Re: [tied] Rom aia - Alb ajo < PAlb aja: 'that/this one (fem.)'

>Having now a final picture (regarding the fem.sg. form of pers. and
>dem. pronouns) the Daco-Moesians could have been talked like this:

>1. "a tsja: budza" 'that/this lip' (PIE *o k'ja:i budh-jo)
>=> Alb. aso buzë <-> Rom. acea budzã

>2. "tsja: budza" 'id. or closer' (PIE *o k'ja:i budh-jo) =>
>Alb. so buzë <-> Rom. cea budzã

>3. "a tsja: ta budza" 'id. or closer' (PIE *o k'ja:i to budh-jo)
>=> Alb. atë buzë <-> Rom astã budzã

>4. "budza a ja:" 'id. or closer' (PIE *budh-jo o ja:) =>
>Alb. ajo budza <-> Rom. budza aja


>So I think that based on this:
>Rom. 'asta' is linked with the contracted form *atsta (Alb. atë) of
>PAlb. *a tsja ta

>(for ct>st in Rom. see neguTator > *neguTtor > negustor and for k't
> t in Albanian see tetë '8' < *atsto:(ti) < ok'to:(ti) )

>Rom 'aceasta' is the uncontracted form of PAlb. '*a tsja: ta'.

To complete me, here and to show that a PAlb-Dacian-Balto-Slavic
composed forms:
*'(a) tsja: ta' (fem.)
*'(a) tsje ta' (masc.) existed
and that a contracted form *atsta existed too
=> see Rom. asta, aceasta /ac^asta/, acesta /ac^esta/ and Alb. atë).


I want to show here the Lith composed form štai 'there' indicating
an old *tstaj

Lith: štai (š+tai) < PBaltic *tstaj (tsje + tai) < from PIE *kjei +
*to

1. štai 'there'
Examples:
Lith štai kur ju:s! 'there you are'
Lith. štai ir skambutis 'there goes the bell'

štai is a composed form based on:

2. Lith ši/šia:/šie 'this'

Examples:
Lith. šia savaite 'this week'
Lith: ši diena; šiandien 'this day'
Lith. šiemet 'this year'


3. Lith. ta/tai 'that'

Examples:
Lith. ta diena 'that day'
Lith. tai tiesa 'that is true'