Albanian - romanian cognates

[Arbërori]

We use it in Kosova as well, u merdhiva, u ngriva, po narth etc.

We say 'mberdheifa'.

[Arianiti]

Nga cili vend i Maqedonise je me origjine? Se kjo mesa e di perdoret ne Tetove, Gostivar, Kercove.

[Arbërori]

Nga cili vend i Maqedonise je me origjine? Se kjo mesa e di perdoret ne Tetove, Gostivar, Kercove.

Tetove, Gostivar. These variants are used 'mberdhejfa, mbardhajfa,.'

[Agron Kastrati]

You don't really get it. You talk about linguistic facts, and consider PIE, "the mother of all European languages" as a fact. This isn't a fact, rather a forced conclusion. Linguistics arrive (or not) at this conclusion by interpreting and reasoning over other facts.

Fact is that "kr" is the sound that human mouth makes to imitate the sound produced by scratching. And it is a fact that to form a word you need to have at least a vowel. Adding a vowel like 'u' and you come at "kru", which is the albanian word for scratch.

And it is quite reasonable to imagine a person trying to indicate to his fellow (for example) to "kr(u)" his back, because he can't reach it, by imitating with mouth the sound "kr" to suggest scratching, and in this way inventing the new word 'kru'.

From your link:


Even your quotation clearly says that it's just a hypothesis.

I appreciate your effort to copy all those links, but they represent much weaker and dismissible arguments than those I presented.

It's true that PIE is hypothesized, still is a very strong argument.
It's also true that I copied all those links, this doesn't make my affords any lesser important, actually it makes them stronger. As you noticed all of those "unique" Albanian-Romanian words were 95% Latin words, with a 5% Greek + Slavic borrowings. Basically not even one of them was "unique" between Albanian and Romanian.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kruaj#Etymology
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/graffiare#Italian
Even this word isn't so unique. Come on, Albanian isn't the mother language of the IE languages. Albanian is just another IE language.

Now I get it that you are a mix

Ngrie is standard, to freeze.
Po Narth, in Gheg means I am cold or I am freezing.

Being mixed doesn't mean anything. "Nri" or "nrij" are geg words that I know, "ngri" is tosk. "Narth" might be Kosovar, never heard of it in my life before. Remember that any dialect has sub-dialects, Tirana and Kosovo doesn't speak the same.

^^ We use 'mberdhij" as well.

Mrdhij, Merdhij, merdhif, merdhiv, mrdhiv etc. there's no standard geg.

Si more burre i dheut nuk ke pertuar qe tu hysh postimeve me rend.

Kam nejt 3 or me e postu at gjo.

East Latin borrowed the name of the Slavic tribe Slovene in the form Sclavus or Sclavinus; plur. Sclavi or Sclavini at the time of the first contacts with the Slavs.

The word is attested to in Latin texts from the 6th century onwards. The Northern Rumanian form is schiau, plur. schei, Arumanian scl´eau.

From East Latin, it was transferred to Albanian: shqa, plur. shqe


Keto i kam nga nje faqe rumune.

P.S. In gheg dialect is sing. shka, shkavell pl. shkie, shkje, shkavella

This is interesting, I just thought it derives from "ex" basically "outer", or a "foreigner".
You know the Latin "ex" usually becomes "shk" or "shq" in Albanian. "Excipio" to "shqip" and I thought "exter" had become "shki".

[Arianiti]

This is interesting, I just thought it derives from "ex" basically "outer", or a "foreigner".
You know the Latin "ex" usually becomes "shk" or "shq" in Albanian. "Excipio" to "shqip" and I thought "exter" had become "shki".

Sclavinoi, sclavini has been transferred to Albanian as shkavell. Also (mendoj) that sc is shk.

Or sclavi as shkavi/shkau

[el22]

It's true that PIE is hypothesized, still is a very strong argument.

I don't know if it's worth it to continue this debate, because it's clear that you lack the minimum intelligence to understand that a fact and a reasonable explanation constitute a strong argument, while a hypothesis unsupported by facts and lacking a reasonable explanation not only is not a "very strong argument", but it's actually a very weak and dismissible hypothesis.

I'll give it a last try:

It is a fact that "kr" is the closest sound produced by human mouth to imitate the noise of scratching.
I've head many times mothers playing with their little kids: how does the mouse? - kr, krr (the scratching). How does the cat? - mjau, mjauu.

It is quite a reasonable explanation to imagine some prehistoric person asking his friend to scratch his back at a point that he can't reach, by trying to explain his intention saying kr, kr, while bending his finger.

It is a fact that consonants are hardly audible and you need at leas a vowel to form a word. Adding a vowel like 'u' and you form the albanian word 'kru' (scratch).
'me kru' (to scratch) is intelligible to every albanian, including children that are not yet at age for school.

All of this constitutes a strong argument explaining the origin of the word 'kru'.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kruaj#Etymology
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/graffiare#Italian
Even this word isn't so unique. Come on, Albanian isn't the mother language of the IE languages. Albanian is just another IE language.

From your link http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kruaj#Etymology

Kruaj
Etymology [edit]
From Proto-Albanian *krābnja, from Proto-Indo-European *gʰrebʰ- (compare German graben ‘to dig’, Lithuanian grebti ‘to rake’).

There is absolutely no prove that the "Proto-Indo-European" word gʰrebʰ has ever existed. If you are aware of any archaeological artifact with it, please give us a source.

If there is no prove that it existed, than you need to provide a reasonable explanation of how this word was created.
And even if in some way the existence of gʰrebʰ is (at least) argued, you need to explain how from gʰrebʰ we went to krābnja?
And then how from krābnja we went to kruaj?

Until either an archaeological artifact proving the existence of gʰrebʰ, as well as reasonable explanations of the above transformations, all of the above constitutes a dismissible hypothesis.

They can't be a "very strong argument" just because someone thought that it may have happened even this way and wrote a web page about it.

If you can't understand the distinction between the two explanations above, not only you don't understand anything about languages, but you're unable to contribute in any intelligent discussion.