--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> > 1. The development of PIE dorsal stops
> > Proto-Albanian loans in Romanian give us some indication of the
> > pronunciation of the reflexes of *k' and *g' at the time of the
> > borrowing: their Modern Romanian reflexes are /c/ ~ /s/ and /z/
(~
> > dialectal /3/).
>
> 1) Observations:
> a)-from this sentence I understand you do not agree with the most
common view of the scholars which assume that Rom. Lang has a
structure as the other NeoLatin languages. Trough this structure I
understand : substratum + stratum +adstratum.
> I understand it that way because you speak about Proto-Albanian
loans in Rom. which implies a population who did speak Latin and
loaned some words from Proto-Albanians. In this mannere one cannot
speak anymore about any "substratum" in Romanian, but just abut
Proto-Albanian loans into Latin spoken by that population. Does I
understand it false or do you intended to construct the sentence
other way?
I don't read it that way. I understand it as an abstract notion of
a separate language, which as Pre-Romanian rather than general
Latin. This is just a way of describing the effect. The actual
process was probably much messier, as you see in the concept of
substratum.
> b) it is to assume the population who loaned these words from
Proto-Albanian has learned the palatzalized sounds "c^" and "g^"
from the Proto-Albanians since the language which was spoken by
BecomingRomanians was still clear latin with no altered velars
within.
No longer a necessary concept. I'm not sure what they learnt.
Argessos > Arze$ makes sense if you regard the borrowed Latin from
as actually being *Argiessius. *Argessius would yielkd *Arje$. I
am assuming Latin -si- before a vowel yields Romanian /$/; I
couldn't find any examples of its development, and I haven't encoded
the change in my 'toy'.
> Palatalised *kW is reflected as Romanian /c^/. We can
> > therefore tentatively assume the following intermediate stages:
> >
> > *k' > *c > T
> > *g' > *3 > D (> d in some instances)
> > *kW /+ > *c^ > s
> > *gW /+ > *3^ > z
> >
> > where "/+" means 'in palatalising contexts'.
>
> I have a little trouble in understanding the group *kW or *gW "in
palatalising context". I say it because I fail to see how this can
be a palatalising context after a labial as "W". I assume the only
way is of merging together of "k" with "kW" into "k" for allowing
any palatalisation here. I point here to the words as "cui" where we
have the clear construction velar-labial-palatal context ( even if
there should be a latin cuneus > cui, thing about I very doubt).
> If I am wrong ( "k" did not merged with "kW" into "k" for having
just "k" /+) then how is possible to have practicaly "ku" to be
influenced by the next palatal vowel? Examples in modern Albanian or
Romanian will be very appreciated.
Piotr has already given you some examples (
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/29877 )
dHegWHo: > dieg 'burn'
dHogWHejo: > ndez 'set on fire' (palat.) en- prefixed
*penkWe (+ *-a:) > *penc^a > pesë, dial. pêsë '5' (palatalisation)
*gWHermo- > *3^iärm- > zjarm 'fire' (palatalisation)
The key point is that /gW/ is *not* the same as /gw/. In the
former, velarity and labiality (probably lip-rounding) are
simultaneous, in the second they are sequential. The example that
comes to mind is *gwistis > gjisht 'finger'.
> > The word-initial contrast between <d> /d/ and <dh> /D/,
especially in
> > word-initial positions, is taken by some to reflect *g^H (e.g.
dorë
> > 'hand' < *g^He:sr-) *vs. *g^ (e.g. dhëmb 'tooth' < *g^ombH-).
>
> That remembers me that Rom. "zâmbet" (to smile) is not seen as
related to Albanian "dhëmb" (tooth) but as a loan from
Slavic "zo~bu" (tooth). Any contradiction here?
I see no contradiction here. PIE short /o/ (pace Miguel) and /a/
merged in both Slavic (as /o/) and Albanian (as /a/). I must admit
that the Albanian (substrate?) origin is more appealing.
Anachronistically reconstructing the starting points to Latin,
*diambe:scit > zâmbe$te 'he smiles' is more plausible than
*diombe:scit > zâmbe$te; the latter should yield Romanian *zumbe$te.
Richard.