[tied] Re: big-mouth 'brbljiv' or crazy 'brljiv' Milosevic

From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 33866
Date: 2004-08-25

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> Abdullah Konushevci wrote:
> >> Interesting appears here something else. The word "-lig" appears
to
> >> be the
> >> counterpart of Latin "ligo" but the Latin word yelded in
> >> Rom. "lega" , thus
> >> it cannot be of Latin origin. Of Albanian origin cannot be as
well
> >> since Alb. present the "satem" form of *lig-" or I make some
> >> confusion here?
> >>
> >>
> >> Alex
> > ************
> > Yes, PIE root *leig^- 'to bind' yields in Albanian in both
dialects
> > <lidh> 'to fasten, bind, tie', until prefixed form g- + *leig-
yields
> > in Geg <zgidh> 'to untie' and in Tosk <zgjidh> 'id.', due to
regular
> > evolution of cluster gl > g in Geg and gl > gj in Tosk.
> > I supose that o-grade form *loig- yields too Albanian
<ledh> 'bank,
> > barrier'.
> > This root yields in Lat. agent noun <lictor> and zero-grade form
*lig-
> > a: > ligare 'to bind' and other derivatives, like: ligament,
> > ligatura, re.ligio, ob.ligere, etc.
> >
> > Konushevci
> >
>
> This is what I meant about *leig- comparative with Latin "ligo",
Alb. "lidh"
> and Rom "lig". The "substratul" words as "cârlig" for instance show
a clear
> compositum of *ker and *leigh- where the meaning is exactly "bound
crooked"
> < *ker-leig-.
> The differences are visible here as follow:
> Latin has a short "i"
> Unknown Language (substrate) has a long "i"
> Albanian has a long i as well
> Albanian has "dh" instead of "g"
>
> This is one of examples I intended to put up for Richard since it
appears
> the unstressed IE "e" > & in a very ancient times, thus there was
not
> posible the palatalisation of the velar. That is: latin ke, ki, ge,
gi have
> been palatalised, the substratual IE ke, ki, ge, gi have yelded k&,
g& or
> ke, ge; in the time as Latin has entered the Balkanic space, there
was
> already the k& and g& and the evolution to k1 and g1 happened after
that.
> That will fit with what Rosetti say that Latin itself have had a
slight
> palatal pronounciation of the velars when they have been followed
by
> front-vowels and the palatalisation was helped by the fact the IE
k^and g^
> have had already the pronounciation of today , they being "c^"
and "g^". Tu
> summ up , the rules appears to be as such:
>
> IE k^, g^ > c^, g^
> IE k , g > k, g (no matter if followed by front vowels)
> It remains to be sure what did happen with the IE labiovelars since
in Latin
> words the reflex in Rom. is a labialised one as the supposed aqua
> apa.
> If that is true, then regardless which was the ancient idiom spoken
before
> mixing up with Latin, that was for sure no satem idiom.
>
> Alex
************
Dear Alex,
I suppose you have mixed up two PIE roots *leig^- 'to bind, tie,
fasten' and *leik- 'to bend'. In first case we have to deal with pure
palatal *k^- or &k'-, as you wish, and in second with pure velar *k.
Until *leig^- yields regulary in Alb. interdental /dh/, second form
yields -lik, like in <ndërlik> 'to entangle, to complicate' from
*H1enter- + *leik- and other derivatives: <ndërlikem> 'to get
confused, to became muddled up', <ndërlikoj> 'to complicate',
<komplikim> 'complication', <i ndërlikuar> 'complex'. Further more,
<ndërlik> is used for the tooth that grew up between two regular
teeth and for the bended tree <kërligat>, that has no regular shape,
but bended one, so is used often for fire.
It is attested in Illyrian as Epi-licus portus (cf. Epi-cadus, Epi-
damnus, etc.).

Konushevci