Re: [tied] Re: morsha

Considering the fact that Chinese word for whale is from *ku-R-ing

with -R- a "rhotic" consonant like -l- or -r-,

hence Modern Pekinese jing4,

Balena is from *k?ul-

And *bal- is from *gw_l-.

not from *b(h)_l-

----- Original Message -----

From: alexandru_mg3

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 2:04 AM

Subject: [Courrier indésirable] [tied] Re: morsha

--- In cybalist@... s.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> On 2007-09-06 19:02, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > So Romanian balaur, Piotr, would be from *bHl-n.-wo-wr- o > Dacian
> > *balwaura > *ballaura > Romanian balaur, in this case ....
>
> *bHl-n.-wo-wr- o- doesn't strike me as a likely IE derivative
(though
> admittedly such a burbling sound is just what a dragon could make :-
)).
> In view of Alb. bollë, a connection with <blí> and <pHalle:> is
> difficult to establish.
>
> piotr
>

1. The basic root is obvious PIE *bHelh1- 'to inflate' > *bHeh1l- >
Old Dacian *be:l- > Dacian *ba:l- (that regularly gave )> Romanian
bal-(aur) Albanian bol-

2. Next we have an -wo : *bHeh1l-wo- > Old Dacian *be:lwa > Dacian
*ba:lla in order to explain the lack of rothacism in Romanian bala-
ur (where intervocalic l reflects an older -ll-) and the ll (from lw)
of Albanian boll&
where
X-wo defines 'a thing possesing the X-property'

3. for Dacian ba:lla see also Dec^e-ba:ll-

4. finally -ur in Balaur reflects PIE suffix *-wer/n that generates
the 'abstraction' of 'a Big (Monster)'

So *bHeh1l-wo/eh2 for Albanian boll& and
*bHeh1l-wo-ur- o for Romanian balaur are regular reconstructions

Now my final questions here are:
a) why 'balaur' cannot fit with 'balena'? the original semantism is
very close almost identical...
b) the issue is to establish to what root *bHl-n- belongs ?
Obviously *bHl-n- should belong to bHelh1- too but 'I cannot see here
what happens with the laryngeal' in bHl-n-
c) So the problem is not with 'balaur' but with *bHl-n-
('balena' ) etc...

Marius