Re: the slavic influence in Balcans
- --- In cybalist@y..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@w...> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 13:40:42 +0200, alexmoeller@t... wrote:seems
> >the argument is weak indeed, but it doesnt change the situation too
> >much. If we take the old slavic word "trUgU" we have corespondents
> >without metathesis in baltic langauges too , in sweden too, so it
> >it is not a specificaly balcanic this word and I dubt the balticand the
> >sweden got it from slavs too.why the
> >But because this word is to find on such a big area , I dont see
> >rumanians and albanians to get it from slavs. Due the fact theslavs are
> >coming almost at last in the histroy, it seems more probable theywhich
> >borrowed it from somewhere else.
> In Carl Darling Buck's dictionary, Rom. târg (tîrg), Swe. torg, Dan.
> torv, Lith. turgus and Latv. tirgus are explained as borrowings from
> Slavic (Russian, Bulgarian) *trgU. About OCS trUgU, S-C trg, Cze.
> trh, Pol. targ and Russ. torg (there is in fact no metathesis in the
> Slavic word, merely different developments of syllabic *r.), it is
> said: "either cognate with or loanword fr[om] the Illyrian word
> is the source of the name Tergeste (= Triest)".Isn't the -este ending the one Albanian Illyricists used to claim for
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
proto-Albanian (thus: Illyrian), proving that Albanians used to
inhabit a much larger area than today (Bucur-esti, etc)? But if
Albanian is really neo-Thracian, might *terg- not be Thracian (or a
loan-word into that language)?
The distribution seems to fit nicely with my Tauri-Taurisci-
(Thuringia-)Scandinavia idea. Contemporary Roman writers tell us that
before the Varro disaster in 9 CE, the Germani were beginning to
learn the idea of going to markets.
Didn't BTW Trieste use to be the port of Vienna, thus also once of
the export route to Germania?
- --- In cybalist@y..., "richardwordingham" <richard.wordingham@m...>
> Languages also undergo sporadic sound changes. For example, thethe
> change of intervocalic dH to Latin b referred to above, in detail
> process dH > *θ > *ð > *v > b (or dH > *θ > *f > *v > b -is ther=
> any evidence to tell between them?), where *v is NOT the sound
> written <v> in Latin, did not always occur. There are instance
> the change went dH > *θ > *ð > d, i.e. the change from dentalBy http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/14530 the Latin
> fricative to labial fricative was not universal intervocally.
change *ð > *v (v = fricative that became b) was not sporadic but