>Therefore, for all I know, /D/ could
>derive from PIE *g^ or *g^H in all of these cases. Pokorny agrees
>that _vjedh_ derives from PIE *weg^H, so I don't think there is a
>problem with _vjedhull_ 'badger'.
There is a problem Richard, because a dh is a dh whatever its origin
was...(see below the timeframes)
>On what basis do you claim contrariwise that /D/ from *d or *dH merged
>with the outcomes of PIE *g^and *g^H before the loss of
>intervocalic /D/?
Because the lost of intervocalic d has affected the Latin Loans too
(tri-syllabic words): see Alb pyll <-> Rom pã-du-re < Balkan Latin
*padu:le < Latin palu:dem or Albanian mjek (< Latin me-di-cus). So the
intervocalic d>dh(>zero) together with rd>rdh (see Latin o:rdinem >
Alb urdhër) happened after the Main Waves of Latin Loans in PAlb
(somewhere between sec V-VII) but before the Slavic Loans in Albanian
where Slavic d > Alb d ...This timeframe is used also by Rosetti to
explain why he considered Rom. gard <-> Alb gardh coming from the
Balkan Subtratum and not from Slavic...
On the other hand, PAlb dz > PAlb dh is ancient (together with PAlb
ts /c/ > PAlb th) (see Piotr's question: 'how do you know that PRom
do not used dz when they have loaned a PAlb dh?' -> of course 'a
false' question but justified based on this ancient timeframe).
Why ancient (=>it finished 'later' on sec. II max. III CE)?
Because otherwise this dz (of < PIE *g^) would has been superposed
with the dz of g^>dz>z (g^ < PIE *gW,*gw/+) and with the dz of PAlb
*dj > PAlb dz, that is not the case : this dz passed to dh and all the
others passed finally to z.
Next because dj>dz(>z) has affected also the Latin loans in
PAlbanian see Latin radius > Alb rezzë <-> Rom razã but not the Slavic
Loans, we can fix its timeframe: dj>dz has ended 'later' on sec V-VI CE
Now we can come back with a safer margin and we can say that : dz >
dh (together with ts>th) should finished 'later' on sec II-III, but
for sure could be (and it was) much much older....
So Richard, whenever you see Rom dz <-> Alb dh (like in vjedhull<-
>viezure) or Rom ts /c/ <-> Alb. th (like in thep <-> Teapã) you can
be sure that these words were present at Pre-Romanians 'at least'
in 'Decebal's Times' [87-106] (I defined here 'Pre-Romanians': the
Balkan Population that was later Romanized) => From here, as the next
step, the idea that Romanian-Substratum is genetically linked with the
Proto-Albanian language, arrived normally.
So finally the Daco-Romanian origins of the Romanians, from a
linguistic point of view, is not at all a myth but a reality (I don't
know why this fact disturb a lot of people (even on this forum you
could/can see such reactions). (on my side I have entered on this
Forum mainly to can find out if the Daco-Romanian theory is a Myth or
a Reality)
(The last link, but I will not open here this topic, is to can link
the Proto-Albanian with the Daco-Moesian )
In my opinion there was Only dialectal differences in 'Decebal's
times' between Pre-Romanians and Proto-Albanians and the dialectal
split between Pre-Romanians and Proto-Albanians happened in my opinion
Only around sec V-III BCE...
Best Regards,
Marius
P>S> :
1. But the Rom dz for Alb dh and Romanian ts for Albanian th are
not the oldest timeframes that we can compute...We can compute that
the Romanian words showing Rom a <-> Alb o from PAlb a: (see raTã <->
rosë 'duck' and madzãre<->modhull 'pea') were present at Pre-Romanians
(before 0 CE) (because Latin a: > Alb a)
2. (see also Piotr's Albanian 1,2,3 with a very good explanation
about these timeframes..)(even he tried to move them very late on the
absolute scale of time :) by ignoring 'the autonomy' of the Romanian-
Substratum and considering the 'Zero Moment' for Romanian's origin:
the moment when the Romanization of the Balkans have started)