[tied] Re: Latin pinso etc.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Abdullah Konushevci" <a_konushevci@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 1:38 AM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Latin pinso etc.
>
>
> > I am afraid that Rom. Sarpe < *serp- is an intermediary form of

Alb.

> gjarp-ër <Sarp(e) < *Sjarp-, due to Pedersen's low that PIE /*s/,
> followed by palatals vowel, yields in Albanian /gj/ </sh/,
>
> This is untenable, since the voicing is much older than the

passage of *s >

> s^ (<sh>). The development must have been *s > *z > *z^ (parallel

to *s >

> s^) > gj, without an itermediate *s^. In other words, while

<gjarpër> is a

> native word, it can't be the source of Romanian <$arpe>, in which

the

> initial /s^/ results from a well-known phonetic development

internal to

> Romanian.
>
> > ... Its archaic form was
> preserved also in <shtërpinj> 'snakes' with introducing one
> parasitic /t/.
>
> Jens Rasmussen has argued on this list (very persuasively, in my

opinion)

> that <shtërpinj>, unlike <gjarpër>, is a loan from Latin:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18589
>
> Piotr

************
Even if we agree, due to the deep respect about Mr. Rasmussen, that
Alb. <shtërpinj> is a loan from Lat. <serpintinus> (through
metathesis and loosing of /t/ in cluster), besides attested formes
<shterp> (Rom. <strepede>), pl. <shtërpinj> 'snakes', I think that
in this case we are forced to find an explanation about
<gjalmë> 'thong, twine, string' and <*shtjalp&> (<shtalpë>, Camarda,
Append. 182). So, rule founded by Meyer, accepted by Pedersen (Die
Guttrale im Albanesischen, KZ, Neu Folge 16, 36, 1900, 227-340), to
my view is correct.

Konushevci