>But PIE dental + dental > PGerm. -ss- too, without exception, so the
> --- In email@example.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > I thought Alb. 'q' was /c^/. Did I miss something?
> No. Alb, 'q' is /ky/ not /c^/
> > So you are claiming that cãciulã/kësule is from PIE *kWekWVl- or
> > what (I assume Dacian was satem)? What does that match up with in
> > Pokorny? How come both *kass- and *katt- turn up in Germanic,
> > NWBlock, Latin and Greek, and how are they related to *kWekWVl-
> > (vel sim.)?
> No. I'm not claiming this etymology:
> Dacian was satem with the particularity that kW/+ > c^ gW/+ > g^
> (as in PAlb). So, a supposed *kWekWVl- would give *c^ekul- , that is
> not the case
> As I said: PIE *kat- or only *kaT fits both Dacian *kac^- and Latin
> cassis => so I think that we have a dental+dental cluster here:
> (because PIE Dental+Dental > Latin ss ; PIE Dental+Dental > Albanian
> Based on this, my proposal for this etymology is *kaT-T-Pokorny made up his mind that they were two independent roots, but
> (please to check if a Dental+Dental cluster fits the Germanic forms,
> I'm still not sure about the sufix here and even if the root was
> *kat- or *kad(H)- etc...
> All I can add, is that: not having the rhotacism in Romanian theOr it's a substrate word even in Dacian. When did rhotacism in
> PAlb/Dacian? word finished in -lw- > -ll- : *kaT-T-ul-w-eh2
> If PIE *kaT-T- (Latin cassis, Rom c&c^ul& <-> Alb k&sul&) can beSee above.
> fully demonstrated this will be extraordinary : because Romanian
> preserved in this case the original output of PIE's Dental+Dental
> constructions in PAlb/Dacian? :
> PIE *Dental+Dental > PAlb/Dacian? c^ > Romanian c^ <-> Albanian s