From: alex
Message: 30055
Date: 2004-01-26
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:Trough "substratum" I understand the most old layer of the language, the one
>> Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
>>> 1. The development of PIE dorsal stops
>>> Proto-Albanian loans in Romanian give us some indication of the
>>> pronunciation of the reflexes of *k' and *g' at the time of the
>>> borrowing: their Modern Romanian reflexes are /c/ ~ /s/ and /z/ (~
>>> dialectal /3/).
>>
>> 1) Observations:
>> a)-from this sentence I understand you do not agree with the most
> common view of the scholars which assume that Rom. Lang has a
> structure as the other NeoLatin languages. Trough this structure I
> understand : substratum + stratum +adstratum.
>> I understand it that way because you speak about Proto-Albanian
> loans in Rom. which implies a population who did speak Latin and
> loaned some words from Proto-Albanians. In this mannere one cannot
> speak anymore about any "substratum" in Romanian, but just abut
> Proto-Albanian loans into Latin spoken by that population. Does I
> understand it false or do you intended to construct the sentence
> other way?
>
> I don't read it that way. I understand it as an abstract notion of
> a separate language, which as Pre-Romanian rather than general
> Latin. This is just a way of describing the effect. The actual
> process was probably much messier, as you see in the concept of
> substratum.
>In the form ArgeS appears problematicaly the "S". So far we know, "S" in
>> b) it is to assume the population who loaned these words from
> Proto-Albanian has learned the palatzalized sounds "c^" and "g^"
> from the Proto-Albanians since the language which was spoken by
> BecomingRomanians was still clear latin with no altered velars
> within.
>
> No longer a necessary concept. I'm not sure what they learnt.
> Argessos > Arze$ makes sense if you regard the borrowed Latin from
> as actually being *Argiessius. *Argessius would yielkd *Arje$. I
> am assuming Latin -si- before a vowel yields Romanian /$/; I
> couldn't find any examples of its development, and I haven't encoded
> the change in my 'toy'.
>I fail to see the Romanian reflexes in the message mentioned . You see them?
>
>> Palatalised *kW is reflected as Romanian /c^/. We can
>>> therefore tentatively assume the following intermediate stages:
>>>
>>> *k' > *c > T
>>> *g' > *3 > D (> d in some instances)
>>> *kW /+ > *c^ > s
>>> *gW /+ > *3^ > z
>>>
>>> where "/+" means 'in palatalising contexts'.
>>
>> I have a little trouble in understanding the group *kW or *gW "in
> palatalising context". I say it because I fail to see how this can
> be a palatalising context after a labial as "W". I assume the only
> way is of merging together of "k" with "kW" into "k" for allowing
> any palatalisation here. I point here to the words as "cui" where we
> have the clear construction velar-labial-palatal context ( even if
> there should be a latin cuneus > cui, thing about I very doubt).
>> If I am wrong ( "k" did not merged with "kW" into "k" for having
> just "k" /+) then how is possible to have practicaly "ku" to be
> influenced by the next palatal vowel? Examples in modern Albanian or
> Romanian will be very appreciated.
>
> Piotr has already given you some examples (
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/29877 )
>
> dHegWHo: > dieg 'burn'
> dHogWHejo: > ndez 'set on fire' (palat.) en- prefixed
> *penkWe (+ *-a:) > *penc^a > pes�, dial. p�s� '5' (palatalisation)
> *gWHermo- > *3^i�rm- > zjarm 'fire' (palatalisation)
> The key point is that /gW/ is *not* the same as /gw/. In the
> former, velarity and labiality (probably lip-rounding) are
> simultaneous, in the second they are sequential. The example that
> comes to mind is *gwistis > gjisht 'finger'.
> Richard.Alex