Re: [tied] Lost of intervocalic -d- in Albanian bi-syllabic words?

alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> Seems that Cimochowski didn't know the Romanian Substratum word:
> viedzure when he did his analysis (Once again? as in case of fluier<-
>
>>fyell):

He was well aware of it. He does cite the Romanian forms in the article.

> Otherwise nobody can suggest 'an original *vjed' when the
> Romanian words is viedzure, isn't it? (there is no du>dz in
> Romanian... )
> The PAlb/Dacian? form was *wedzula (see Romanian dz(>z); and the
> l-rothacism) => that goes to the PIE *weg^h-ulo < PIE root *weg^h-
> 'to drive ; to pull' (cognate: Skt. váhati)

How do you know that Proto-Romanian *3 wasn't used as a substitute for
Old Albanian *[ð]?

> => this is fully understandable: the reduction to 2 syllables
> took place later in that dialect. Having 3 syllables the lost of
> intervocalic dh happens...

But the etymological affricate seems to have never been lost, even in
trisyllabic words cf. <madhështi>. And if the <dh> of <vjedhullë> goes
back to *g^H, where do the variants with d/t come from?

BTW, the fact that the suffix -ullë is old does not mean that it didn't
remain productive in the further history of Albanian and could not be
attached to new words.

PIotr