[tied] Re: h1,h2,h3 in Albanian

> > we could have only brh2g^- or brh3g^- for the PAlb

*bardza 'white'

> >
> > (maybe the root was bhh1rh2(3)g^- that gave *bherag^- after
> > vocalization from where bherg^/bhrag^~bharg^
>
> No, no, no. It wasn't anything of that order of monstroisity, see

below.

'The monstroisity' is not 'so big' (but it was only bHr.h1g^-
sorry :)) if the 'original' full-grade was : *bherHg^-o and the H
here is not the h1 of a supposed 'long form' with eh1. The long form
was resulting from a lengthening e>e: after the laryngeal H was
lost: *bhe:r(H)g^-o (so you made 'a confusion' the source of e: is
nor eh1r > erh1 as you suspected but e>e: caused by H>zero)

> > (Also in *prh3-wo seems 'probable' that 'only' h3 was vocalized

*pro-

> > wo > *por-wo > *par-wa > etc...)
>
> A minor point: the vocalisation of *h3 yields *&(3), not *o. But

anyway,

> *pr&3wo- with a vocalised laryngeal would have given PAlb. *prawa-

, not

> *parwa-.

There is no 'original' & in Albanian (even it was suspected, if
you know one please post the example) so in that 'ancient' time h3 >
o or zero.

The Methathesis ur~ru,ul~lu,ir~ri are well reflected in Albanian
so I don't see any issue to add ar~ra for rH clusters : *prh3-wo >
*pra-wa > *par-a [based on rh3>ra>ar here]

The Methathesis was trigerred by the non-stressed position of
rh3>ra

Please note also the Fact that we don't have rr in Albanian parë
shows us that the original form was *pra-wa and that the Methathesis
is quite recent...

> > It's true that Lubotsky (->Beekes) talked only about an initial

RHC

> > cluster and my examples are CRHC , but I wanted only to show

what a

> > big difference we can have if we will consider a later

vocalization

> > of the resonants (and not their 'global' vocalization

in 'classical'

> > PIE)
>
> Lubotsky and Beekes talk about word-initial sequences for a very

good

> reason: they (as well as everybody else in the IE business) know

what

> happened word-medially. The resonant was syllabified before the
> laryngeal.

You are right: but it's all I wanted to show with my quotation
(and no more than that): the timeframe when the vocalization of
resonants (that took place or not) happened should be treated in
relation with the timeframe of the vocalization of laryngeals (and
cannot be considered as a 'stable apriori state' of PIE (so is not r

> r. ('stable') > Vr~rV but only r > Vr~rV in different contexts)



> In Vedic we get <pu:rvá-> and in Iranian *parwa-; both forms

developed

> out of PIIr. *pr.Hwá-> *pr.:wá-; the extra length of the syllabic

rhotic

> is reflected as a full vowel before the *r in Iranian ("plain" *r.

would

> have remained as such) and a different (and lengthened) prop vowel

in

> Vedic. The development in Albanian was like that in Iranian.

I don't think that the development is like in Albanian. There is no
lengthening in Albanian where the derivation is quite regular (rh3 >
ro>ra>ar or even for more precision r.h3>ro>ra>ar)

In Sanskrit the u: is the lengthening result caused by H>zero that
happened after the vocalization or r (is similar with Albanian gurë

> *gwrH-i if we want to find a parallel but not with parë, even

the 'lengthening' explanation is not very sure even for gurë =>
please see again the r and not the rr in gurë too...)

> > P.S. I trust you: but from where you found h1 in brHg^- ? The

Balto-

> > Slavic form is reconstructed as *berHg^-o on Leiden and the Indo-
> > Arian form as br.Hg^-o (so both, only with H)
>
> The verb root is *bHreh1g^-, as in Ved. bHra:jate and Av.

bra:zaiti

> 'shine, beam'. The Balto-Slavic cognates (from *bHreh1g^-(sk^e-

) 'to

> dawn') show *e:, demonstrating that the laryngeal was *h1.

[...]
"The original pattern was most likely *bHérh1g^-o-s, coll. "


The 'initial' form was the 'short' one *bHérHg^- and the long
form was *bHé:rg^- (and not *bHéh1rg^ as you suspected above) was
derived from the short one...

And this changes everything making room for a 'regular'
explanation of Alb. bardza < bHrh3g^- weak-grade of bherh3g^- .

In this case the long form *bhe:rg^- will be 'regulary' explained
by the lengthening caused by an early lost of laryngeal in some
contexts *bHé(->:)r(h3->zero)g^-o- and Not as the 'original' form
*bHéh1rg^- as you wrongly has tried to supposed: when we have
a 'short form' and a 'long form' in PIE for sure the short one was
the 'initial' one and not vice-versa.

And in this case we have also only: rh3 > ra~ar in PAlb and not rH

> ar~ra



> *bHr.h1g^-áh2, levelled out with various results. The Albanian

adjective

> seems to go back to *bHr.h1g^-ó- (perhaps from dissimilated
> *bHr.h1g^-ró-).
>

or *bHr.h1g^-ó- was only reshaped in a: in PAlb (like many other o-
stems)
X-ró- adjectives&nouns means 'like X' so I don't see any -ró- here

Marius