Re: Sk. Sarpis- and Oss. Carv

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2008-08-12 01:43, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > 1.a *serp-en- > e/ya in closed syllable > PAlb *sjar-pe- so we can
> > well have here a 'older' sh/zh from sj
> >
> > 1.b same if from *sek^s-ti- > e/ya in closed syllable > PAlb

*sjak-

> > sti-
> >
> > 1.c gjalp&r < *sjalp- < *selp- with e/ya again in closed syllable
> >
> > So *sup-no reconstruction for Albanian needs in this case to be

taken

> > with caution
>
> But the last etymology happens to be very secure. Besides, *s-

becomes

> sh- also before consonants (e.g. *st > sht) and even in loans

before a

> variety of vowels (Lat. sagitta -> shëgjetë ~ shigjetë. The

simplest

> explanation is just retraction, not conditioned palatalisation

(which

> creates more problems than it solves). As for the fate of *sw- in
> Albanian, opinions differ. In my opinion, the "regular" development

is

> *sw > *ð(w) > d(h) before a stressed vowel, and *sw > *þ(w) > þ
> otherwise, but I'm the first to admit that the evidence is scarce.

My

> only decent example of the latter change is djath(të) 'right' <

*deswo-

> < *dek^swo-. <vjehërr> contains two aberrant developments, which

makes

> it likely that both are due to the same cause (metathesis). But we

went

> through that three years ago:
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/38674
>
> Piotr
>

My point is that I think that the following transformations should be
treated 'together' 'in a uniform way'
cw > c^
cj > c^
3w > g^
3j > g^
sj > sh
sw > sh??? (please see below)
wj > vj

(Maybe they didn't happen simultaneously but for sure they happened
somehow 'on the same way')


Next based on Romanian cioara /c^wara/ it seems that the glides
j/w 'have remained in place' at least 'for awhile' so the process was

cw > c^w
cj > c^j
3w > g^w
3j > g^j
sj > shj
sw > shw??? (please see below)
wj > vj


Now having 'to make room' to different other outputs like gj- and sw-

>d- but (but also sw > zero (maybe even sw > h), I know that you

don't agree here, but doesn't matter is a detail of this model)
so maybe we 'need to imagine' an | s-/stressed > z-/stressed |

---------------------------------------
1. s-/stressed > z-/stressed (maybe not only in initial position?)
---------------------------------------
Followed by:

2. cw > c^w
cj > c^j
3w > g^w
3j > g^j
sj > s^j
sw > s^w
zj > z^j
sw > z^w
wj > vj

Finally we could obtain 'more or less' all the outputs
(considering 'a later' reduction of glides etc…)

3. cw > c^w > (c^ > c > s)
cj > c^j > (c^ > c > s)
3w > g^w > (g^ > 3 > z)
3j > g^j > (g^ > 3 > z)
sj > shj > (sh)
sw > shw > (hw > w (vjeh&rr, vajz&, vet&))
zj > zhj > (gj- )
zw > zhw > (d- (diell) )
(that could happens in the same time with dz > dh)
wj > vj (wedzul- > vjedzul-)


4. and we can complete that the history of z- was
4.1 z- > zh- > gj- and also that
4.2 the `remaining' s passed later to sh similar
4.3 and the `remaining' w- to v-

with my remark that 4.x is not applicable to the Romanian
Substratum

What do you think?

Marius