[tied] Re: Satem and desatemisation (was: Albanian (1))

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> > qeth 'cut (hair)' [...]
> Another
> (perhaps more straightforward) possibility is *kaik^-, as in Skt.

kes'a-

> 'hair of the head'. In neither case, of course, can <qeth> be used

as

> evidence for the behaviour of *k before front vowels.
>
> > gjen 'find' does not have to reflect *ghend- (Gk. khandáno:,

Lat.

> > prae-hendo:), but could also de *ghond-eye- with umlaut. It

could

> > even be connected with Skt. sanóti.
>
> I doubt the latter, but the causative derivation looks very

plausible to

> me, and so <gjen> is also ruled out as evidence.
>
> > kohë 'time' is certainly from *ke:sa: (or *ke:sk^a:), but did

the

> > root still have a front vowel when palatalizations would have
> > worked?
>
> <korr> 'reap, harvest' looks like a derivative of *(s)ker- 'cut',

though

> I don't know how to explain the lengthened vowel.
>
> > To assess this the word zorrë 'intestine' is of relevance. But

can

> > that really be sensibly derived from *gWe:rna: ? What word-

formation

> > from *gWerH3- 'devour, swallow' could mean 'intestine'? What
> > parallel examples are there?
>
> The semantic question aside, how about the possibility that pre-

Albanian

> had compensatory lengthening in *eRh > *e:r? The idea has just

occurred

> to me and requires some testing, but the same solution might work

for

> <sorrë> (see below) and perhaps for <korr>.
>
> > However, I do think the matter is decided by sorrë 'blackbird'

which

> > 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.
>
> Given the exact correspondence between Slavic *s(v)orka and Lith.

s^árka

> (same accent, too) the 'magpie' word just has to be Proto-Balto-

Slavic.


Sure, but a loanword in Proto-Balto-Slavic then.

> I think a connection between "Balkan" *c^o:r(r)a
> (underlying <sorrë> and <cioarã>) and BSl. c'(w)ár-ka: (as if from
> *k^worh-) is therefore quite plausible (cf. also Skt.

s'a:rika: 'myna').

> If the idea suggested above (compensatory lengthening in *-erh-)

makes

> any sense, one might suggest *k^werh-nah2 or *k^werh-snah2 >

*k'we:rna:

> > sorrë.

The laryngeal is sorely missed in Skt. kr.s.n.á- which I would not
like to separate. Perhaps *-ersn- yields Alb. -orr- without the help
of a laryngeal, but I don't see how to exclude lengthened grade.
Korrë 'harvest' could be close to or even identical with Lat. ce:na,
Osc. kerssna- 'meal' from *ke(:)rt-sna:. I hardly think the presence
of the -t- makes any difference in Alb. (as I understand it does in
Latin, which has perna from *pe(:)rsna:).

The BSl. form could proceed from *c^wo:r- with length and backing
from the Balkan loan. And of course expecially the palatal rounding
points in that direction.

Perhaps *gWe(:)r&3-snaH2 designated "(processed) mass of swallowed
food", whence zorrë 'intestine'? And *kWe(:)rsna: 'one of a black
species', with vrddhi in the latter just as in Lith. várna 'crow'.

>
> You have overlooked <dergjem> 'lie down suffering' < *sworgH-eje-,

which

> shows unpalatalised *gH as opposed to Alb. (n-)dez < *dHogWH-eje-.

This

> one is _not_ ambiguous.

Much as I would like to accept it, precisely in the present middle
labiovelars also show the secondary palatal: digjem 'I am being
burnt', piqet 'it is baked'. Also I cannot see we really know that
de- is umambiguously from (umlauted) *swo- and cannot be from *swe-;
I know dje- in sw-words only in djersë 'sweat' which must have *-ei-
, not *-e-.

If we allow sorrë to be decisive we are in agreement. Then kohë and
vb. korr, sbst. korrë *must* have plain velars that avoided being
palatalized for that very reason. The idea behind it all is of
course still Pedersen's.

Jens