Re: [tied] Re: substratum

25-06-03 18:39, alex wrote:

> Hmmmm.. hmmm.. let me please understand something.

Oh yes, please, do.

> We learned that the
> intervocalic "d" in Albanian went lost.
> This is showed in words as Alb. "pyll", Rom. "padure" both supposed to
> be derived from the methatesised form of Latin "paludem".

Correct so far.

> Now we take a substratum word: "viezure" in Rom. and " vjedhullë" in
> Albanian. (we can take "mazãre" and "modhullë" too, or each other
> substratum word which has the intervocalic equivalence Alb/Rom dh/z).

The Albanian forms <modhullë> ~ <modullë> resulted from extending older
*mod ~ *modz with the productive suffix -ull-. The shorter and longer
words coexisted for some time, and analogy prevented the deletion of
-d(h)- despite its intervocalic position. Cf. vidhezë 'pigeon' (North
Geg vidhë, and madhështi 'grandeur' : madh 'great'.

> I don't make now any demonstraion here, I just say that the sound "dh"
> in Albanian and "z" in Romanian should have been prior the time as
> Latins arrived in Balcans, otherways there won't be in Albanian any
> "dh", no matter if this "dh" is from an "di" or from an "*g' */ *g'h"
> (with interime "d").

I've no idea what you mean. Why wouldn't there be any <dh> in Albanian?

> The change stopped prior the Romans reached
> Balkans. Something against this statment?

What change?

> If not, then the next logic step is that one cannot speak about
> Proto-Romanian and Proto-Albania and contacts between them. And the next
> logic step is that the "dh" in Albanian and "z" in Rom. is not because
> any phonetic evolution of the Latin spoken in that region , but we can
> mostly assume that the Latin words have been addapted to the way these
> people have spoken. Something against this logic steps?

What logic ;-) ? Sorry, Alex, but I find the final part of your posting
completely incomprehensible.

Piotr