Re: [tied] PIE *y > Alb. /z/ (was Re: Romanian Verb )

elmeras2000 wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
> wrote:
>
>> I also think that:
>> jo-n� < PIE *(a) ja: nos
>> y-n� < PIE *(a) (e)i nos
>> and so-n� < PIE *k'ja:i nos (see sonte < *k'ja:j + nokWtai )
>>
>> so jo-n� is not from *sa:- but from an original *y -> *a ya: nos
>
> You seem to be disregarding the caseforms with t-. The distribution of
> j-/zero- and t-/s- are exactly as with the IE pronoun *so, *t�-.
> Therefore this is the pronoun seen in Sanskrit sa, tam, sa:, ta:m,
> etc., not the one seen in ayam, imam, iyam, ima:m. Pedersen sorted out
> the details in 1900.
>
> Jens

the caseforms with "-t-" are not in nominative sg but in "composed"
cases
as plural, D/G/Ak/Abl. One observes that this "t" appears even in the
G/D/Ak/Abl of subst. and adj.:

N nj� i ri - > (i) t� ri(u) for G/D/Ak/Abl

If this observation is true, then the caseforms with "t" are to explain
due "t�"

Alex




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.2 - Release Date: 04.06.2005