Re: Glue, resin [was: Ducks and Souls]

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

> Abdullah Konushevci wrote:
> >> ************
> >> O-grade form of the verb *kleu- `to hear' derives in Albanian
> >> quej/quaj `to call, to name' <kluej (Buzuku) < klounj < *k^lou-
> > enyo.
> >> But, prefixed form *ndi-k^lou-enyo derives: (g.) ndigoj, nigoj,
> > ngoj,
> >> (t.) dëgjoj `to hear'. So, under the impact of the prefix *ndi-

/ndë-

> >
> >> <*ant-bhi- (cf. mbë-/mbi- <*ambhi/m.bhi-), PIE verb *k^leu-

firstly

> >> underwent further palatalization *k^l- > kl- > q and, secondly,

in

> >> other envirmont, *k^l- > gl- > (g.) g- and (t.) gj- (for
> > alternation q>gj before prefix n-, cf. Alb. <qeth> 'to cut' and
> > <ngjeth> 'to give the creeps, to make (s.o.) shiver', both from

*kaH-

> > id- 'to strike, tu cut'). In Slavic, from
> >> extended o-grade form *k^lous- > k^lus- we have probably
> >> <slušati> `to hear'. I am not sure, but I guess it is so.
> >> For this reason, I don't see any problem why *ndi-k^lou-enyo

could

> >> derives in Albanian <dëgjoj> `to hear', and why not *ndi-gWet-yo
> >> couldn't derives <ngjes> `to glue'.
> >> Maybe Mr. Rasmussen or Mr. Vidal could help us in explaining such
> >> phenomenon.
> >> P.S. To be correct, until now, Albanian verb <dëgjoj> `to hear'

was

> >> treated as loan from Latin <intellegere>, without taking into
> > account
> >> different dialectal forms of the verb.
> >>
> >> Konushevci
>
> Why you compare "qeth" and "ngjeth"?.Why they shoud be related to

each

> other?
> It can be that "ngjeth" related to Rom. "îngheTa". The semantic

sense is

> not identical but the use in one expresion could be understood as

such:

> "m'u ngjeth shtati" or "m'u ngjeth mishtë" is used as Rom. " am
> inghetat" when one speaks about one being frozen because of fear for
> instance. The noun "nghethura" means u.a. "Schuttelfrost".
>
> P.S. the Rom. "îngheTa" is given as derivative of "ghiaTã"= ice <

Latin

> "glacia"
> What I wonder is that if you should be right with PIE *kleu > q,

then

> one is obliged to observe the identical threatment of the PIE

cluster

> /kl/ in Alb. versus Rom. threatment of Latin cluster /cl/, both
> languages making an /k/ from this. Did Alb. reduced everytime

the /kl/

> to /q/ or just then /kl/ was followed by a front wovel as Rom. did?
>
> Alex
>
> Alex

************
Because, before nasals, as we treat this subject many times ago,
unvoiced stops became voiced ones.
No, as you may see, PIE clusters /kl/, /k^l/ and /gl/ & /g^l/ yield
usually k-/g- in Geg and q-/gj- in Tosk, even followed by back vowels.
I will mention here Lat. verb <clamare> 'kaj/qaj', probably a back-
formation from participle <me klamë> 'to cry' (cf. Romanian
asemnare 'to resemble' and Alb. <ngjaj> 'look like, resemble',
probably a back-formation of participle n-gjamë < *sem-).

Konushevci