From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 30004
Date: 2004-01-25
> I'm not convinced of the vocalisation. The Proto-Germanic isI'd say that *xun- is the normal develoment of both *kWn.- and *k^wn.-
> *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>,Syllabic nasals give Alb. a (> e in umlauting environments). If you need
>> 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*k^wn.to- would have developed into *c'Wat- > *c^at > Mod.Alb. *sat (in
> 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.