Re: *H2kous- ‘to hear, feel’

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Abdullah Konushevci
<akonushevci@...> wrote:

> Thanks a lot for your feedback. I guess that as Barich, as well

as mia

> parvitas, are aware for Meyer's etymology. With due respect to all
> predcessors, I think and I find more plausible my etymology,

suggested also

> by Barich.
> But, lets see what Meyer have written: "digjonj, dëgjonj", geg.

auch

> <ndëgjoj nigjoj>, in Fieri <ngjonj, ndërgjonj> Mitk. Alb. B. 169,

gr.

> <dëlgjonj> (Poros), cal. <dëlgjonj> (Greci) <diligjonj> (Barile),

sic.

> <dëlgonj, ndëlgonj> (Pal. Adriano), <glëgonj> (Contessa) 'höre,

gehorche'.

> Aus lat. intelligere. Das it. und gr. Alb. hat die altesten Formen

bewahrt.

> <ndëlgim> ist sic. Pitre 290 'intellegenza'; auch im Matth. 15, 17

von

> Frascineto übersetzt <ndëlgonj> gradezu 'intellegere'. <ngjonj>

ist nach

> Doz. 'entendre' und 'écouter'. Vgl. <intendere> für 'hören'. Aus

der 1.

> Sing. Praet. <intelligo> staumt, mit Assimilierung des Anlauts an

das

> inlautende /gj/ aus /gl/ (füur -lg), <gjegjenj, gjegjin>

cal. 'höre' (Aor.

> <hörte> S. Caterina Pap. 668), <gjegjun> geg. 'gehört'; Pass.

<gjegjem>

> 'höre, gehorche', als Antowrt auf den Namensanruf 'hier!'

<përgjegjem>

> 'antworde, erwidere'. (Meyer, EW, pp. 66-67).
> Lets see also what Orel have written too: <dëgjoj, aor. dëgjova>.

Dialectal

> forms <ndëgoj> and, particulary, <dëlgonj, diligonj> reflect the

obvious

> Latin source - intellegere 'to percieve' (Meyer, Wb. 66-67). Meyer-

Lübke Gr.

> Grundriss I 1054; Barich ARSt 33-34 (related to Gk akouo 'to

hear', Goth.

> hausjan 'id.'); Çabej Etim. III 217-218. (Orel, AED, 62).

Sure, that's what they write. And what's wrong with that?

> First, to be taken as a true etymology Meyer's one, we may have

other

> examples where Latin long /e:/, followed by liquid /r/ have

yielded Alb.

> <-onj> (cf. Alb. <vyej> 'to be worth> from Lat. <vale:re>, so

long /e:/

> followed by liquid is regularly diphthonged.

What is the relevance of that? What "Latin long /e:/" are you
talking about? What "liquid /r/"? Have you completely changed the
subject?

> Second, supposed metathesis l - g > g - l must also be proven, as

well as in

> infinitive form <intelligere> as wel as present <intelligo>.

In many of the forms you cite the order -l-g- is preserved as it was
in intelligo. So what's the need of a metathesis? Or are you saying
that Buzuk's <endiglogn-> is not the same word as ndëlgónj and
modern standard (3sg) dëgjón?

> Third, instead of all these nonsenses, where do you see defficulty

of Alb.

> <ngoj> to be derived from *H2kous-n-yo, attested as well in

Arbëresh (see

> Meyer above) and Tosk variant as regular hypercorrection of Geg

form.

I see an insurmountable difficulty in the fact that your chosen
<ngoj> has so many variant forms which you apparently refuse to
accomodate in a meaningful way.

Jens