Re: [tied] Re: Latin pinso etc.

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "alex" <alxmoeller@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 2:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Latin pinso etc.
>
>
>> Piotr, you want to have an sonore "z" which has given "z^"? I assume
>> the "z" is not a very disponible sound to become more affricated as
>> it is.
>
> Check the meaning of "affricated" in a dictionary. [z] and [z^] are
> both fricatives, and neither of them is more (or less) fricative than
> the other. They can also rather easily change into one another.
> Cross-linguistically, [z] seems to be quite prone to change.

that was not the point of which of them is more fricative as other. The
point is of "z > z^which appears to be imposible .Try to speak them out
and try to make the change from "z" to "z^" even in a palatal medium.

>
>> Do
>> you have a properly method for showing the "gja-" is from "za" via
>> "z^a" ( se > ze > gja) and not from se > s^a > gja ?
>
> Yes. The Albanian change of *s > sh and the Romanian palatalisation
> of *s > $ in Romanian before a front glide are both relatively late
> changes, since Latin words regularly undergo them (in Albanian, the
> oldest loans from Slavic show the effect of the change while younger
> ones don't, which means that the shift can be roughly dated to the
> early Middle Ages).

Stop. It seems we do not speak about the same thing.
1)I don't see why comparing Alb. "sh" with Rom. "sh" in this case since
I postulated the equivalence of Albanian "gj-" with Rom. "$". IF
Albanian developed from my propossed "sh" later to "gj-" Rom. did not.
For substratual words and Latin words in palatal medium there is one and
the same sound which remained unchanged, this "sh" I am speaking about.
2) you are corect abut Slavis s > s in Alb.; from this point we can just
conclude the time of Slavic loans in Albanian which can be when?
VII-VIII century or begining with X century?

> The Albanian voicing must be much older, since we
> can't see in in Latin loans (I have speculated that <gji> [Lat.
> sinus] might be a counterexample, and Miguel suggested another one
> (<gjerb> 'sip').
> Even so, they are vastly outnumbered by examples of
> Lat. s- > Alb. sh- even under stress, so the most one could claim is
> that the voicing might have taken place at the very early phase of
> Latin/pre-Albanian contacts.

The voicing you suppose does not exclude the change $ > gj prior to
Latin times.

> The crucial thing is that the voicing
> must precede the "shibilant" shift of Albanian fricatives, so that we
> have *s > *z (in stressed syllables) in pre-Roman or (at best) early
> Roman times, and the post-Roman shift *s, *z > *s^, *z^ (> sh, gj).
> The most likely order of the changes was as follows:

Let us first say " the alteration of "s" to "gj-" via whatever _is_
previous to Roman times.
The alteration of "s" from Latin times is reflected in "sh" and the
alteration of "z" of Latin times is reflected in what since in Latin
there has been no "z"?

>
> (1) voicing: *serp- > *zerp- (in a stressed syllable)
> (2) diphthongisation: *zerp- > *ziärp- > *ziarp- (in a closed
> syllable) (3) shibilant shift: *ziarp- > *z^iarp- (parallel to *s >
> *s^) (4) "hardening": *z^iarp- > gjarp-
>
> Piotr

In Albanian it seems is the same rule of /ie/>/ia/ as in Rom. when in
the next syllable is an /e/ or /ã/. The diphtongation you are speaking
about has a reason and this is the next vowel after *serp- which _must
be_ an unstressed /e/ or /a/. I agree here with (2)and partly with (3)
but one need the proove for (1) , for the voicing you are speaking
about. I say partly for (3) because the hardening of "$" yelds just
"gj-" and not an another sound. The hardening of "z^" yleds consonantal
"j", do I am wrong here?
Do we have some other examples for verifing the voicing you are speaking
about? ( s > z )?

Alex