Re: [tied] Output of l. r. in PAlb and some Early PAlb Depalatisat

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
>> This doesn't even follow from the above. I have no access at

present to

> Hamp's brief article on <gjuhë> in _Studia Linguistica et

Orientalia

> Memoriae Haim Blanc Dedicata_ (Wexler et al. [eds.], 1989), where

his

> etymology is laid out, and the last time I saw it was some years

ago.

> However, Hamp analyses the dialectal forms of the word, not only

the

> well-known ones such as /gluhë/, but also /gûh/ with a nasal vowel

(in

> some varieties of Geg). His evidence suggests Proto-Albanian *-unh-

, so

> he proposes *dlunhë, which he sometimes connects with PIE *d(l)

n.g^Huh2

> 'tongue', though I can't remember the details. Anyway, whether

Hamp is

> right or wrong, the dialectally preserved nasal vowel means that

your

> derivation is incorrect (whatever its other deficiencies).
>
> Piotr

************
It seems that Hamp's etymology is much more based, for I lack indeed
the presence of nasal vowel /û/, that can be explained only by some
nasal sound. So, derivation from *dlHn- > glûn- is correct, but
regarding the second part, I really can't understand him.

Konushevci