From: m_iacomi
Message: 31689
Date: 2004-04-03
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, I wrote:
[...]
> For your claimed phonetism *k^ > Alb. /ts/ see e.g.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/28110
> (#11) or Piotr's detailed explanations on Albanian phonetism (1).
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/29877
> Actually *k^> Alb. /T/ (th) or /k/, no way for /ts/
I'm sorry for the confusion in the lines above, since we were
speaking about...
>>> The evolution *peik^> Alb. pikë
... so the claimed phonetism is not *k^ > Alb. /ts/ (as I wrote
hastily yesterday evening, having in mind the m-word issue) but
*k^ > Alb. /k/. The phonetics looks right, consequently forget
about my phrase:
> I added now also some phonetical reasons which speak against it.
... and cut-off "highly" and "very" from the next one:
> I do not claim your theory is wrong, but it is _highly unlikely_
> -> _very probably_ wrong.
[...]
>> Until, Rom. form I think is <mic> not <misk> to avoid
>> the homonymy with verbal suffix -sc.
>
> I do not get your point on this.
BTW, Aromanian m-word is "ñicu" (also spelt "njicu" in some AR
texts or "n'icu" in most Romanian linguistical works).
Regards,
Marius Iacomi