Re: [tied] Re: Albanian-Romanian Concordances

----- Original Message -----
From: "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Albanian-Romanian Concordances


> OK, this is nice and good explanation, thank you. Here I have a trouble
> with the alteration of /k/ and /g/.
> It is said that the "k" has the following steps: 1) became palatalized
> (ki) and after this became africatized ( c^)
> These should be the process of alteration for the velars /g/ and /k/. So
> we will have:
> k > k'i > c^ ; g > g'i < g^
> Is this true or rather the change are k > c^> k'i respectively g > g'i
> > g^?
>
> One more question: g > d= satemization or not?

I'm not sure I understand your questions well, but if they are about the development of *g^ and *g^H in the Satem languages, it was generally parallel to the development of *k^. In Slavic, for example, *g^(H) > *z while *k^ > *s ; the Lithuanian reflexes are <s^> and <z^>. In Old Indic, *k^, g^, g^H^ became <s'>, <j> and <h> (all of them were affricates in PIIr.). In Classical Armenian the respective reflexes were <s>, <c> [ts] and <j> [dz].

In Albanian, *k^ > *c [ts] > th, whereas *g^(H) > *dz > dh [?] (~ d). The word-initial alternation <dh> ~ <d> is of relatively recent origin and does not reflect any PIE contrasts.

In most Satem branches the labiovelars were palatalised before front vowels and *j, but the result was different from the reflexes of the satemised *k^ series. For example, *kW (+ e/i) > Slavic and Indo-Iranian *c^, Albanian s (via *c^), Armenian c^H .

Piotr