Albanian and English.

Both are considered IE languages but they share some strange similarities which can not be justified with the theory of the third party common origin(the pretended PIE language).
I want to give an example in this regard, looking at two cognates: the English feature and the Albanian veçori .
These two word look different graphically but they sound almoust identical, beside being semantically the same.

English----------------------------Albanian
(fchr)--------------------------(vechori)

Now the word veçori has a certain Albanian source, which is the verb veçoj(seperate), and the adverb veç(alone), while the English word doesn't show itself to be successor of some other clear distinct English source.
Now let's take a look at the letters/sounds. It's obvious that these two words are the same word, but because of different grammar rules and different "wordsmiths", they look different. Indeed f is a Voiceless labiodental fricative while v is Voiced labiodental fricative, but there is no doubt that they are the same phoneme but because of the transition to a different language it looses the voice which it originally had(we already know that the voiceless stops are more recent). The writen diphtong ea is not the real value of the phoneme, in Albanian it remains e fixed, while in English it creates a link with the original sound fiechr). The other writen letter t expresses the same phoneme ch which in Albanian is written ç. The other sonant u interchanges with o and usually in Albanian ablauts in it.
So this two words are 'de facto' the same transformed word, but 'de jure' two different words belonging to two 'different' languages, but while the Albanian word is clearly Albanian in any definition, the English one looks orphan.

English "feature" is a loan from Old French faiture from Latin factura. Native English "f" words will correspond to Albanian "p" if these come from PIE *p. Compare English five to Albanian pese or English flea with Albanian plesht.

al=qielli(skai) gb=skai qielli me skain nuk kan ndonje gje te perbashket ne shqiptim apo ne degjim, por skai eshte fjale e paster shqipe, dmth ,skai atje ku mbaron gjithcka,atje ku ;ska me tok,ashtu sic perdoret akoma edhe sot ne Shqiperi;skai=diku ne kend, ne cep pikerisht ate gje qe na tregon ne menyre figurative,horizonti piken ku ndahen toka me qiellin(ose skain).

al=kom ose kemb gb=com eja me com(kom osa kam) keto dy fjal jan te se njejtes origjin, por ajo qe i lidh me shum keto dy fjal eshte, menyra se si mund te shpjegome mire preardhjen e fjales com(kom ose kam),njeriu per te levizur i duhen patjeter kembet,dhe jan kembet ato qe kan ket rol kryesor ne ecjen apo levizjen e trupit, keshtu qe eshte me se e llogjikshme, qe fjala com eshte formuar nga fjala shqipe kom ose kemb,dhe kjo eshte me se e llogjike besoj.

Sykalter wrote:English "feature" is a loan from Old French faiture from Latin factura. Native English "f" words will correspond to Albanian "p" if these come from PIE *p. Compare English five to Albanian pese or English flea with Albanian plesht.

The Norman faiture and Latin factura have nothing to do with feature, since both derive from the latin(italian) verb facio, facere, feci, factus -(to) make.

Native English "f" words will correspond to Albanian "p"

That's not true, most of the time original english(what is this?) f correspondes exactly to the Albanian f:

English--------------------------Albanian
Fault------------------------------faj
Fate------------------------------fat
Farm-----------------------------ferme
Farina(old)------------------------fare
False-----------------------------fallco
Fruit------------------------------frut
Fresh-----------------------------fresk
Fantom---------------------------fantazm
Fanatic---------------------------fanatik
fantasy---------------------------fantazi
fly--------------------------------fluturoj
in-flate----------------------------fryj
flame------------------------------flake
victory----------------------------fitore

I would say sometime the oppossite is true that english ph is the correspondant of f, but this is valid only for words of ""greek"" origin.

philosophy-----------filozofi
philantropy-----------filantropi
physic---------------fizik etc, etc

while in Albanian f & v are interchangeable:


English (2 entries.) Shqip (2 hyrje.)

whistle (v)	vërshëllej, fishkëllej
whistle (n)	vërshëllimë {f}, fishkëllimë {f}

English like a derivat-language of the Latin(at least 60% of the dictionary) shows the same features like the Latin does:
Latin ------------------Albanian
Victoria------------------fitorja
veni--------------------vjen(erdha)
afflo--------------------fryj
ferveo------------------vlon
flamma-----------------flaka
fructus-----------------frut
etc

Here are the language of origins for these words:

English--------------------------Language of Origins
Fault------------------------------French loan
Fate------------------------------French loan
Farm-----------------------------French loan
Farina(old)------------------------Latin loan
False-----------------------------French loan
Fruit------------------------------French loan
Fresh-----------------------------French loan
Fantom---------------------------French loan
Fanatic---------------------------Latin loan
fantasy---------------------------French loan
fly--------------------------------Inherited Indo-European root
in-flate----------------------------Latin loan
flame------------------------------French loan
victory----------------------------French loan

Sykalter wrote:Here are the language of origins for these words:

English--------------------------Language of Origins
Fault------------------------------French loan
Fate------------------------------French loan
Farm-----------------------------French loan
Farina(old)------------------------Latin loan
False-----------------------------French loan
Fruit------------------------------French loan
Fresh-----------------------------French loan
Fantom---------------------------French loan
Fanatic---------------------------Latin loan
fantasy---------------------------French loan
fly--------------------------------Inherited Indo-European root
in-flate----------------------------Latin loan
flame------------------------------French loan
victory----------------------------French loan

That's my point Sykalter, what is the "original" English f then?

ZEUS10 wrote:

That's my point Sykalter, what is the "original" English f then?

Here are inherited English f-words:
fallow
farrow
fart
fast
father
fathom
feather
fee
field
film
find
fir
fire
first
five
flax
flea
flex
fluke
fly
foam
foot
free
furze
frog

You have to remember, there was no *f- in Proto-Indo-European. Any inherited Latin f- word came from PIE *bh- or *dh-. Latin f and English f will never correspond.

Sykalter wrote:

ZEUS10 wrote:

That's my point Sykalter, what is the "original" English f then?

Here are inherited English f-words:
fallow
farrow
fart
fast
father
fathom
feather
fee
field
film
find
fir
fire
first
five
flax
flea
flex
fluke
fly
foam
foot
free
furze
frog

You have to remember, there was no *f- in Proto-Indo-European. Any inherited Latin f- word came from PIE *bh- or *dh-. Latin f and English f will never correspond.

Most of the above words, that you are defining as "English original" are of Germanic origin, but still none of these "Native English f" words has the correspondant cognate to Albanian starting with "p"(beside fart).

ZEUS10 wrote:

Sykalter wrote:

ZEUS10 wrote:

That's my point Sykalter, what is the "original" English f then?

Here are inherited English f-words:
fallow
farrow
fart
fast
father
fathom
feather
fee
field
film
find
fir
fire
first
five
flax
flea
flex
fluke
fly
foam
foot
free
furze
frog

You have to remember, there was no *f- in Proto-Indo-European. Any inherited Latin f- word came from PIE *bh- or *dh-. Latin f and English f will never correspond.

Most of the above words, that you are defining as "English original" are of Germanic origin, but still none of these "Native English f" words has the correspondant cognate to Albanian starting with "p"(beside fart).

As English is a Germanic language, the Germanic inherited lexicon is the only one needed to be included. There are many more words cognate with Albanian. Remember cognate does not mean translation. Cognates go through semantic shifts so the original meanings are rarely the same in sister languages.

Cognates between English f-words and Albanian p-words:
English...........Albanian
fallow.............plak
fart................pjerth
fir...................shpardh
five.................pese
flea................plesht
film.................plah
first.................(i) pare
foot................poshte

Sykalter wrote:

ZEUS10 wrote:

Sykalter wrote:

ZEUS10 wrote:

That's my point Sykalter, what is the "original" English f then?

Here are inherited English f-words:
fallow
farrow
fart
fast
father
fathom
feather
fee
field
film
find
fir
fire
first
five
flax
flea
flex
fluke
fly
foam
foot
free
furze
frog

You have to remember, there was no *f- in Proto-Indo-European. Any inherited Latin f- word came from PIE *bh- or *dh-. Latin f and English f will never correspond.

Most of the above words, that you are defining as "English original" are of Germanic origin, but still none of these "Native English f" words has the correspondant cognate to Albanian starting with "p"(beside fart).

As English is a Germanic language, the Germanic inherited lexicon is the only one needed to be included. There are many more words cognate with Albanian. Remember cognate does not mean translation. Cognates go through semantic shifts so the original meanings are rarely the same in sister languages.

Cognates between English f-words and Albanian p-words:
English...........Albanian
fallow.............plak
fart................pjerth
fir...................shpardh
five.................pese
flea................plesht
film.................plah
first.................(i) pare
foot................poshte

First, your examples are not showing the solid cognates correspondents
Second, half of them are wrong and the other half speak in favour of my argument. Why?

fallow------vjeter
fart---------fand(geg)
fir----------shpardh(what is this????)
five--------pese(totaly no common etymology)
flea--------plesht-----------------right on 1.
film---------plah(what is this?????)
first--------pare -----------------right on 2
foot--------kembe( and not poshte)

Therefore, there is no enough ground to claim your assumption as a rule.
Let's return back to the first argument, the word feature has a fully cognated Albanian correspondand: veçori, which is clearly semanticaly and etymologicaly the same with it.

ZEUS10 wrote:

fallow------vjeter
fart---------fand(geg)
fir----------shpardh(what is this????)
five--------pese(totaly no common etymology)
flea--------plesht-----------------right on 1.
film---------plah(what is this?????)
first--------pare -----------------right on 2
foot--------kembe( and not poshte)

Therefore, there is no enough ground to claim your assumption as a rule.
Let's return back to the first argument, the word feature has a fully cognated Albanian correspondand: veçori, which is clearly semanticaly and etymologicaly the same with it.

Pese and five are well established cognates! This is a well established cognate between English and Albanian, not to mention all other Indo-European languages. There is absolutely no reason to dispute pese and five at all.

Look up shpardh(e) in your Albanian dictionary. It is an oak, Quercus Conferta. Plah means to cover in Albanian. I know well poshte does not mean foot, but they are cognates. Remember the concept of semantic shift? English and Albanian DO NOT share any cognates with English f- and Albanian v-. Find me one academic source which states this. You won't find one. Native Albanian v- words will come from PIE *w-. PIE w* will yield w in English. Such as Albanian vej and English weave. Albanian vesh and English wear, etc.

Sykalter wrote:

ZEUS10 wrote:

fallow------vjeter
fart---------fand(geg)
fir----------shpardh(what is this????)
five--------pese(totaly no common etymology)
flea--------plesht-----------------right on 1.
film---------plah(what is this?????)
first--------pare -----------------right on 2
foot--------kembe( and not poshte)

Therefore, there is no enough ground to claim your assumption as a rule.
Let's return back to the first argument, the word feature has a fully cognated Albanian correspondand: veçori, which is clearly semanticaly and etymologicaly the same with it.

Pese and five are well established cognates! This is a well established cognate between English and Albanian, not to mention all other Indo-European languages. There is absolutely no reason to dispute pese and five at all.

Look up shpardh(e) in your Albanian dictionary. It is an oak, Quercus Conferta. Plah means to cover in Albanian. I know well poshte does not mean foot, but they are cognates. Remember the concept of semantic shift? English and Albanian DO NOT share any cognates with English f- and Albanian v-. Find me one academic source which states this. You won't find one. Native Albanian v- words will come from PIE *w-. PIE w* will yield w in English. Such as Albanian vej and English weave. Albanian vesh and English wear, etc.

Let's not jump on from one argument to another. The question is : do you agree that feature and veçori are well established cognates or not? I never said that Albanian v always switches to the English f. If you read carefully I said that those are both labiodental fricatives. Didn't I?

Ps Don't engage the argument to the semantic shifts because I can easily find many examples of that happening from English to Albanian and vice-versa.

I wont argue with you about shpardhe, maybe it's a specific oak that I never heard of, but I will refuse accepting this:

Plah means to cover in Albanian.

There is no word in Albanian of that meaning. Maybe you are confusing it with shplaj =flush. Don't you?

ZEUS10 wrote:There is no word in Albanian of that meaning. Maybe you are confusing it with shplaj =flush. Don't you?

Yes, there is a word plah meaning to cover. Its variant form is plaf. Trust me I am not making it up. Check your largest Albanian dictionary. I found the form in Demiraj amongst others.

ZEUS10 wrote: The question is : do you agree that feature and veçori are well established cognates or not? I never said that Albanian v always switches to the English f. If you read carefully I said that those are both labiodental fricatives. Didn't I?

English feature is loaned from Old French faiture which is from Latin factura from factus from facere. facere comes from earlier fakyo which is from earlier PIE *dhe1k-. Albanian veçori could be cognate with Latin facere. I believe that some of Albanian's widely varied sound changes from PIE are due to Illyrian inter-dialectal borrowing. I would more typically except to find *dheçori or *deçori. Perhaps some Illyrian dialect gave the form veçori. Remember too PIE *dh yields *f in Venetic. Perhaps in another Illyrian dialect *dh yielded *v.

Sykalter wrote:

ZEUS10 wrote: The question is : do you agree that feature and veçori are well established cognates or not? I never said that Albanian v always switches to the English f. If you read carefully I said that those are both labiodental fricatives. Didn't I?

English feature is loaned from Old French faiture which is from Latin factura from factus from facere. facere comes from earlier fakyo which is from earlier PIE *dhe1k-. Albanian veçori could be cognate with Latin facere. I believe that some of Albanian's widely varied sound changes from PIE are due to Illyrian inter-dialectal borrowing. I would more typically except to find *dheçori or *deçori. Perhaps some Illyrian dialect gave the form veçori. Remember too PIE *dh yields *f in Venetic. Perhaps in another Illyrian dialect *dh yielded *v.

I really dont understand, how come a bright person like you are, is stucked inside the metaphysical convictions of the PIE roots principles.
The word veçori is not an isolated component in Albanian, it comes in a full set of speech parts, like nouns, adverbs, adjectives, prepositions and most important of all verbs:

veçori---------feature, characteristics
veç---------alone, seperate
veçoj-------seperate, divide, set smth aside
veçant------alone, seperate
i/e/te/se veçant-----------special, characteristic

ZEUS10 wrote:I really dont understand, how come a bright preson like you are, is stucked inside the metaphysical convictions of the PIE roots principles.
The word veçori is not an isolated component in Albanian, it comes in a full set of speech parts, like nouns, adverbs, adjectives, prepositions and most important of all verbs:

veçori---------feature, characteristics
veç---------alone, seperate
veçoj-------seperate, divide, set smth aside
veçant------alone, seperate
i/e/te/se veçant-----------special, characteristic

Indo-European has demonstrated to be a solid language family through the years. No linguist would question is because no linguist has been able to disprove it. It has gone through the scrutiny of scholars for many decades. As I have stated before find me one source from a linguist which says otherwise. There is NO dispute with Indo-European and most of the roots. The only disputes within Indo-European studies are the sub-branches and some of the finer details such as the Urheimat and the exact phonetic values of some of the consonants. This is not a surprise as the Indo-European language family is several thousand years old.

When comparing two languages, you can't use the mass comparison method of Greenburg or Ruhlen to compare languages. You have to study each word and find its origin. Loanwords must be weeded out first because they will make any comparison useless. Every language in the world has loanwords. If just compared English beef to French boeuf, I would think those were cognates but as we know English loaned beef from French. So they are not cognates. Albanian has loaned words like any other language. Rarely in a language family as old as Indo-European are you going to find many cognates which look that similar. This is why you need to study sound changes and semantic shifts. Finally, one needs to find a regular sound correspondence between two languages.

Loanwords can easily take on various parts of speech. Most old loanwords are fully integrated in a language. The word cheese in English is a Latin loan, yet it is fully integrated: cheese, cheeses, cheesy, cheesier, cheesiest.

You must use what is scholarly to back up any theory you have. See you gave examples of these are cognates. Then I find you evidence to the contrary. Then, you must rework your theory. You just can't believe what you want to believe. You must read through as many sources as you can.

I personally find that many of the so called "Latin loans" in Albanian are not "Latin loans". I find it makes more sense to show that Illyrian itself was diverse in dialects and I prefer to look at that instead of claiming loans everywhere.

Loanwords can easily take on various parts of speech. Most old loanwords are fully integrated in a language. The word cheese in English is a Latin loan, yet it is fully integrated: cheese, cheeses, cheesy, cheesier, cheesiest.

I am sorry to say you are confusing adjective comparative degrees(which any language builds up naturally) with the basic parts of the speech. The right comparission would be:

ENGLISH______________________________ALBANIAN

Noun______feature------------------------------veçori ---------(same etymology & semantics=solid cognates)
Adjective______???------------------------------i/e veçante
Adverb_______???-------------------------------veç, veçanerisht, veçmas
Preposition_____???------------------------------veç
Verb_______?????--------------------------------veçoj

ZEUS10 wrote:

Loanwords can easily take on various parts of speech. Most old loanwords are fully integrated in a language. The word cheese in English is a Latin loan, yet it is fully integrated: cheese, cheeses, cheesy, cheesier, cheesiest.

I am sorry to say you are confusing adjective comparative degrees(which any language builds up naturally) with the basic parts of the speech. The right comparission would be:

ENGLISH______________________________ALBANIAN

Noun______feature------------------------------veçori ---------(same etymology & semantics=solid cognates)
Adjective______???------------------------------i/e veçante
Adverb_______???-------------------------------veç, veçanerisht, veçmas
Preposition_____???------------------------------veç
Verb_______?????--------------------------------veçoj

Noun: feature
Adjective: featured
Verb: to feature
Feature won't make an adverb. It takes full verb inflection as well as forms such as featureless. What do you mean by preposition? You veç in an Albanian sentence for me. I am curious what a preposition for that word would look like.

Beside that, veç=vetem

auto	vetë-
person (gr)	vetë {f} (gr)
personally	unë vetë (nd)

English (7 entries.) Shqip (7 hyrje.)

alone	vetëm, i/e pashoqëruar
lone	i vetëm / e vetme
only	vetëm
single (adj)	i vetëm / e vetme
sole (adj)	i vetëm / e vetme
solely	vetëm

English (5 entries.) Shqip (5 hyrje.)

separately	veç, veç e veç
additionally	veç kësaj, për më tepër
apart	më vete, veç, veç e veç
apart from	veç, përveç
besides	veç kësaj

and this is more proof that feature is cognate with veçori where veç=vet.
Vete in Albanian shows specific, characteristics, individuality.
Une jam veç----------I am separate
Une jam vete---------I am alone(seperate myself)

That means that veçori is a evolution of vetori which derives from the verb me u veçu (me u vetshu).
Now lets compare again:
feature------vetori
lets put the original vowel of the verb:
feature------veturi
lets eliminate the noun endings(specific in each language):
featur---------vetur
lets make a vowel treatment(the English diphtong with the Albanian mono-vowel)
f(ea)tur------v(e)tur

The only difference remains f & v which phonology categorizes as: labiodental fricative

f	Voiceless labiodental fricative	f	far
v	Voiced labiodental fricative	v	van

The voiceless f is more recent in this fricative evolution and we can give many examples when they replace each-other when we switch from Albanian language to the latin and semilatin languages.

Sykalter wrote:

Noun: feature
Adjective: featured
Verb: to feature

Your English parts of the speech(related to the word feature) are very exhausted, they are missing the natural creation.
This is just an exhaust implement in the language structure after the borrowing especially when it comes to verbs. That's why in the daily life you rarely use it, or you dont even use it at all.

Feature won't make an adverb. It takes full verb inflection as well as forms such as featureless. What do you mean by preposition? You veç in an Albanian sentence for me. I am curious what a preposition for that word would look like.

Usually the borrowings are unable to integrate their inflection forms in the host language structures. Thats why it wont make an adverb in English.

Sykalter wrote: What do you mean by preposition? You veç in an Albanian sentence for me. I am curious what a preposition for that word would look like.

The prepositions in Albanian stand only with the nouns contrary to the adverbs which qualifie a verb, an adjective or another adverb. As a preposition it doesnt stand alone, but very easily it could stand as an adjacent preposition.
Example :
Te gjithe erdhen ne mbledhje perveç Agronit.

ZEUS10 wrote:The voiceless f is more recent in this fricative evolution and we can give many examples when they replace each-other when we switch from Albanian language to the latin and semilatin languages.

The f/v change happened in English dialects. Some English dialects change f to v and some dialect forms were borrowed into the "standard" English. Vixen is an example. For vixen, one would expect *fixen. The v- is due to the dialectal change of f to v. This is why there are some v- words in standard English. Other examples of dialect English is vower for "four". Often these dialects have z- for s- so you get forms like zeven for seven.

I am curious. What is your definition of cognate. I want to make sure we aren't speaking past each other.

Sykalter wrote:
I am curious. What is your definition of cognate. I want to make sure we aren't speaking past each other.

That would be a long answer, but the short answer would be: two words of similar meaning and common origin within the same language or respectivaly from different ones.
Therefore
1. Similar semantic
2. Common etymology

What I was talking all along was about strictly cognates(not the flexibale ) which have:
1. Same meaning
2. Same origin

I will stand a little bit analisying this part:

By Gerald Erichsen

Cognates often have a similar meaning, but in some cases the meaning has changed over the centuries in one language or another. An example of such a change is the English word "arena," which usually refers to a sports facility, and the Spanish arena, which usually means "sand."They both come from the Latin harena, which originally meant "sand" and came in time to also refer to an area of a Roman amphitheater that was covered with sand.

From all IE languages Latin(and few neoLatins) and Albanian(geg) call the sand rena:

English

Albanian

sand	rërë {f} rëra{tr.shq}

In tosk dialect we have rëra but because of the rhotacism in geg, it is pronounced rëna. But, thats not the whole point. A new word comes up just adding a (noun-forming preffix) and here you are, a new word with totaly different meaning, while all linguists will run after the PIE roots (if they wouldn't have the information quoted)
Then will start the comedy, they will look for all kind of "dissapered colored or uncolored laryngeals", they will check for the "voiceless stops" on the first column, for the "glottalized" on the second and for the "voiced" on the third and then vuola this is presumed reconstructed PIE root, far from reality and far from the truth.
But that would be the scenario if they had not know that arena comes from rena(sand). Thats why I dont like PIE theory, doesnt matter that I know it in details.

[quote="ZEUS10"]

Sykalter wrote:
Then will start the comedy, they will look for all kind of "dissapered colored or uncolored laryngeals", they will check for the "voiceless stops" on the first column, for the "glottalized" on the second and for the "voiced" on the third and then vuola this is presumed reconstructed PIE root, far from reality and far from the truth.[/color]
But that would be the scenario if they had not know that arena comes from rena(sand). Thats why I dont like PIE theory, doesnt matter that I know it in details.

Well since the word harena/arena is of not 100% known etymology, your guess is as good as any. Harena may be an Etruscan loan. Arena may be a cognate which Italic and Albanian share. Latin borrowing Illyrian arena would be odd though as why would Latin borrow this word from Illyrian? It makes sense for Latin to borrow harena from Etruscan as the Etruscans were the elite group in the area. If it is an IE root, then it is more likely Latin and Illyrian share a cognate rather than it being a borrowing one way or another.

Although some details of PIE are in dispute, there is absolutely no dispute that Indo-European is a valid language family. When I mean there is no debate, there is no debate. Other language familes, there are debates such as Altaic and to some extent Afroasiatic. Indo-European is not one of them. Albanian, Anatolian, Armenian, Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Indo-Iranian, Italic, Slavic, Tocharian, along with a few lesser known extinct languages are definitely more closely related to each other than they are to any other language family in the world. There is absolutely no debate at all. Now, you can debate how these branches relate to each other. You may debate the phonetic details of the reconstruction to some extent, but that is it. There is just no debate. No one has ever demonstrated that these languages are not related because there are regular sound correspondences.