[tied] Re: *eH3k'u- 'swift; accipiter, doe, wind, hawk'

From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 49018
Date: 2007-06-16

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> alexandru_mg3 schrieb:
>
> > > shyt& and sut& is from a long time considered having the same
> > > origin=> see Rosetti, that is one of best source regarding the
> > > classification of the common Albanian-Romanian inherited
lexicon
> > >
> > > I have explain you why above.
> > >
> > > So is not Orel the source of this idea: this is the common
> > etymology
> > > accepted today. And I don't see why we need to reject it.
> > >
> > > Marius
>
>
> yet the words are phoneticaly different and one cannot put in the
> same cup the "u" and "y" the "s" and "sh". In my opinion, the
> meaning "mug" has nothing to do with the meaning of "doe" and the
> "ciot, "ciutura" (also Alb. "shyt" ) is not related to "ciutã"(Alb.
> sutë).
> On another hand, the Rom. "ciont" family is related to the adj.
> "syt" in Albanian. To be honest, I guess in Albanian we have here
> two words who evolved to the same form (being actually omonyms).
>
> to summ up:
>
> - Alb. sutë is the same word as Rum. "ciutã" (doe) probably from IE
> "*keu-t"
> -Alb. "shyt" is the same word as Rum. "ciut(urã)"= mug
> -Alb "shyt" (dull, edgeless) is the same word as derivatives of
> "ciont/ciunti"( dull, edgeless). Presumably the lost of "n" here
> made the two words in Albanian to look today identicaly. It remains
> to explain the "sh" in Albanian versus Rom. "c^" since there should
> have been an "s" less Rom. "c^" has another source here.
> - Alb. "sutë" cannot be the same word as "shyt" due phonetic and
> semantic aspect. My 2 cents here.
>
>
> Alex
>


Alex,
In Romanian we have c^ut m. c^ut& f. 'without horns' (with. the
variant s,ut/s,ut)
http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=ciut

and c^ut& 'doe'
http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=ciut~a

1. The two words a phonetically identical
and
2. The 'doe' is a being "'without' horns"

Based on this Rosetti consider them 'one and the same word' and I go
with him.


Based on the Romanian forms the PAlb/Dacian? forms both for 'without
horns' or 'doe' goes to a *c^ (the dialectal variant *sh is secondary
and is a variant : why? because exists in Romanian too )

The Explanation of the alternance c^/sh in this words is linked to
the 'main alternance' ts/s in Romanian & Albanian :
see Albanian sup < *tsup-i-,
Romanian s^ambure / Alb thumbull
Romanian sarb~ad / Alb tharb&d etc..

Let's present you the situation

1. you know as I (see above), that in some Rom&Alb inherited words
there is an alternance of ts/s (with not very clear explanation) =>
however this alternance is originated from an original *ts /c/ < *k'

2. this ts/s alternance yielded c^/s^ when follows by an w (also j)

so only a cluster k'u: > k'wu > [ts/s alternance] > *tswu/swu > c^
(uta:)/sh(u:ta:) => can lead us to a c^/sh alternance.

And we have here a c^/sh alternance because Romanian c^ut and
Albanian shyt has the same meaning ' without horns' and there is no
c^ /sh correspondance between Romanian & Albanian

The 'doe' being saw as 'that one without hornes' => 'the cuted one'
is also a logical output.

First of all, we need to follow the meaning whenever is identical...

So anybody that proposed another etymology here, needs 'to see' that:

1. c^ut& means in Romanian 'without horns' and 'doe' in the same
time
2. and to explain the c^/sh alternance in these words

Marius