[tied] Re: ph3 > b -> Albanian dë-borë Romanian zãpada and Dacia

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci"
> > Even it be wiser to not reply at all in such kinds of posts,
>
> I don't want to offense you in any way Abdullah, but usually I
> applied 'more strictly that you' the Albanian and Romanian

phonetic

> rules.
>
> So "such kinds of postings" at least respect the following rules:
>
> 1. they never tried to invent new rules for Albanian and Romanian
> (like gWH > h )

[AK} See my previous post.

>
> 2. they try 'to take care' about the resulting semantism (=> see

in

> an opposed direction your proposal 'near snow' = 'snow' => isn't

more

> logical an etymology 'snow' = 'a kind of water' ? For sure it is.
>
> (see also pric^ina semantism proposed by other peoples here =>
> where 'cause' = 'at cause'))

[AK]
I try to protect you, for <c^ini> 'hex' as pluralia tantum has also
meaning of "harm, cause", especially for supestitional state of mind.

>
> 3. try whenever is possible to find 2 forms of the same word in
> Albanian and Romanian

[AK]
But not once, you try in vain, for there didn't exists, like in
<zapada> and <borë>.

>
> I agree of course that sometimes I will not arrive to 'a good
> conclusion' but 'at least' the trial is not at all an 'ad-hoc'

one.

>
> To come back to your proposed etymology:
> Abdullah, why b is not lost in dëborë (being a multi-syllabic

word,

> we should expect the same behavior as in Alb det < PAlb *deubeta,
> isn't it? So your etymology is not 'so valid' as you presented it:
> because you cannot be sure that the prefixed form 'is so recent'

due

> to ë there and knowing that a > ë preceeded b/intervocalic > zero.
> Can you see the issue?

[AK]
Yes, very well. <Dëborë> dialectal form and new one.

>
>
> Marius
>
>
> P.S. : I 'cannot understand' Abdullah, why you think sometimes
> necessary 'to display' 'such kind of arogance' that usually is

also

> sustained behind with 'some poor arguments' : some good contra-
> arguments will value 1000% more than this...
> I need to remember you some of your 'past reactions': when you

have

> said that 'you have never seen such a bad derivation' in respect

to

> one published by Demiraj on Leiden :) or in other case you 'really
> cannot detected' if another derivation was really ok => please
> remember your reaction "Piotr and the others, please save me" and
> finally "you really needed Piotr intervention to tell you that
> derivation is a valid one".
> So 'from where' Abdullah this type of reactions to you?
> I feel bad myself trying to show all these things...

[AK}
No, as usually, you behave like typical policman who knows only half
of alphabet!