Re: [tied] Outcome of PIE *s > Alb./j/ (was Rom aia - Alb ajo)

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

> Abdullah Konushevci wrote:
> >
> > It was exactly this pronominal stem of demonstrative pronouns

that

> > push me to treat the issue of Albanian demonstrative pronouns as
> > compounds, for prior we have the consent of this well-known

scholar,

> > that first parts of Albanian pronouns could be recunstructed as

we

> > have propose from PIE *ko(m)- and *au- (<H2eu). So, as it is

cleat,

> > demonstrative pronoun <ajo> `she' (often used in form like

<çajo> to

> > be different from personal pronoun)
>
> so, no big deal since you have the same thing in Rom. "aia" versus
> "ceia" thus Alb. çajo" has the perfect counterpart in Rom. "ceia";

the

> Alb. "aj" here should be from an older *çeja:" which

yelded "çajo". The

> only problem is again the time line since if such a ecuation is

true,

> then we have these changes in an non datable time. Prior to

anything

> wrote.

[AK]
I regret, but I am sorry for I can understand you at all.
How should Alb. <aj> be form an older *çeja:, which yielded <çajo>.

>
> , derived from *H2eu- + *saH2 (as
> > per Beeks *seH2) > au + sa: > a + jo > ajo `she' ( PIE *au > a,

*a:

> >> o and *s > j).
>
> if the Com. counterpart is a true then the derivation is wrong.

you

> cannot have in Rom. an "aja" from an "*au-sa".Of course you can

say here

> the word is a loan from Albanian after "s" > "j" but before "a:"
> "o".

[AK]
Did I speak about any connection in this light?!

>
> > In the same way we could reconstruct <kjo> `this' <
> > *ko(m)- +saH2 > këjo (attested until in our times) > kjo. Due to

the

> > same rule we may explain masculine forms <ai/aj> `this, he' and
> > <ky> `that' (<*au- + *so and *ko(m) +so).
>
> If I remember right, Stölting sustain that the prefixation

with "k" is

> recent in Albanian.

[AK]
Please, refer to which article, book you have foudn this. It seems
rediculous to me.

> > Konushevci
>

> Alex