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

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 32510
Date: 2004-05-09

On Sun, 09 May 2004 09:05:37 +0200, alex
<alxmoeller@...> wrote:


>> Why not? *(h1en-)joh3s- > pre-Alb. *(n-)gjes- regularly.
>> From this are derived Alb. (n)gjesh- (s > sh) and Rom.
>> (în-)ghes-.
>
>that will mean in the time of Roman empire the word should have been
>already *gjes at least. And a such form should have had the output
>"g^e" in Rom ( with lost of final consonant too ).

What final consonant?

>>> As for the derivation from Latin glandula > ghindura.. there is
>>> nothing againt derivation from IE *ghend as well; the suffix "-urã"
>>> makes the job: *ghend +ura > ghendura > ghindurã.
>>
>> There's lots of things against it. For starters, you
>> probably don't mean *ghend- "to grab", but *ghendh-
>> (*gh(&)ndh-) "ulcer, tumor" (Grk. kanthúle:, konthe:laí
>> (Hes.), Goth./OE/OHG gund and that's it), a rather obscure
>> root which is not attested in e-grade anyway.
>
>I mentioned previously I mean Pok. #650 , thus *ghend with the meaning
>"Geschwür"

No such entry in IEW. There is only *ghendh- (*gh(&)nd-)
"Geschwür", page 438.

>> Secondly,
>> ghíndurã obviously does not contain the suffix -úrã, which
>> always carries the accent.
>
>"viézure", "mázãre" do not have the stress on the "suffix" as well;
>however, the words ares considered to be a compositum with
>uffif -alle, -ulle ( in Alb. both words being suffixed with "-ulle")

Exactly. Neither word ends in -urã.

>> In the third place, gh- should
>> have palatalized in Romanian before a front vowel (or do you
>> think that PIE *gh and Romanian <gh> mean the same thing?).
>
>No, I consider that the presence of "h" did not allowed the
>palatalisation of the velars;

Rubbish.

>> In the fourth place, why invent such a fantastic scenario
>> when a much better, easier and more logical solution is
>> offered by Latin glandula?
>
>If one thinks at the various Alb. testimonies, I don't see why your
>"fantastic" would be too wrong here :-)
>
>Some additional explanations as per my sources; there is given as
>follow:
>Alb.-Greek variant "gl'ëndërë"
>Alb.-Tosk variant "gjëndërë"
>Alb.-Gheg variant "gandërë"
>Gustav Meyer and Schmidt consider the Alb. word is a loan from
>"Balkan-Latin" and the semantic change did happened in that part of
>the world (Balkan); the word entered Albanian with this meaning from a
>form like *glandura ( the rotacism of "l" should have worked already
>in the time as the word was loaned into Albanian).
>Skok consider the Alb. word and its variants are not loans from
>BalkaLatin but directly from Romanian.
>Rosetti does not say anything in his ILR about this word, he just
>mention the opinion of Skok.
>
>So far about shcolars and this word. Now, phoneticaly I have trouble
>with Latin "glandula" because I am not aware of any reduction of the
>"ia" to "i" even before "nC", thus glandula > gl'andura; expected
>should be "ghiandurã".

No. /a/ gives /â/ before /n/, and /jâ/, /âj/ > /i/ (as e.g.
in excambiare > *scâimba > schimba, anima > *âinima > inimã,
etc.).

>to sum up:
>
>against IE *ghend speaks Greko-Albanian "gl'ëndërë" which point to a
>previous *gl-

Yes.

>against Latin *glandula or Romanian *glandura speaks Alb. "ë" (Latin
>"u" or Rom "u" rendered as "ë"?)

No. The normal development of /aN/ in Albanian is Tosk ëN,
Gheg /ãN/ (dhëmb/dhãmb, llërë/llãnë, etc.), so that proves
glan-. The unstressed final syllables give regularly
Albanian -ërë (cf. for -u- > -ë- Alb. *medhur- > mjedhër,
swek^uro- > vjehërr, smek^ru- > mjekër).

>against Latin "glandula" speaks Romanian "in" where one expected "ian"
>(*ghiandurã instead of ghindurã)

No. The normal development of glanC- in Rom. is (gl^ân- >
ghjân >) ghin-.

_Everything_ points to Latin glandula.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...