Re: Syncope

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

> --- 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>.

Or, porbably you mean in Alb. relative pronoun <që> derived form
*tesyo > tshyo > që 'which'?

>
> Konushevci