Re: [tied] Re: *gwistis

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 15580
Date: 2002-09-18

Well, don't write it off yet. My opinion is that Lat. digitus would have given Albanian *diit- > *di:t (cf. kujtoj <-- cogito:) or *digjet (cf. shëgjetë <-- sagitta) depending on the date of the borrowing, while hypothetical *dictus (with early syncope) would have ended up as *dift (cf. luftë < lucta). I can't see how either the initial <d-> or the final <-sht> can be explained if we start with <digitus>. As for the absence of palatalisation, the reconstruction *gwist- assumes an initial cluster (*g + *w), NOT a labiovelar, and the expected reflex of *gwi- in Albanian is <gi->.
As far as I'm concerned, the bottom line seems to be that Rom. de$t derives from <digitus> while Alb. gisht, despite the superficial similarity, is a different word, probably inherited and possibly related to <kvistr>.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Wordingham
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 8:35 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: *gwistis

I had expected to find PIE gwistis > Albanian gisht.  I suppose it was too simple to be true.  (The apparent resistance to palatalisation had surprised me.)  If, as George has just said, it too has nothing to do with PIE *gwistis, e.g. Old Norse kvistr, this should definitely go on the list of pseudo-cognates.