> Piotr wrote:
>The objection that Romanian preserves Latin /-rn-/ while Albanian
>doesn't is not an obstacle. Romanian isn't simply a continuation of
>Dacian or Proto-Albanian. It's a Romance dialect that borrowed many
>items from its Albanoid substrate, where inherited *-rn- could already
>have become emphatic *-R-. If Latin borrowings continued to undergo the
>change _in Albanian_, that doesn't mean that the same would have
>happened automatically _in Romanian_, even if bilingualism was
>widespread at the time. If you speak two languages, some phonotactic
>transfer is likely but not inevitable.
Piotr, all you wrote above is correct but the issue is that the
timeframes didn't support your assumption regarding -n-.
So you cannot fix any moment in time when the word *c^wa:ra: entered in
the Balkan Latin, if you will still propose a -n- inside it.
Please try to propose one and you will see that a contradiction will
appear regarding different other timeframes.
The State of c^ in PAlbanian is very older in Relation with a -rr-
sourced from a rn-cluster in PAlbanian.
When PAlbanians still have a c^ the rn cluster was still there 'well
and safe' =>because there are many (Late) Latin loans in Albanian (not
only kërrutë) for which Latin rn > Alb rr and because there is no Latin
loan in Albanian where Latin ci is reflected as c^ (we have PAlb q for
such cases) (also please note that there isn't any 'Romanian
implication' in the above assertions)
Secondly based on kërrutë the loaning moment of Latin cornu:ta happened
after u:>y ended or at least passed in an intermediary stage (like ju,
or wi). So this loaning moment happened very late, sec VI CE is the
earliest timeframe that could be proposed for this. So based on kërrutë
at that moment rn > rr was at least active or based on your simplified
model (that I apply everytime when it not generates other
contradictions) rn > rr happened After This (so it could well happened
in sec VII or later).
No link with this, but only to note, that Romanian 'is coherent' and
always reflect Romanian u <-> Albanian y for a PAlb u:
But in sec VI CE 'For Sure' there was no c^ in Proto-Albanian to can
explain Romanian c^ <-> Albanian s
If we will move earlier the loaning moment when a c^ was still
available in PAlb => we will have problems with kërrutë that shows rn >
rr and so on....
Next, if we will suppose a long life of rn > rr (for about 600 years)
you will have issues with Dacian Dierna, Tsierna (attested) , not
saying that will be an 'undesirable situation' for the main model (=>
is you that told me that such transitions happened in 2-3 generations)
Finally I 'don't like' the invention of 'intermediary sounds' like R or
A or ddh as you have tried to propose in such 'delicate' situations.
So doesn't matter if there are other cognates in -ro or not, is almost
sure (based on the above facts) that there wasn't any -n- in PAlb
*c^wa:ra:
Also, I saw a lot of cases (see *ksud-ro) where the derived word exist
in a single language (Skt.) =>But if the root 'is clear' (*kWers-
'black') and the suffix 'is clear' (*-ro) I don't see any issue.
So I will repeat again, we cannot fix any moment in time when the word
*c^wa:ra: entered in the Balkan Latin, if you will still propose a -n-
inside it.
Please try to propose such a moment and you will see that a
contradiction will appear regarding different other timeframes ...
Marius