Re: Syncope

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen <jer@...>
wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Abdullah Konushevci wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > I accept the identification of the last part of the gen.sg.

ending

> > *-
> > > o-syo with the relative pronoun, only I think it has been

added to

> > a
> > > genitive form, not a nominative. The old underlying syntax

would

> > be
> > > just as in Albanian and the history of Persian.
> >
> > > Jens
> > ************
> > Dear Jens,
> > Would you, please, be so kind to further explain it through all
> > paradigm?
>
> Sure, but that's too easy, for the IE form is not inflected. We

only have

> the *idea' that, say, *wiH1rósyo *póde 'the man's two-feet' or

*tésyo

> *póde 'his two-feet' in origin consists of a genitive made from a

stem +

> zero-grade of /-os/, i.e. *té-s (and analogically *wiH1ró-s with -

o- from

> other parts of the paradim), plus an uninflected form of the

relative

> pronoun *yó-s 'who, which'. The original form would have had

inflection in

> concord with the possessum, in this case an animate nom.-acc. dual
> *yó:(w), and the intended meaning of *té-s-yo: pód-e would have

been 'the

> two feet which (are) his'. That's the form the proto-izafet

constructions

> of Old Iranian have.
>
> Jens

************
Yes, for you is probably too easy, but, if I have understood you
well, Alb. relative pronoun <i cili/e cila> or <i cilli/ e
cilla> 'which' is one of the darkest question in albanology.
If we accept gen. té-s-yo it should derive tje-s-yo > se-syo, but I
am not aware what should yields -sy- or maybe we must assume a
syncoped form of *tésyoi> tsyoi> ci- which, suffixed further in
other pronominal stem -l-(cf. Lat. ollus, It. ille and Irish tall,
anall, etc.) would yields Alb. <i cil(l)i/e cil(l)a>.
According to H. Pedersen, Alb. relative pronoun <i cili> is a
dialectal prefixed form of <i t-sili> and the root is <si> and,
according to Brugmann, from PIE *kWi-.
This view was backed up by Çabej, who treats it as a backformation
of much older form <i sij>, looking as plural, so, due to this fact,
was reshaped latter the singular form <i silli>.

Konushevci