Re: [tied] Question on Albanian sy

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 42206
Date: 2005-11-23

alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> Cimochowski (and you, via him) can say what he wants : the Link is
> Obvious.
> I better trust Rosetti on this topic, that put the word in the
> list of 'Common Romanian Albanin words'

Just wait till tomorrow. I can only tell you in advance that you are
completely wrong about the diphthong /ye/, which _can't_ result from the
contraction of *u: with the vowel of the next syllable. Such
contractions yield long vowels with the colour of the stressed vowel,
not diphthongs. Also, you ignore completely the Albanian dialectal
material. I didn't mean to offend you, but you really need to learn a
lot about Albanian historical phonology. I refuse to discuss complex
"derivations" based on ignorance: it's a waste of time.

> I really indicated iwi <-> y but seems that you have ignored that
> part of my message...
>
> I cannot see such a big difference between iwi, ui, iu as you try
> to present here, all of them go to y ...If you know one please post
> here....(in addition iwi could well be reduced via ui or iu doesn't
> matter here)

The development of the <ci:vit-> part was approximately like this:
*ki:wit- > *kiwët- > *kjut- > qyt-, with the /u/ fronted by
assimilation. This should not be directly compared with developments in
stressed syllables.

> P.S. Finally Please Clarify on your side too:
> 1. what is the Albanian output of iu, ui in your opinion, if is
> not y?

I prefer concrete examples to a general question like this. In PIE,
there was no *iu or *ui to begin with, so you need to specify the source
of the sequence. For example, the contraction of *u with _any_ following
vowel (including *i) could yield *u: and then Mod.Alb. /y/. Of course I
can see the cause of your obsession with "iu, ui" -- the idée fixe that
Rom. ochi does not derive from Latin oc(u)lus but is a "Dacian" word
closely related to Alb. sy. This is another piece of nonsense below the
level of serious discussion.

> 2. what was the intermediary stage of u:, if not iu or ui?

/u(:)/ is often fronted to /y(:)/ without any diphthongisation, so no
such intermediate stage is needed.

Piotr