Re: [tied] Early PAlb Depalatisations of k', g' > k, g

From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 38896
Date: 2005-06-23

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > 1. Alb. mjekër < PAlb *mekra (reshaped form) or *mekri < PIE
> > *smek^r. => the depalatization of *smek^ru affected the Lith too:
> > smãkras but not the Sanskrit : smasru
> >
> > NOTE : this is the second example (after grurë where g^/r. >
g/r.)
> > showing a depalatatization based on r. -> k^/r. > k/r
> > (see at Demiraj: Alb. mjekër < PIE *smek^r.)
> >
> > (Even it wasn't r. but only r is not very important for this
> > discussion: we talk here only about 'a sonorant context')
>
> ON the contrary, it's _crucially_ important. The satemisation of
*k^, g^
> and *g^H was blocked or cancelled before _consonantal_ liquids and
> nasals, but not before their syllabic variants. In *smek^ru- there
was
> no syllabic *r. in PIE, and so we have /k/ in <mjekër>. From
*g^Hr.zdo-
> 'cereal, barley', on the other hand, we get <drithë>. Your
> "counterexamples" with non-syllabic sonorants are therefore
irrelevant.

a) I don't say that the syllabic r. is not possible in this Albanian
form. But I agreed that could be also r
For me, an r. seems to be more probable than a simple r
See also Demiraj: Alb. mjekër < PIE *smek^r.
Do your have other reasons to suspect an r here in place of an r.?

In addition, grurë is obviously related to *g'r.h2no- the
semantism fit 100%.

Also we talked here, about a 'sonorant context' so a 'large
context'
In addition the sonorants don't appear in all cases 'immediately
after' g^/k^ so I don't see why this effect was influenced different
by the "syllabic sonorants"?

As result, I doubt that a 'syllabic sonorant context' has had a
different effect.

In this conditions my question is :

Do you know a second example than the 'well known' *g^Hr.zdo-
'cereal, barley' > <drithë>?
Because if this is the single example that we have here...

Best Regards,
Marius

P.S.:

1. Sorry but I didn't understand what is 'special' regarding:
*gWr.- > g(w)urë (for me is a good example for r. > ur)
similar with wl.k- > *(w)ulk-

2. There wasn't r.: l.: in PIE (it's true also that some scholars
have proposed them) but it was a lenghtening effect at least in Early
PAlb when we have had r.<H> l.<H> contexts before to have any other
outputs of r. l.