Re: [tied] *g'(h)- > d as aberrant outcome

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

> I wrote about variation between d- and dh- and the role of sandhi

in my

> postings about the history of Albanian consonants (I'm sorry I

didn't finish

> the series. I'd like to return to it but I'm too busy at the

moment; it will

> be cintinued in June or July.) Some of the comparisons you suggest

are

> faulty. I don't believe <ngjesh> can have anything to do with

<dorë>; the

> standard derivation from *h1en-)joh3s- is impeccable, number 7 also

looks

> impossible to me, especially because **g^Hos- 'guest' is a fake

etymon.

> <gjymësë> is related neither to *g^em- nor to *sem- (BTW, two

different IE

> roots), whatever else it represents. Daco-Romanian jumãtate and

Aromanian

> g^umitate are obviously related to it. Hamp reconstructs pre-

Albanian

> *jumitja: (shouldn't it be *ju:mitja: ?), but in fact the form

seems to be

> hopelessly ambiguous.

[AK]
I agree that much regular and convinced is <*ju:mitja:>. But, in case
of <gjymës>, latter <gjysmë> I like to point out metathesis in
<damës> and <dasmë> and I didn't talk about its origin. Indedd, I
just make a suggestion to Lat. <semi-> and Greek <hemi->.

>
> Finally, <dhjes> is normally assigned to the root *g^Hed- 'defecate'
> together with Greek kHezo: and Skt. hadati. If my memory serves me

well,

> Cimochowski accepted that etymology too (I'm not sure from which of

his

> articles you took the idea that it might reflect *k^ekW-).

[AK]
Sorry, I cite by memory, I haven't the book at hand. Your explanation
is right.

> PIotr
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Abdullah Konushevci" <a_konushevci@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 2:36 AM
> Subject: [tied] *g'(h)- > d as aberrant outcome
>
>
> 1. *g'heim > dimen/dimër `winter', but prefixed form <mër-dhij> `to
> get cold' < *mër-g'him-yo (cf. mër-dhez `to blush, flush' vs.
> ndez `to light, to kindle' < *n-dogW-ényo, besides *degW- > djeg `to
> burn')
> 2. *g'he:s-ro > dorë `hand', but prefixed form n-g'hes > ngjesh `to
> press, compress' (cf. Romanian inghesiu `id.')
> 3. * (dh)g'h(y)es > dje `yesterday'
> 4, * g'emh1-`to marry'>g'm.H1-eh2 >damës >dasmë `wedding' (cf.

gjymës

> > gjysmë `half'; Lat. semi- `id.', Gr. hemi-`id.').
> 5. * g'enu-, suffixed o-grade form *g'onu-a: `jawbone, chin' >
> dana/darë
> 6. *g'heh1- > g'he:-`to release, let go'. Prefixed forms sh-

g'he:ényo

> > shkonj `go', trashëgoj `inherit'; mër-gonj `to migrate' (cf. also
> mër-thej `to send off', besides <the qafën!> `move off')
> 7. *g'hos- `guest, host, stranger' >dash-a-mirë `benevolent'
>
> Writing about Alb. verb <dhjes> `to shit', probably from PIE *k'ekW-
> e, Cimochowski noticed that other verbs and adjectives, derived from
> this verb, like <ndyj> `to dirt', adj. <i ndytë> `dirty, foul',
> <ndot> `to dirty, to soil', due to sand'hi, they shift interdental

to

> dental. For this reason, he seeks the aberrant outcome of *g'(h)- >

d

> in Albanian, believing that this phenomenon must be also caused by
> sand'hi. Indeed, in prepositional syntagma (PN), many words, like
> <dorë> `hand', dimër `winter', <dje> `yesterday', dash `host',
> dasmë `wedding', <dara> `pincers, nippers' are mostly used in acc.
> case: në dorë > ndorë, në dimër > ndimër, deri në dje > deri ndje,
> ndashta `maybe', në dasmë, ndasmë, which caused *g'(h) to be treated
> as /d/, likewise of /d/ treated like /dh/ in sand'hi (cf. above
> <mër.dhez> `to flush, blush', due to /rd/ > /dh/ besides <ndez> `to
> kindle'; <mër.dhij> `to get cold', besides <dimër> `winter'.
> I think that in etymological researches is very little respected and
> known the phonetics' syntax or sand'hi.
> I am afraid that again I wan't get any feedback.