Re: [tied] Re: *gwistis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <piotr.gasiorowski@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: *gwistis


Well, don't write it off yet. My opinion is that Lat. digitus
would have given Albanian *diit- > *di:t (cf. kujtoj <--
cogito:) or *digjet (cf. shëgjetë <-- sagitta) depending on
the date of the borrowing, while hypothetical *dictus (with
early syncope) would have ended up as *dift (cf. luftë <
lucta). I can't see how either the initial <d-> or the final
<-sht> can be explained if we start with <digitus>. As for the
absence of palatalisation, the reconstruction *gwist- assumes
an initial cluster (*g + *w), NOT a labiovelar, and the
expected reflex of *gwi- in Albanian is <gi->.

As far as I'm concerned, the bottom line seems to be that Rom.
de$t derives from <digitus> while Alb. gisht, despite the
superficial similarity, is a different word, probably
inherited and possibly related to <kvistr>.

Piotr


[Moeller] ah! so the romanian come from digitus and albanian
from *kvistr and so we have a explanation . this is one of the
"cognates" which was to find here on the list in the last time
( see habere versus haben)
I am sure you did not lost my example with de$t versus de$tept
and I should like to see some another example from latin there
where in romanian igi/ege falloved by "s" created an "$" in
romanian.
For "official " informations:
the latin rules of romanian says that latin ge/gi has no
transformation but gW and kW has some transformations.
And to show you an example we have the romanian word :
"mers"= walk with the verb at infinitiv = a merge= to walk
which is suposed to come from latin "mergere". Latin mergere=
to submerge
"drege" infinitiv = a drege= to repair which is supposed to
come from latin dirigire= tomake right( in this case at least
the semantism is almost the same)
lege= lat lex, legis= law.
how you see , no transformation of "ge/gi".
Funny is, we have this "esht" in the sufixex of the verbs at
the pers III sg. amurgeSte, amageSte
"amageshte" --ending-- "ge$te" but a amagi= to tease=lat.
amagire so end of it= "gire" . how gire went "geshte"?
"amurgeshte"--ending-- amurgeshte= to come the evening /to
begin the day= "a" +murg ;
murg= 1)begin of the day= unknown etymology -- 2)about horses,
with dark hair,black-redly
Of course these are sufixes and they have nothing to do with
"de$t ". I just wanted to point out some way of "working" of
ge+"s" which went S just when fallowed by t and t fallowed
by -e- or -i-.There is no case -so far i know. where "jt"
went "St."the $t is just because of the group "St" fallowed
by -e- and -i- no matter what you have before.
one exemple more a prãji= to roast(meat) at pers III sg has
prãjeSte.:-)