From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 30003
Date: 2004-01-25
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci"Slavic
> <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
> > and New Greek loans, when this phenomenon ceased to function.ân,
> > 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. >
> but I suspect the difference reflects an inaccuracy in my notes ormake
> 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
> a note of the author. I do remember that the author said he couldbe
> 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
> something like *thët. But a Geg _qen_ could just as well be from************
> Latin! We await more expert commment.
>
> Richard.
> (g.) frêni, (t.) frëri, Lat. molinum > (g.) mullini, (t.) mulliri,Lat. corona > conora > (g.) kunora, (t.) kurora, Lat. consobrinus >