[tied] Re: Romanian verbal paradigm

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

> m_iacomi wrote:
> >> [Marius]
> >> AFAIK, Albanian doesn't exhibit that (I can think e.g. at Pokorny
> >> 1282 which suggest rather PIE *mend- > Alb. ment, or #490 PIE

*ent-

> >> Alb. ent, int, there is no word suggesting eventual voicing of
> >> PIE /t/ in Albanian and I never saw such a law).
> >>
> >> [Richard] (new)
> >> See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18573 .
> >
> > I saw there a transformation acting after the moment of first
> > Latin loans, not before. "As for -nt-, it did become -nd- in
> > Albanian, also in Latin loans, cf. qind <-- cent-, prind <--
> > parent-, etc. But the change of e > i before -nd- was not general
> > in Albanian [...]". That is: it could not concern substratum
> > of Romanian.
>
>
> Interesting interpretation. Latin loans have been affected *too* by

this

> law. That does not tell us anything about the begining of the

change,

> thus I don't know how one want to prove that "nd" was not active

before

> Latin loans. Maybe some Doric/Greek loans will show it?
>
>
> Alex

************
*enteros > 'i ndjerë', *newn.-ti > (g.) nândë, (t.) nëndë 'nine'.

Konushevci