Re: [tied] Re: Dog

25-01-04 23:55, Abdullah Konushevci wrote:

> But, how do you explain the lack of rhotacism in Tosk dialect and
> nasalism, too.

I don't think short /a/ in Latin loans was nasalised. As for rhotacism,
words like Tosk fre/freri (Geg frê/frêni) < fre:num differ from <qen> in
having no synchronic alternation between /n/ and /r/ within Tosk.

> You agree that in the case of Alb. <njoh> from
> *g^ne:sko the palatal was treated as plain velar, but in the case of
> *k^wn.-to, you deny it. Isn't it contradictio in adjecto?

"Contradictio in adiecti" is what you find in "a sunny night", but not
here. In *k^wn.to, first, the *k^ is found before *w, not before a
nasal, and secondly, the vocalisation of the syllabic nasal left no
consonantal element when no laryngeal followed *n. (that is, *n. > a,
just as in Greek and Indo-Iranian). Before a preconsonantal laryngeal
the development was different (*n.h > *na:) and created the right
environment for dispalatalisation: *g^nh3-sko: > *g'na:sk- > *gna:sk- >

> *gnox > njoh. There ain't no contradiction if you apply the changes

correctly.