Re: [tied] Re: Albanian pre and Romanian prada
- Abdullah Konushevci wrote:
> As far as I know, nasalized forms are characteristic only for zero-gradeThe nasalised form is cited by Demiraj and Cimochowski; the latter also
> forms, so I can't see how to derive Alb. <re>, without any trace of
> nasal, from *rung-. Indeed, suffixed form *reug-n-yo should have yielded
> Alb. <(g.) v-rânj> 'to beconme dark', Alb. Geg <i v-rân-të> and Tosk <i
> vrër-të>, as well as in <vrân-si> 'cloud'. You may ask anyone you like
> that there is no articulatory distinction between Alb. <re> 'you fell'
> and <re> 'cloud'.
mentions Old Albanian <ren> (which I haven't been able to verify, since
he has no reference to the source of the form). I'll do more checking later.
> Furthermore its certainty is questioned too. Curiously you have noIt's just a question of the most plausible derivation, given the
> objection about Alb. <be> 'oath', derived from *bhoidh-eH2 (cf. Sl.
> beda, Lat. foedus), but such possibility you deny for <re> and <pre>.
available data. I don't object to the standard etymology of <be> because
there is no better explanation known to me.
- [fullquote deleted]
>It's Turkic characteristic to change /u/ > /o/: Arabic <burani>I.e. in "Ottoman" Turkish, right? (Well, it might be seen as
>'some kind of meat' > Turk. <borani>, Persian <bustan> 'garden'
>> Turkish <bostan>, Persian <buza> 'some kinde of drink' > Turk.
><boza>, Per. <shurba> 'soup' > Turk. <ï¿½orba>, Persian <dust>
>'friend' (like in Dust-e man 'My friend') > Turkish <dost>,
a parallel to what's in Hungarian u > o, u-Umlaut > o-umlaut.)
>So, primary forms are always with <u>, until in Romanian andIn Romanian additionally or rather the tendency in these 3
>Albanian exists tendency to change /o/ to /u/ where first vocal
>is followed by nasals /m/, /n/, /gn/
environments to convert both u and o (and a) into circumflexed-i
(or circumflexed-a), which in Russian is written bI and in
Turkish as an i without the dot. (I can type them but now
I'm using my new Firefox 1.5 browser, and I'm afraid it won't
render the nonASCII fonts in the proper way.)
>and has nothing to do with any kind of Umlaut.In Romance idioms/dialects in the Southern regions of
former "Romania" (I mean the ancient realm lead by SPQR), the
tendency is o > u; in various phon. environments Romanian can
be seen as the number one in this "top", ahead of the Sicily
and Sardinian isles and of Portugal. In the neighboring,
germanic world, there is IMHO a similar tendency in the South
rather u and u-Umlaut, in the North rather o and o-Umlaut -
the "border" running across Germany; cf. Mueller-Moeller,
gruen-groen (incl. Grï¿½nland), Fuesse (& Fiass)-Foe:ss/Foe:t,
Blut-Bloot/Blood; Blum(e)-Bloom; pan-German & North-German
komm! ("come (on/here)") vs. Bavarian+Austrian kumm!
("Lieber Gott, mach mich stumm, dass ich net nach Dachau
kumm!" was the popular adage betw. 1933-1945, as the
average German knew of the 1st concentration camp.)
And cf. pan+standard German was ("what") [vas], South
German (esp. Bavarian+Austrain) wos [vos, vo:s], and
Yiddish wus [vus, vu:s]. (North of a Cologne-Berlin line,
the dialectal "what" is wat [vat, va:t].)