[tied] Re: kentum/satem: why Lithuanian kg before e/i

From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 45685
Date: 2006-08-11

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
> On 2006-08-11 16:47, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> > Piotr, please to tell me why you kept (W) in c^(W)/g^(W) ?
> > Do you suspect that W survived for a while (...as w)?
> As lip-rounding accompanying the affricate. It must have remained
for a
> while, judging from the merger of palatalised labiovelars with the
> sequences *k^w and *g^(H)w- > *c'w-, *3'w-.
> > So it would be *kWers-n/reh2 > PAlb. *c^wa:-r(r)a: that would
> > completly explain also the Romanian form *cioara /c^wara/
> Not impossible, see
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/35524
> Piotr

Thanks, Piotr I suspected the same: the Dacian word was c^wa:rra:
even the phonetic distinction is not a big one (however visible in
Romanian), only this form can explain Romanian c^wara and Albanian

But reagrding the 'global model on this area' (-> message/35524)' I
do not agreee with you

Please see below my model:

1. PAlb *wa/stressed > Romanian wa (written 'oa')
<-> Albanian a (with the lost of w)

2. PAlb *wa/unstressed > ORomanian w& > Romanian o
<-> Albanian & (with the lost of w and a/unstressed>&)

3. PAlb *wa:/stressed > Romanian wa (written 'oa')
<-> Albanian o (lost of w and a: > o)

4. PAlb *wa:/unstressed > ORomanian w& > Romanian o
<-> Albanian o (lost of w and a: > o ) (later & for some contexts)

As a note: Romanian preserved w 'very well'

5. PAlb *a/stresssed > Rom a <-> Alb a

6. PAlb *a/unstresssed > Rom & <-> Alb &

7. PAlb *a:/stressed > Rom a <-> Alb o

8. PAlb *a:/unstressed > Rom & (but I'm not sure completly about
this rule (seeing Olt & MureS & SomeS & Dunãre & mumã ) <-> Alb o/&

(but I'm not 100% sure about 8 and 9 (for Romanian) seeing Olt &
MureS & SomeS & Dunãre & mumã )

The rules above completely explain all the common words present in
Rosetti's 'common list'

Based on this my opinion is that 'there is no need' for a "PAlb
intermediary O: loaned in BRom as o or a" as you have supposed in

On the other hand, on my side I suspect that the intermediary form
of PAlb a: was *wa (not O:) and next the glide (w) was lost (later)
as inr the originar PIE clusters *wa/*wa:

This is also in accordance with the intermediary form of PAlb long
o: that was *we/*w& (containing also an *w) (as is reflected in
today Alb dialects in some contexts)


Only the Best,