Re: [tied] Alb. katër ( it was Albanian "dy")

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> 15-11-03 17:36, alex wrote:
>
>> Alb. katër is seen by Gustav Meyer and Pedersen as a loan from Latin
>> "quattuor". If this is true, then there cannot be the same
>> stratual(!) basis for Alb. and Rom. since they hadle different all
>> the "problem" clusters.
>
> This idea is (rightly, I believe) rejected by Hamp. If it were true,
> <katër> would be the sole borrowed numeral below 100 -- and that looks
> unlikely. Why 'four', of all things?

This is my opinion too. Why should be borrowed just only one numeral and
the other should have been retained. I exposed the idea of G. Meyer and
Pedersen because:
1) this was an alternative
2) for showing how easy one could link something to Latin;

> Of course Latin would be the
> obvious source if we had any reason to exclude the possibility of an
> inherited word -- but that isn't the case. The allomorph *kW&twor-
> (with "shwa secundum", i.e. an epenthetic vowel inserted in order to
> "repair" nil-grade *kWtw(o)r-) is known not only from Latin but also
> Greek and Slavic. It became Proto-Alb. *kátwar-, with the normal
> initial stress of the original "strong" allomorph *kWétwor-. The
> failure of the vowel of the first syllable to show open-syllable
> lengthening in Albanian dialects proves that the *w was lost
> relatively late.
>
> Piotr

Due the different treatment of these clusters by both Rom. and Alb. I
cannot think one can speak about the same folk here, one who became
romanised and one who not. It seems unprobably that the "unknowns"
developed in their language the "kW" > "k" and the another part
developed the Latin "kW" in "p";
In fact the difference is not only here but before going along with my
idea I will beg you to pardon my ignorance and I will put the following
question:
-why one has to speak about the threatment of clusters "kt", "ks" but
not about the treatment of "c" before dental/siflant?
I put this question since the examples with germanic development of "ks"
seems unsatisfactory to me. I don't see any difference between the
develpoment of "k" > "h" and the development "kt" in "ht" or "ks" in
"hs" this is why I am asking for some explanation.

Alex