--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci"
> <akonushevci@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Romanian cãciulã /c&c^ul&/ 'hat' / Alb kësulë 'id.
> > > > should belong here too...
> > > > and if so, this is more likely an IE-word rather than a
Germanic
> > > > substrate one.
> > >
> > > Erh, why? If you think so, what is its IE etymology?
> > >
> >
> > Couldn't it be *kadh- 'to cover; guard': Latin cassis, -idis
> > 'helmet', MIr cais 'love', mis-cuis 'hate': OHG huot, English
hat:
> > Alb kësulë (Rom cãciulã),
>
> > beside Alb kacole 'kind of hat weaved together with the coat' <
> > *kadh-s-,
>
> Why not instead *katt-jo:- > Alb. kacole, Rom. cãciulã (> PGerm.
> hatt-jo: > ON heita (same meaning), and *kass- > Alb. kësulë (not
that
> I'm familiar with the relevant rules for Albanian and Alb. loans in
> Romanian)?
>
> Torsten
>
Torsten, Rom. cãciulã is not 'an Albanian loan in Romanian' :
This is a false theory that asserts that Romanians has nothing to do
with the Dacians: in order to demonstrate this, this theory needs to
assert next : that there is no Substratum in Romanian : all the
Romanian-Substratum words being in fact 'later loans from Albanian'
Rosetti was among the first that demonstrates with solid arguments
that this theory is false : showing that the timeframes of the
phonetic transformations (as we can deduce them from the Romanian<->
Albanian common words) don't correspondant to the assertion of this
theory, that says : 'these are later loans ino Romanian from Albanian'
Now to tell you my opinion:
Romanian-Substratum and Proto-Albanian are genetically linked and
come back to a same Language (around 500BC) that most proably was the
Dacian language because:
e: > a: (Dacian -da:wa:)
e/accented > ye/ya (Dacian Diegis)
gW/+,gw/+ > g^ (Dacian Germisara)
r. > ri (Dacian Crisia)
(to give only you only some examples) 'are shared' by Dacian,
Romanian-Substratum and Proto-Albanian.
To come back to our subject:
-----------------------------
s in Albanian kësulë reflects and Older Proto-Albanian c^ preserved
by the Romanian-Substratum and next by Romanian too : /c&c^ul&/
The source of Romanian c^ <-> Albanian s => Proto-Albanian/Dacian? c^
is one-Of :
1. k'w
2. kw/+
3. kW/+
4. k'y
also a
5. Dental + Dental => Albanian s
(but I don't have here a Romanian c^, as example)
maybe also
6. Dental + s => Albanian s , Romanian c^ but I don't have other
examples too
Romanian c^ <-> Albanian s correspondance belong to a
timeframe "Before Roman Arrival in Balkans" =>
When The Romans arrived in Balkans there was no c^ in Proto-Albanian
(this sound already passed to ts /c/ at that time)
On the other hand, the c^ was preserved by Pre-Romanians, that later
were Romanized.
This is proved by the fact that Latin loans in PAlb don't have any
trace of c^ (for Latin ce/ci we have Alb qe/qi), as PRomanian shows
(Rom. cer /c^er/ 'sky' etc...) .
And this is not the only argument here: THE CHRONOLOGY of all the
other PAlb transformation (in Relation with what is reflected by the
Latin loans in Albanian) push the end of PAlb c^ > PAlb c (> later
Alb s) to a very early stage.
Marius