From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 50299
Date: 2007-10-15
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@>
> wrote:
> > As I said: PIE *kat- or only *kaT fits both Dacian *kac^- and
Latin
> > cassis => so I think that we have a dental+dental cluster here:
> > (because PIE Dental+Dental > Latin ss ; PIE Dental+Dental >
Albanian
> > s)
>
> But PIE dental + dental > PGerm. -ss- too, without exception, so the
> Germanic words in *kat- (add *katil- > kettle, supposedly a loan
from
> Latin catillus) can't be derived from this root, if the alternation
> *kat-/*kas- is a purely Dacian development. Unless one wants to
claim
> some Dacian-like substrate for words in Greek, Latin, Germanic and
> NWBlock.
I never say something good or wrong about this alternation *kat-/*kas-
in Germanic...
In place to try to be ironic :) better to take a look at the below
derivations:
PIE *kaT-T- 'hat'
==================
Germanic:
---------
1.centum-IE *k-,*kw- > PGerm. *x-, *xw- > Germ *h-, *hw- (in initial
position) (as in English hund(red) versus Latin centum)
a.So a PIE *k- for the h- of the Eng. hat 'hat', is regular.
b.Next, you can see also that this PIE *k- is 'quite visible'
in Romanian /k&c^-ul&/ ...
c. Adding to this that Romanian 'caciula' /k&c^-ul&/ means 'hat'
too...
I will bet with you : for 'one hundred' (in Romanian 'o sut&') that
we had in initial position the PIE *k- in Eng. hat
2. Next PIE T+T > Germ. ss (as you said too)
(OEnglish sess 'seat' Skt. sattá )
so PIE *kaT-T- > Proto-Germanic *xassa > Germanic *hass-
Issue/Question:
Why we have also -tt- in some Germanic forms (see Eng. hat), I
ignore ...Could you tell me what are the PIE sources of a Germanic -
tt-?
Latin:
------
1. PIE k- > Latin k- (Latin cruor < *kruh2-o:s-)
2. PIE T+T > Latin ss (Latin passus < *pat-tos)
so PIE *kaT-T- > Latin cass- (as in Latin cassis 'helmet') is regular
PAlb/Dacian?
-------------
1. PIE k- > PAlb/Dacian k-
see PIE *(s)ker -> PIE *kor-p- > PAlb karpa: <-> Dacian Karpatya
(attested at Herodotus 'Karpate:s')
2. PIE T+T > PAlb *c^ > Alb s (no attested Dacian examples for T+T)
see PIE *bHeidH- -> PIE *bHoidH-t-eh2 > PAlb *baic^a: > Alb bes&
So for a PIE *kaT-T- the regular output is PAlb. *kac^-
And this is exactly what we have:
Romanian-Subtratum and PAlb: *kac^-ulwa: -> *kac^ulla: > Rom. c&c^ul&
<-> Alb k&sul&
AS YOU SAID ONLY Germanic-forms in -tt- posed problems, so better we
need to find and explanation for this...than to put in question the
IE origin of *kaT-T- 'hat'
TOPIC B.
--------
> > All I can add, is that: not having the rhotacism in Romanian the
> > PAlb/Dacian? word finished in -lw- > -ll- : *kaT-T-ul-w-eh2
>
> Or it's a substrate word even in Dacian. When did rhotacism in
> Romanian take place?
1. First I need to tell you, that it didn't take place AT ALL when we
have an intervocalic -ll- :)
Examples:
a. Romanian cale < Latin callis
b. Romanian mal < Romanian-Substratum malla < Dacian malwa (
attested in 'Dacia Malwensis', later translated by the Romans 'Dacia
Ripensis')
2. for intervocalic -l- the rhotacism took place 'most probable' at
the end of Roman period but before the Slavs arrival in Balkans
(because Latin words in Romanian are affected too, but the Slavic
loans in Romanian are not affected)
c. see Romanian cer (< Latin)
3. But cac^ula cannot be a loan entered in PRomanian after the end of
the rhotacism so at 'the end of Roman period' as 'a later loan in
PRomanian from the Late PAlbanian' due to the Rom. c^ <-> Alb. s
corespondance present in this word: this correspondance points to a
Common c^; and this Common c^ could Only be dated to a much OLDER
period -> because at that moment 400-500 AC there was no c^ in Late
PAlbanian: (the Late Romance c^ is reflected as Albanian q , similar
Late Romance g^ is reflected as Albanian gj)
So the single possible 'ending' for /c&c^-ul&/ remains *-ulla < PIE *-
ulw-eh2 and not *-ula
4. Note also that lw,rw > ll,rr are regular for PAlb
5. But I will add, here, that the above rule: lw,rw > ll,rr is true
also for Romanian Subtratum too, giving you an independant example (a
Romanian word that doesn't have an Alb. counterpart) :
d. Romanian m&lai '(corn) flour, composition based on flour'
< PIE *melh-wo-yo
His origin from PIE *melh-wo 'flour' cannot be put in doubt, due to
its semantism and his phonetism.
The lack of rhotacism in
/m&lai/
(as in /mal/
/k&c^-ul&/
/kale/ < Lat. callis)
is due to the existence of an Older -ll- :
PIE *melh-wo-yo > Romanian-Substratum *melwaya -> mellaya > Rom. m&lai
The rule is:
Romanian-Subtratum *-lw- > Late Romanian-Subtratum *-ll- (+ also
Latin -ll-) > PRomanian *-ll- > Romanian (intervocalic) -l-
1. By demonstrating the existence of the -ll- from (<PIE *lw) in the
Phonetism of the Romanian-Substratum, independently from PAlb., and
2. by explaining based on it, the lack of rothacism in some important
Romanian-Substratual words (mal, caciula, malai, etc...), and also
3. coming now with the same organic explanation to explain the
different treatements of Latin -ll- versus Latin -l- in PRomanian
(see Romanian cale versus Romanian cer):
I think that I make another 'small step' further, regarding the true
origin of Romanian-Subtratum and finally regarding the Origin of
Romanians...
Also this is 'a big punch' too, to those that sustain the theory
of "No influence of the Local Balkan Language(s) in the Evolution of
Balkan Latin" by exagerating "The Internal Evolutions of Balkan
Romance" ...
Marius