--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci"
<akonushevci@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@>
> wrote:
> >
> > But the bull cult could have been related to Mithraism, very
> common among Roman soldiers. Remember that Christian churches were
> often founded on top of Mithraeums. The bull while perhaps not
> worshipped, was certainly important in IE culture, e.g. the Tain Bo
> Cualgne, et al.
> ************
> In Albanian existsts:
>
> 1. buall/buell `domestic buffalo, water buffalo' from attested
> form < boull < *bo:l-o/be:l-o;
> 2. dem `bull', singularized plural of dam, attested in place
> names Dam-astion, Epi-damn-um from *domH2-o;
> 3. ka `ox, steer', plural qe/kje probably from *gWou-;
> 4. kishk `domestic buffalo calf' (I haven't think about its
> etymology);
> 5. mëzat `young bull', probably related to mëz/mâz `foal';
> 6. tarak/taroç `young bull' from *tauro-k etc.
>
> I think that this fact speaks itself how important was `bull' in
> Albanian culture of cattle-breeding.
>
> Konushevci
>
> 1. buall/buell `domestic buffalo, water buffalo' from attested
> form < boull < *bo:l-o/be:l-o;
PAlb. o: > ua/ue only before n and in initial position, otherwise e
So you need better to follow Georgiev with Thrak. bo:linthos
I could try a derivation
bo:linthos > [-nt(h)- > n] > *bo:lina > *bo:lna > [ln > ll]
>buall/buell
Latin bu:balus is considered by the 'great majority' the source of
Albanian word but the transformation is not clear enough PAlb *byalu?
In Romanian the word is b'our (also considered from Latin bu:balus,
BUT this form raises also some phonetic issues: the expected form
should be *buar not bour ).
Also bour couldn't have this form in older times because Rom. nour
was reduced to Rom. nor 'cloud' ...
> 5. mëzat `young bull', probably related to mëz/mâz `foal';
In Romanian the same word is mânzat 'id.'
And yes, is a derivation of mânz 'id,'
Early PAlb&Dacian? *mandya > Late PAlb&Dacian? *mandza (with dy >
dz /3/ that started in PAlb&Romanian-Substratum(Dacian?) in a moment
when PIE *g' was already dh in PAlbanian and not dz. At the same
moment PAlb c^, g^ (preserved in PRomanian) were already c, 3)
1. Note that the reduction n3, ns, nc > z, s, c happened in PAlbanian
at the End Of the Roman Times BUT before s>sh in OAlbanian
2. Note also that ns > s happened in PRomanian too, probably at the
same moment (Latin mensa > Rom. mas& pl. mese) but -n3-, -nc-
/s&mânc&/ clusters were preserved by Romanian...
This difference can indicate that ns>s started earlier (Before Roman
Times) in PAlb&Romanian-Substratum(Dacian?) and remained active
longer (End Of the Roman Times).
On the other hand -ndz-, -nts- reduction started later, viewing the
different treatements between PRomanian & LatePAlbanian
Marius