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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>
> alexandru_mg3 schrieb:
> .
> > It's true that the o>oa exists for Romanian (in some contexts:
> > mainly before e and ã, the a-context 'is not clear enough'):
>
> there is not mainly but entirely before "ã"(&) and "e". So far I
> remember there is no exception.
>
> > but the
> > timeframes didn't match here: there isn't any other PAlb a: >

Rom o

> > (> oa) <-> Alb o in the common words (see raTa, madzare)
>
> I am not sure I really got what you mean here :
> Palb "a:" > Rom "o" (> oa)<-> Alb "o" (see ratsa, madzare).
>
> > In addition Rom c^ for Alb s shows us a very old loan for the

Balkan

> > Latin
>


> this is a bit indigerable. We (you) speak about "Protoalbanians"

in

> the time of Cesar in Roma !!!
>

We can 'talk about PAlbanians' => "as the ancestors of today
Albanians that should be matched with one of the Balkan populations
at that time" => but usually I wrote "PAlb./Dacian?" (based on some
strong phonetic matches between PAlb, Dacian & Romanian Substratum)

> > These are the reasons that we are obliged to suspect wa not o>oa

in

> > Romanian /c^wara/
> >
> > Marius
>
>
> The plural is "ciori".Do you think there is a remade singular from
> plural and the "o" was analogicaly re-established from "oa"?
>
> Alex
>

No => In my opinion: the plural was initially c^w&ri or (less
probable) c^weri as a normal development (a type of Umlaut) of
[wa/stressed/ > we,w&/when in the next syllable we have i,etc...
(with the regular (later) Romanian evolution w& > wo > o : c^w&ri

> c^wori > c^ori

Marius