[tied] Re: Albanian, pronouns,plural

From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 26271
Date: 2003-10-07

My opinion is that Mr. Ramsusen's claim is very sceintific one and
his attitude that the reflex of *s- is to be gj-, and that /j-/ is
reduced form, for me, is some kind of genius penetration on the heart
of the problem (cf. also bilabial extended root *sal-b- and Alb. i
gjelbtë 'salted' and <i njelmtë> 'id.', besied many dialectal forms
like: njoh 'to know' and ngjoh 'id.', <njeh> 'to count' and
<ngjeh> 'id.' etc.).
So, nominative <ajo> 'she' is truely derived from *au-saH2> au-sa:> a
(g)jo, where *au-3 (Pokorny) is adverb 'away' that form binary
opposition with *ko(m) > kë-, Lat. co- 'beside, near', that forms as
first element demonstrative pronoun kjo 'this' < *ko(m)-saH2> ko-
sa:>kë(g)jo. Gen.-Dat.-Abl. (a)saj are derived from basic pronominal
stem *so. But acc. atë 'her, his' is derived from *au-tom > atâ: >
The binary opposition *au- vs. *ko(m)- was much better preserved in
adverbs: <aty> 'there' and <këtu> 'here'.
Also <jonë> 'our' < *saH2 + *nos is very logical derivation.
The plural forms <ata/ato> they are derived from pronominal stem *to-.
Only doubt about Alb. demonstrative pronouns I have regarding nom.sg.
masc. <ai> 'he' and <ky/ki>, which I doubt are formed: *au-i > ai and
*ko(m)-i>ki or *ku(m)-i > kui >ky

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> elmeras2000 wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Huh? I am afraid I did not understood too much. Do you mean that
> > aj/ajo
> >> < PIE *so-/*saH via *so > gjo >jo > ajo and that the plural
> > of
> >> aj/ajo are from PIE accusative form of the demonstrative
> > thus
> >> aj/ajo are not the basis for plural forms ata/ato?
> >
> > Not quite. The Albanian demonstrative pronouns ky and aí are
> > juxtapositions (Zusammenrückungen) of two words each, the second
> > part being in both cases the pronoun which is PIE *so-/*to-. That
> > pronoun is identical with the Albanian (and Greek) definite
> > So, yes, I do say that the -jo part of the form ajó is from IE
> > (via *sa: and probably *gjo before weakening to -jo). The forms
> > without /t/ (or its reflex) are nominative singular masc. and
> > so ajo is definitely not from an accusative. The rest of the
> > paradigm had forms beginning with /t-/, as seen in the second part
> > of nom.-acc.pl. masc. atá, fem. ató. I do not know what the first
> > part of the two pronouns is.
> >
> > Jens
> Thank you Jens. I will think about this posibility too. I say "this
> posiblity" because there can be one another if not more as two; one
> them I will put to discution here at the end of the message.
> To the Alb. "ky" (this). You mean should be a justaposition of two
> words. Which should be the words here?
> To the definite article in Albanian.The definite mark is made in
> with the help of following markers:
> msc. sg: -i, -u
> fem. sg: -a
> neutrum sg: -t, -të
> all pl: -t, -të
> You mean that aj/ajo should be identical with wich one of the
> markers here?
> Now the first part of aj/ajo, the "a" there. One observe that in
Rom. is
> too this "a" in the demonstrative pronoun "ãl/ãla"(msc. sg.),
> "aia"(fem.sg), "ãia"(msc. pl), "alea" (fem.pl).We have to keep in
> that the pronoun of 3 pers. in Alb. is once personal pronoun and
> demonstrative pronoun. Thus we have once the phonetical form alike
> Romanian and the semantic aspect like in Romanian : "aj"
versus "ãl/ãla"
> (he), "ajo" versus "aia"(she)
> On the basis of these observation I will put to discution -as I
> the follwing:
> -on the acount of accepted Latin familia > Alb. fëmëje, one cannot
> ignore that
> this "j" in aj/ajo can be the reflex of "lV" where V="e,i,j".
> -f one think that in Rom. an another set of demonstrative pronoun
is for
> 3 pers sg. ãla/aia (masc/fem), maybe they (Alb/Rom) have related
> here too. Of course I
> have trouble with the plural form since in Rom. the plural is
> comparative with Alb. ato/ata. For the "t" here in ato/ata I was
> with the thoughts that the plural marker in Albanian which is "t/të"
> played any role here. Opinions?
> Alex