[tied] Re: Romanian verbal paradigm

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci"
<a_konushevci@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> > 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
> ************

*enteros > 'i ndjerë', *newn.-ti > (g.) nândë, (t.) nëndë 'nine'. I
forgot to add too <ind> 'weft', probably singularized plural of
<end> 'to wave'.


Konushevci