Talk:arrij

From italian?

I would like to note following: • RRI ("stay") • RRIT ("grow/raise/up") • ARRITJË ("achievement") • ARRIJ ("achieve, reach")

There was no word like "stay", "grow", "raise" or "up" in Albanian... they had to borrow a word from italian? Srsly, this etymology seems not accurate to me. Not at all.

ILYHDRAB (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I came across this from your other thread on a Bulgarian issue. Similar story here. This isn't at all necessarily how language borrowing has to work. In English we certainly borrowed the words 'achieve' from French, but we certainly had other words before then, as many basic words in English like 'flower' and 'pork' to 'route' and 'difficult' come from French. Some languages have borrowed numbers and words for 'and' and 'or'. *This does not mean that they didn't have words for these*, they may have both and use an alternative! Just as we would now have 'bloom', 'pig-flesh', 'way' and 'hard'. Etymology is a complex subject and saying 'Come on, why would they borrow this?' is not an argument unless you can cite in-depth counters to their own sources.

I don't know if you are Albanian, but this is not meant to be a delegitimisation or attack on Albanian pride in any way, as this is a common issue that comes up with neutral discussion of some languages. All languages have many loanwords even at a fairly basic level. 47.18.244.117 06:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

If "arrij" ("I achieve/reach") would be from italian "arriva" ("he [arriv]es") the /v/ would not have been lost. Albanians don't struggle with a /v/ sound. Ask an italian to pronounce albanian "AR[DH]"/"ER[DH]" ("he ARRIVed/ARRIVes"), most will pronunce "dh" (IPA /ð/) as "v" bc they lack /ð/ and are not familar with it. So "ardh|erdh" through an modern italian tongue: "arv|erv". Let's just say albanian are not allegic to /v/'s, neither /ð/'s. Also why 'arrij' means in albanian "reach"/"achieve", when in italian it means "arrive". Explain HOW on earth the meaning changed at least?! Just bc these words "look similar"? for sure not reason enough to claim it was borrowed.

• "ERDH" = "he ARRIVes"
• from Older ardh, aorist of vij. Rebuilt from 3rd pers. erdh, with i-mutation from *arði, from Proto-Albanian *ardze, with Osthoff’s shortening from earlier *ērdz-, from Proto-Indo-European *h₁r̥ǵʰ-, weak perfective stem of *h₁erǵʰ- ‘to go up, rise’. (According to Schumacher/Matzinger). Close to Greek έρχομαι (érchomai, “come”), aorist ήρθα (írtha, “I came” >> PS: which is "ardha" in (g)alb. <<, Middle Irish eirgg (“go!”), German ragen (“to rise”) (according to V. Orel).

• Albanian might shift from /n/ (gheg) to /r/ (tosk); but for sure not from /v/ to /t/ or loose v's. The /v/, maybe, it would have shifted and assimilated to /f/, but the -a would have been definitly lost. Due to the fact that vowels at the end of words change the meaning, person, time, etc. in albanian (and many other languages). An example:
• Ik! = (You) Go! (Imperative)
• Ik[i] > "I go" (present)
• Ik[a] > "I went" (aorist/simple past)
  • So when "arrij" really was from "arriva" it would have turned out like "arrivij/arrifij" or "arrivoj/arrifoj" as "I reach" in albanian. "Arrivur/arrifur" instead of "arri[t]ur". Note the /t/ and the fact that "rrit(ë)" means "grow". "Rritu[r]" (tosk) / "rritu[n]" = grown. In albanian few words with "l" shifted to "j", but dialect wise, > like "bilë/bila" (found in gheg) vs. "bijë/bija" (tosk alb. and standard albanian, where l > shifted to j, also very fast in gheg bc tosk = used for literature).

• about borrowing words: Ppl adopt very fast words and assimilate them into their own tongue. But you don't adopt grammar that fast. Now explain how albanian could have "borrowed" f.e. ablative "from latin", meanwhile no italic-romance has ablative (just making an example, no linguist made such claims tho)? Ablative is an archaic feature in albanian, one of many reasons why it is an own branch. Linguists claim all kind of words as "from language whatsoever" also bc of political reasons.
• Some ancient ppl that lived in (what we know today as) "Italy" left over 200 inscriptions. 200 (+/-) are about the same amount of words that are claimed as the "indigenous" vocabulary stock in every indo-european branch. One word, one example: "BILIA" (meaning "daughter", wiki claimed it meant also "son", but that was "biles" actually). As you can see it's no woner that we "don't know how much thracian/dacian/illyrian were related" when these ancient words change meanings all 20, 50 years bc one linguist after another make up some theories. And then there are ppl boycotting wiki and spreading wrong informations. For example "albanian illyrian have nothing in common", "illyrians left no inscriptions", etc. I'm not okay with this. Paleo-balkanic folks existed and they were not Romans and were not "eliminated" by Romans & co. Genetically they are still all over Balkan (and beyond). There were a lot Thracians - how did they just "disappear", all of sudden? Not even Neanderthals were totally "eliminated" but absorbed from the majority. But how long does it take a minority to absord the majority?! Thracians inhabited a large area in Eastern and Southeastern Europe. Today inhabited by slavophon ppl. Note the grammar similarties between modern macedonian/bulgarian/albanian romanian. Which are three indo-eruopean branches crossing eachother (alb - slav - ital-rom). From proto-dacian derrived thracian and dacian. There are also Illyrian-thracian cognates. Also note that a lot alb. Verbs in 3rd p. Singular (he/she/it) end with "-on". He=ai, she=ajo, it=already present in the verb, at the end. Slav "on"=he. The closest lexical distance from albanian is slavic (via slovene), then greek and 3rd romanian (grammar almost 1:1).

So there's "no chance" that latin borrowed from illyrian, thracian, dacian? Really? Latin had no separate articles, neither do most slav./baltic languages (except m.macedon and bulgarian, but attached at the end like alb. and romanian, also scandinavian languages).

• Tosk alb. "Bijë/bija" and Gheg alb "bilë/bila" are phonetically and semantically close to Messapic *bilia. Messapi has been classified as illyrian ppl by historians, > experts. They were linguistically quite illyrian at least. Pretty sure they had many reasons to classifiy them as illyrian and not greek, etc. The "-ia" in "bil-ia" is a suffix, is not even the root (that would be bil-, also found in [bil]-es "son"); the -ia, (or ija, -ja) is not only an italic-romance thing, it's found in albanian and also present in slavic languages (and others). Imo it's nonsese to claim a suffix as someones "invention" bc every language in this world adds a suffix (vowels or consonants or both) on a root and that's how words are created. As for alb: "-ia" > it is a fem. suffix and a lot found in place/country names, "i" is an definite article (m./n.), also "a" but mostly f. (but in personal names it can be also m.). -ia is something like and comparable with engl. "from the xy land". -aj ending found in family names and means "him/of him". "He" = ai. Today you'll find "FILIA" and "FILIO" in italic-romance languages and "BIJA" and "BILA" in albanian. So... let's say albanians "borrowed filia from latin", then "F" shifted to "B" in albanian? And "b" shifted to "f" in it.-rom. languages.

Nope; this just proves that this word is pre-latin (another example; no linguist claims alb "bija/bila" as borrowed from latin tho). All languages borrowed a lot words - it is sure not only an "albanian" thing to borrow words and ppl should stop claiming "albanian borrowed a lot" - simply bc ALL DID, even latin BORROWED! also: it take a looong time to borrow a lot words. Albanian vocabulary is huge, of course a lot is borrowed. You don't need 3 words "Dritare, Dullap, Perzore" for 1 word ("Window). And if course if you have 3 words for 1 thing chances are high that 2 were borrowed. But in latin you'll find about 5 words for 1 thing and all if them are "pure latin". Reaching!!!

• So one guy claimed (in the beginning of albanology!) albanian as an "latin" language bc he claimed all kind of alb. words that looked or sounded similar to latin as "from latin". Let's use this logic now: so alb. "SHPREH" and german "SPREchen" look and sound very similar. Conclusion: someone "stole" it!? Nope, these are cognates. In every indo-european branch there are only few words considered as "indigenous". No matter if alb. / greek/ armenian, slavic, etc. The close lexical distance decides which language forms a subgroup in which branch. All indo-european languages have quite a lot cognates and that's why they join the same language family. Needless to say that latin borrowed from SEVERAL languages; it's beyond ridiculous how much words are claimed as "from latin". When in fact a lot of latin is actually from ancient greek, semitic, extinct etruscan, etc. This needs to stop. If latin borrowed words from an unknown language - no need to credit latin for it and lable it as "latin". Greek was also a lingua frnaca of roman empire, a lot ppl forget that. It wasn't only latin. Gheg Alb. "Kepa" preserved the oroginal /k/ sound like in classical latin and ancient greek. In germanic languages, italic-romance etc. and in tosk-alb the /k/ shifted. Except sardinian and also sicilian dialects. Latin borrowed it from an unknown source (then there's ancient greek "kàpia" which does not exist in modern greek, how come?!). Onions exist before Roman Empire even started. Onions did not originate in Europe (according to archaeologists, botanists: in central Asia or in Iran, West Pakistan). How does latin "own" onions?
• At this point it should be also mentioned that alb. shows centum/satem - both - features but has been somehow classified as "satem"?! Why? Since gheg + tosk dialects form an own branch called "Albanian" they should not ignore the northern dialect, especially not since Gheg preserved more archaic features than tosk, grammatically.

• • Back to "arriva":
  • Re = cloud(s) (cognate to illyrian)
  • ra (fall)
  • ruj (save/protect)
  • rri (stay)
  • "Rri" > what WIKI says: From Proto-Albanian *rina, from Proto-Indo-European *h₃er- ‘to move, stir’, compare Ancient Greek ὄρνυμι (órnumi) ‘to raise; arouse; stir up’, Sanskrit ऋणोति (ṛṇóti) ‘to rise, move’. (Accrording to Vladimir Orel). Alternatively, perhaps from Proto-Indo-European *h₁reid- ‘to lean’; compare Ancient Greek ἐρείδω (ereídō) ‘to prop, support’. (Accrording to Matzinger).
  • I find it very interesting that romanian, albanian, modern macedonian and bulgarian have a lot in common when it comes to grammar, traditions, folklore, etc. As I said you borrow very fast words, but not grammar. I would appriciate when these would work with eachother amd not against eachother.
• ALSO: "arriver" > from Late Latin *arrīpare, from Latin ad + rīpa (“shore”). For the sense-derivation, compare Old English ġelandian, ġelendan, lendan (“to arrive at land; land”) > Middle English alenden, landen (“to arrive; arrive at shore; land”) > English land.
  • 'arrīpare' is constructed. Never has been written down. How is this etymology even seen as 100% believable and convincing? IMIPER (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)