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

24-09-03 02:42, Abdullah Konushevci wrote:

> 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-.

Or rather *k^l- > q, and _then_, after a nasal, *n-q- > ngj- (trivial
post-nasal plosive voicing); not that I can see any evidence of <ngj->
specifically in the Albanian reflexes of *k^leu-, but the development
itself is perfectly possible. However, I questioned something else, and
I fail to see what point you're trying to make.

> 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.

That's roughly OK (to be precise, *k^lou-(h1)s- > *slux-, palatalised
*slus^-) but, again, what's the point of citing the Slavic form? PIE
*k^leu- has lots of reflexes in various groups.

> For this reason, I don't see any problem why *ndi-k^lou-enyo could
> derives in Albanian <dëgjoj> `to hear',

But if you separate the nasal of the prefix from the root anlaut in this
way, there's no environment for sandhi voicing!

> 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.

Which phenomenon? The data you have produced are irrelevant. You still
haven't answered my objections against positing <n-> + *gWe- = <ngje->.

> 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.

So how exactly do the dialectal forms undermine the Latin etymology?

Piotr