Re: [tied] Some new etymologies

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

>
> On 2006-06-07 15:50, Abdullah Konushevci wrote:
>
> > And this number of formal problems are?! Would you, please, be

so kind,

> > to explain to me and to others which are these Latin/Romance

loans in

> > Albanian?
>
> *i > e and *-sk- > -shk- are both problematic. The loans in

question are

> of course peshk, peshkoj, peshkatar (cf. It. pesco, pescare,

pescatore).

Common, be a little serious. Why *i >e is problematic and *-sk- > -
shk-. Do you really think that Albanians are aware of the
word "fish" just in contact with Italian language?

> I thought I made that clear.

Yes, you owe me just a little explanation: how Italian /a/ yields
Albanian /o/ in <peshkoj> `to fish' (Italian pescare) and by which
law Italian /o/ becam Albanian /a/ in peshkatar (Italian pescatore).
Really, I think you are too ridiculous and for me this thread is
ended.

>
> >> You are confusing factors with factories. Cf. Lat. (forum)
> >> pisca:to:rium
> >> 'fish-market'. It just isn't the same word.
> >
> > For sure, your are mixing the NP with copound word or maybe you

have at

> > hand any use in NP of these Albanian suffixed words.
>
> Sorry, I don't follow. Lat. pisca:to:rium is not a compound, and

it

> means 'fish-market' also on its own, without <forum>.
>
> Piotr

And, what this has to do with Albanian <peshkatore> or <qumeshtore>,
or <therrtore>?

>