[tied] Re: Estimated timeframe of albanian s->sh transformation

Hello Piotr,
You wrote :
" The change from *c/*z to *T/*D (= Mod.Alb. <th>/<d(h)>) was
probably a little earlier. " [than s -> s^ ; c^ -> s )

Very interesting point. Please add your arguments here. Do you
have some examples?

Thanks in advance.
marius alexandru


P.S. If you don't have enough information to establish the timeframes
in years, maybe you can establish the precedance of these rules (like
above) and there overlapings in a systematic manner (as you already
started to do).
Without these precise localizations in time...something is
missing (this is the less accurate part in mostly all the books).
Please do it, systematically, whenever possible. This will add
valuable information on this subject. Thanks again.



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

> 30-01-04 17:19, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > I tried to redo my intervals based on this assumption "2
> > generations" --> 60 years
> > Where I have problems is that I don't imagine how on such short
> > scale :
> > c^ -> s could overlap with s->sh (what overlap really mean in
> > this case : 30 years?? Does this make sense?),
> > also how the loans in other languages are still possible in

such

> > short intervals.
> >
> > Piotr, could you post you estimations please ? Will be very
> > helpful.
>
> Sorry, I can't make my estimates any more precise -- not for a
> reconstructed, undocumented language. My guess is the the two

processes

> were roughly simultaneous. The change from *c/*z to *T/*D (=

Mod.Alb.

> <th>/<d(h)>) was probably a little earlier. By eliminating a pair

of

> dental affricates it paved the way for the fronting of the

postalveolar

> ones; and by creating a new pair of dental fricatives it provided

the

> motivation for then retraction of *s/*z. The shift was complete.

Tout se

> tien.
>
> Piotr