Re: [tied] Albanian chronology [was: Dacian - /H/ -> seems possibl

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:47:12 +0100, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

<a lot of interesting stuff>

[and I apologize for the inconsistent numbering]

So, the definitely EARLY ones are:

>> 2) C1C2 > C2 (C1,C2=stop)
>> 9) *kWe > se; *g(h)We > ze
>> 10) merger voiced asp./unasp.
>> 11) *k^ > th; *g^(h) > d(h)
>> 12) *k^w > s; *g^(h)w > z
>> 14) sk > h
>> 16) s- > gj-
>> 18) sp > f
>> 19) sw > d
>> 23) r. > ri, l. > li
>> 24) wl. > ul
>> 25) m. > a
>> 37) o > a
>> 39) e: > o
>> 40) a: > o/ua
>> 41) o: > e

Numbers 2, 9, 10, 11, 23, 24, 25, 37 are shared with a number of other IE
groups, so they are perhaps TOO early (or too common) to be indicative.

The symptomatic Albanian ones would then be:

>> 12) *k^w > s; *g^(h)w > z
>> 14) sk > h
>> 16) s- > gj-
>> 18) sp > f
>> 19) sw > d
>> 39) e: > a:
>> 40) a: > o / ua
>> 41) o: > e(:)

We should probably add *g^(h) > d(h) and *wik^- > z- from my second
message.

>20), 21) I suppose a detailed discussion (and more refinement) would be
>necessary. These points sum up various processes occurring at different
>times

That's the l/ll, r/rr alternation, which Beekes doesn't attempt to explain.

>46) looks completely spurious to me. <vesh> 'ear' comes much more likely
>from *h2o:(u)s- than from *h2aus-

And "egg" is problematic all around (e.g. Arm. ju).


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...