elmeras2000 wrote:
>>
>>
>> Huh? I am afraid I did not understood too much. Do you mean that
> aj/ajo
>> < PIE *so-/*saH via *so > gjo >jo > ajo and that the plural forms
> of
>> aj/ajo are from PIE accusative form of the demonstrative pronouns,
> thus
>> aj/ajo are not the basis for plural forms ata/ato?
>
> Not quite. The Albanian demonstrative pronouns ky and aí are
> juxtapositions (Zusammenrückungen) of two words each, the second
> part being in both cases the pronoun which is PIE *so-/*to-. That
> pronoun is identical with the Albanian (and Greek) definite article.
> So, yes, I do say that the -jo part of the form ajó is from IE *saH2
> (via *sa: and probably *gjo before weakening to -jo). The forms
> without /t/ (or its reflex) are nominative singular masc. and fem.,
> so ajo is definitely not from an accusative. The rest of the
> paradigm had forms beginning with /t-/, as seen in the second part
> of nom.-acc.pl. masc. atá, fem. ató. I do not know what the first
> part of the two pronouns is.
>
> Jens
Thank you Jens. I will think about this posibility too. I say "this
posiblity" because there can be one another if not more as two; one of
them I will put to discution here at the end of the message.
To the Alb. "ky" (this). You mean should be a justaposition of two
words. Which should be the words here?
To the definite article in Albanian.The definite mark is made in Alb.
with the help of following markers:
msc. sg: -i, -u
fem. sg: -a
neutrum sg: -t, -të
all pl: -t, -të
You mean that aj/ajo should be identical with wich one of the definite
markers here?
Now the first part of aj/ajo, the "a" there. One observe that in Rom. is
too this "a" in the demonstrative pronoun "ãl/ãla"(msc. sg.),
"aia"(fem.sg), "ãia"(msc. pl), "alea" (fem.pl).We have to keep in mind
that the pronoun of 3 pers. in Alb. is once personal pronoun and second
demonstrative pronoun. Thus we have once the phonetical form alike to
Romanian and the semantic aspect like in Romanian : "aj" versus "ãl/ãla"
(he), "ajo" versus "aia"(she)
On the basis of these observation I will put to discution -as I said-
the follwing:
-on the acount of accepted Latin familia > Alb. fëmëje, one cannot
ignore that
this "j" in aj/ajo can be the reflex of "lV" where V="e,i,j".
-f one think that in Rom. an another set of demonstrative pronoun is for
3 pers sg. ãla/aia (masc/fem), maybe they (Alb/Rom) have related aspects
here too. Of course I
have trouble with the plural form since in Rom. the plural is ãia/alea
comparative with Alb. ato/ata. For the "t" here in ato/ata I was playing
with the thoughts that the plural marker in Albanian which is "t/të"
played any role here. Opinions?
Alex