simple' from *bhrh1g'-o (or *bhrh1g'-eh2
if the stems wasn't changed in PAlb, as I suppose) => that has Sense
for a Semantical point of view.
> > Romanian(<Dacian) *bardz-ra 'stork' is defined as => '"similar-
with"
> > the white-color' (but of course having a different nature (being
a
> > bird))
>
> Whatever you say. But the same word means just 'white'
(not 'similar to
> the white colour but having a different nature') in Albanian.
First, is not the 'same word' see above.
Secondly, the assignation of *-ro happened like this (of course my
opinion):
1. if they wanted to say that the behavior of a girl is similar-to
the behavior of a boy they would have been named that kind of girl
as 'boy'-ro (because they didn't forget that they applied this new
name to a girl not to a boy)
2. if they wanted to say that something is 'a kind of dark' => 'a
complete dark/full-of dark or get complete dark' they said 'dark'-to
<<night>>
3. if they wanted to name the result or the (sun) shine-action, they
named it 'shine'-no <<day>> (*dei(h2)-no) (but 'others' prefered to
name the <<day>> "(the) full 'of shining'" (*dih2-to)
So 'a bird' that is 'so black' will be *kwers-ro (because usually the
birds are not so blacks, by their nature). 'A bird' that is 'so
white' is *bhrh1g'-ro (because usually the birds are not so whites) ,
a man that is so dark is *negW-ro (because 'usually' the known men
weren't so darks)
=> but the Night is really the 'dark' so is *nokW-t-is and not *nokW-
r-is (and the Sea 'is always' deep => *dheubh-e-to)
Marius