From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 30117
Date: 2004-01-27
> I found the evidence frustratingly ambiguous when I last looked intoI agree (pace Hamp). As Alb. <-th> may represent generalised devoiced
> it.
>
> qeth 'cut (hair)' cannot be proved to have lost an /r/ and reflect
> *kert-V-.
> gjen 'find' does not have to reflect *ghend- (Gk. khandáno:, Lat.I doubt the latter, but the causative derivation looks very plausible to
> prae-hendo:), but could also de *ghond-eye- with umlaut. It could
> even be connected with Skt. sanóti.
> kohë 'time' is certainly from *ke:sa: (or *ke:sk^a:), but did the<korr> 'reap, harvest' looks like a derivative of *(s)ker- 'cut', though
> root still have a front vowel when palatalizations would have
> worked?
> To assess this the word zorrë 'intestine' is of relevance. But canThe semantic question aside, how about the possibility that pre-Albanian
> that really be sensibly derived from *gWe:rna: ? What word-formation
> from *gWerH3- 'devour, swallow' could mean 'intestine'? What
> parallel examples are there?
> However, I do think the matter is decided by sorrë 'blackbird' whichGiven the exact correspondence between Slavic *s(v)orka and Lith. s^árka
> must be connected with Skt. kr.s.n.a- 'black', thus reflecting
> *kWe:rsna:. The Slavic forms (Russ. soróka, SCr. svraka) must be
> loanwords then.
> sorrë.You have overlooked <dergjem> 'lie down suffering' < *sworgH-eje-, which