Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> 15-01-04 17:13, alex wrote:
>
>> I am afraid it works Piotr.
>> there is "gjash-" + the suffix (të) which is to see in Albanian
>> numerlas There is "gjarp-" as root for "gjarpër"
>
> By comparing the roots you can easily relate Romanian and Albanian to
> Sanskrit, which has <s.as.> and <sarpá-> for 'six' and 'snake'. After
> all, Sanskrit is also an IE language. The whole problem is that
> Romanian doesn't show those characteristic Albanian suffixes and that
> those suffixes are old in Albanian.
There are some common Rom. Alb. suffixes but I agree, not in the case of
the two words. And this cannot be a problem since
a suffix can be mentained or not in a language. There are several common
words in Rom. and Alb. which are not absolutely identicaly:
gresie-gërrese, grunz-grundë, jumatate-gjymesë etc. In these words none
will come on the idea the words are not related because of some suffix.
Everyone has a problem if the word is first not present just in Alb &
Rom, butin Latin as well. Then the usual tendency is to try to derive it
from Latin, no matter what it does cost. And that appears not so clean
to me.
>
>> now to the phonetic. There is "s" > "gj" but it works just via "S".
>> One cannot have an alteration of "s" directly to "gj"
>
> No, it was *s- > *z- (in stressed syllables) > *z^ > gj-. There was no
> *s^ in the chain. At the time of Albano-Romance "symbiosis" the sound
> was already voiced.
Piotr, you want to have an sonore "z" which has given "z^"? I assume the
"z" is not a very disponible sound to become more affricated as it is.Do
you have a properly method for showing the "gja-" is from "za" via "z^a"
( se > ze > gja) and not from se > s^a > gja ? That will be nice to see
if you know about this .
>> It seems I am right here since in both examples we have s+e where it
>> is allowed to get the "S"
>> From the articulatory point here the Rom. "S" is appropiate to Alb.
>> "gj" and not to simply "s".
>
> What are you talking about? The modern articulation? How's that
> relevant? Without understanding how these segments were pronounced in
> the past and how they have changed you can only produce gibberish.
>
> Piotr
Relevant is something else. The hesitation of the Greek authors when
writting the ancient names of Thracians , Illyrrians and such people.
That shows there have been sounds which have been not compatible with
Greek & Latin alphabets, thus they tried to write them in a way they
could the used letter will be the best for this sound, thus the letters
are other for the same name, but these letters are even in Greek Latin
almost in the same phonetic section.
This aspect together with the first literar testimonies in both
languages (Alb. & Rom.) does not let too much space of
speculations.There have been affricated sounds even before roman times,
they are today too. Their properly value can be just a guess but I am
afraid even you are not able to do more as guess how this pronounciation
has been. And this is the gibberish the linguists have to live with
until the travel in time will be possible.
Alex