Re: Syncope

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

> 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

I wonder how the romanists do not see any Latin influence here for "i
cilli / e cilla" since it appears that this relative pronoun in Alb.
is almost the same as the dem. pronoun in rom. "cela" & variants (
cel, cei, cele, acela, aceia, etc)
These Rom. pronouns are seen usualy as of Latin origin ( cf. all
Romance "quel-" & Co, but the Dacian
pronouns "c^eo", "c^eolo", "oc^eolo" would mind something else.

Alex