altamix wrote:
.
>
> It seems there is a way only to find out. Since Romanian did not
> changed Latin "nt" in "nd", meaning that for Latin "menti:re" in Rom.
> is "ment-" and in Alb. "mënd-" that will be easy if the lexica will
> help us: - we have to find out if there are common Romanian-Albanian
> words which presents an "nd" *and* due other IE languages, the PIE
> root was reconstructed with "nt".
>
> If we find such words, then it is very possible the law was at work
> before Roman times.Other idea for dating the begin of this law in
> Albanian?
I did a quick search for such words from the lexical material accepted
as being substratual and wich are common in Albanian and Romanian. It
seems there is not a big hel.There is indeed an "nd" common to Rom. and
Albanian but I cannot verify if PIE root of it was "nt"
Alb: grundë, Arom. "grundã", DR "grunz"
Alb: rëndës, Arom. "rândzã", DR "rânzã"
In fact, to be honestly, I was not expecting too much since I doubt
Romanian even in substratual forms acted so curious for changing the PIE
"nt" to "nd".Beside of this , in all the roots of Pokorny I don't see
too many "nt" if any. I see "nd" as in "grendh", "gWrendh", "kand",
"lendh", "mand", "mend", "mendh", "rendh","(s)pen1(d)", "spend",
"sp(h)e(n)d" , "(s)vendh", "tend", "vendh".
There should be "kantho", "kentho", "k'ent" ,"menth","sent" for
"nt"-group.
All in one, it seems even in PIE the "nt"-group was very rare as well.
Alex