Re: [tied] Re: Latin pinso etc.

----- Original Message -----
From: "alex" <alxmoeller@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Latin pinso etc.


> that was not the point of which of them is more fricative as other. The
> point is of "z > z^which appears to be imposible .Try to speak them out
> and try to make the change from "z" to "z^" even in a palatal medium.

As in English "as usual"? Here we have two cases of z > z^ in palatalising
environments:

-ziu- > -z^u- (in Early Modern English)
-z ju:- > -z^u:- (in Modern English)

If you believe that z > z^ is impossible, then Albanian *s > s^ should be
impossible as well.

> Stop. It seems we do not speak about the same thing.
> 1)I don't see why comparing Alb. "sh" with Rom. "sh" in this case since
> I postulated the equivalence of Albanian "gj-" with Rom. "$". IF
> Albanian developed from my propossed "sh" later to "gj-" Rom. did not.
> For substratual words and Latin words in palatal medium there is one and
> the same sound which remained unchanged, this "sh" I am speaking about.

It seems that I've been wasting my time trying to explain it all to you.
Albanian gj- does not come from *s^ for reasons already listed.

> 2) you are corect abut Slavis s > s in Alb.; from this point we can just
> conclude the time of Slavic loans in Albanian which can be when?
> VII-VIII century or begining with X century?

Both, but the early layer is very thin.

> The voicing you suppose does not exclude the change $ > gj prior to
> Latin times.

_What_ $ ?? There was no *s^ in Albanian at the time.

> In Albanian it seems is the same rule of /ie/>/ia/ as in Rom. when in
> the next syllable is an /e/ or /a/.

No. It is reflected as Modern Albanian <je> in originally open syllables and
<ja> in originally closed syllables.

> The diphtongation you are speaking
> about has a reason and this is the next vowel after *serp- which _must
> be_ an unstressed /e/ or /a/. I agree here with (2)and partly with (3)
> but one need the proove for (1) , for the voicing you are speaking
> about. I say partly for (3) because the hardening of "$" yelds just
> "gj-" and not an another sound. The hardening of "z^" yleds consonantal
> "j", do I am wrong here?

This particular hardening of *z^ yields a voiced palatal stop (presumably
via a palatal affricate). As to the hardening of "$", I have no idea what
you are taking about. Note that this is also the reflex of Latin (and
inherited) [j-] in Albanian, suggesting that *z^- and *j- fell together at
one point (as some kind of palatal fricative). It's all phonetically
plausible and supported by cross-linguistic parallels.

> Do we have some other examples for verifing the voicing you are speaking
> about? ( s > z )?

I have adopted this analysis because alternative ones don't make much sense.

Piotr