[tied] Re: Romanian verbal paradigm

> >> 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?
>

I had the same discussion regarding s->sh transformation.
My question was : "why s->sh cannot started during and not after
the Latin Loans?"
The answer was : "if all the Latin loans indicates this
transformation than this transformation happened very probable after
the Latin Loans"

This answer of course cannot demonstrate nothing, but it can well
justify a "very probable" value for the sentence above.

My question is : this rule affect all the Albanian Latin Loans?

If yes, (as I know is 'yes' but I don't know all the cases), we
should consider it, similar with s->sh situation, after the Latin
Loans in Albanians (in order to be coherent and to make each time the
same assumption). However it can be active very well during these
loans too.

Now regarding my assumption of genetic link betwen Alb.-Rom. the
rule has to be like :

c-period d-period e-period
--------- --------------- --------
-nt -> -nt or -nd -> -nd (++)

We need -nt in c-period because the Romanian Loans from Latin
didn't exhibit an -nd transformation
(of course we can imagine also a later transformation nd->nt in
Romanian that affects all Latin Loans (on the supposition that
Romanian loans were with -nd too), but viewing other transformations
this variant is less less probable (--) ).

Best Regards,
marius alexandru

P.S. Based on my assumption I also want to check if "ft" is the
natural evolution of "pt" (this results from my assumption too):

c-period d-period or later
pt -> ft

From what PIE we can consider pt to be ? Any help here?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> Abdullah Konushevci wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> 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'.
> >
> > Konushevci
> >
>
> I guess here I have made a "Denkfehler". Of course such loans from
> Doric/Greek will be of no help since if the law begins to work just
in
> the Roman time, these loans from Doric/Greek will be affected as
well
> *in* Roman time.
> Hmm... I guess there is no satisfying way on this path which can
show us
> if the law worked before roman times as well.
>
> 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?
>
>
> Alex?