Re: [tied] Re: Romanian verbal paradigm

m_iacomi wrote:

>> [Marius]
>> AFAIK, Albanian doesn't exhibit that (I can think e.g. at Pokorny
>> 1282 which suggest rather PIE *mend- > Alb. ment, or #490 PIE *ent-
>> Alb. ent, int, there is no word suggesting eventual voicing of
>> PIE /t/ in Albanian and I never saw such a law).
>>
>> [Richard] (new)
>> See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/18573 .
>
> I saw there a transformation acting after the moment of first
> Latin loans, not before. "As for -nt-, it did become -nd- in
> Albanian, also in Latin loans, cf. qind <-- cent-, prind <--
> parent-, etc. But the change of e > i before -nd- was not general
> in Albanian [...]". That is: it could not concern substratum
> of Romanian.

Interesting interpretation. Latin loans have been affected *too* by this
law. That does not tell us anything about the begining of the change,
thus I don't know how one want to prove that "nd" was not active before
Latin loans. Maybe some Doric/Greek loans will show it?


Alex