--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci"
<a_konushevci@...> wrote:
> Albanian <qen> `dog' as anyone may see, even in this list, is
> treated as a loan from Latin <canis> `dog'. Today's form is
> explained due to i-Umlaut: kani > qen. Phonetically speaking,
> everything is looking correct. But, I wonder how, until now, no
one
> have seen that, if this word is Latin loan, than why didn't
> underwent rhotacism in Tosk dialect, because we have
> intervocalic /n/, which regularly changer in /r/, except in Slavic
> and New Greek loans, when this phenomenon ceased to function.
> We agree that the word <can> `dog' exist, but I doubt that it
exists
> in this form. Place names, like Candavia, forced me to see its
> primary form as <cand>, an suffixed zero-grade form *k^wn.-to,
> deriving in Old English <hund> `dog',
I'm not convinced of the vocalisation. The Proto-Germanic is
*xundaz, which implies *k^untós. *k^wn.tós would have given
*xwundaz, though I suppose that might have simplified to *xwundaz -
I can't find any examples or counter-examples.
until in Albanian <kand>,
> thanks to dispalatization of palatal, followed by nasals.
I'm not persuaded of the development either. Piotr gives (at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/29908 ) the
development
dhjetë '10'< *Die(T&)t& < *diäcata < *dek^m.t (+ *-a:)
The development k^m. > th& better explains the haplology (semi-
haplology?) than your implicit proposal kam / kan (Geg kâm / kân?)
does.
My 24-year old notes say PIE *m. > Geg âm, ân, Tosk ë, PIE *n. > ân,
but I suspect the difference reflects an inaccuracy in my notes or
possibly an error in the thesis on the development of Albanian I
made the notes from. The development of *n. should have been
parallel to that of *m. Alas, I was not well enough trained to make
a note of the author. I do remember that the author said he could
find no find trace of PIE *s.
Doubtless there will be a fuller exchange of view when Piotr
addresses the development of the syllabic consonants. It seems to
me that your proposal derives a Geg _qen_, whereas the Tosk would be
something like *thët. But a Geg _qen_ could just as well be from
Latin! We await more expert commment.
Richard.