Re: [tied] *g'(h)- > d as aberrant outcome

----- Original Message -----
From: "alex" <alxmoeller@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] *g'(h)- > d as aberrant outcome


> do I understand you right here when I think you mean "ngjesh" <
> "*h^en-)joh3s-"?
> If yes, trough which kind of changes we will get "ghe" in Rom. in this
> case? I ask it since I consider Albanian "ngjesh" is the same word as
> Rom. "�nghesui"

If that's right, the word was borrowed when the Albanian reflex of *j- was
something like *G'-.

> "*ju:mitja:" looks somehow odd to me; the root for Rom. "jum�tate"
> appears to be "jum�-" due the expression "half-half" which is
> "juma-juma"( if in this expression is not a reduction of the word due
> the lassyness of the speakers, thus a reduction of "jumatate-jumatate"
> to "juma-juma"). Beside of this an "tj" here will have had the big
> chances to have an "T" as outcome in Rom., thus "*jumiTa-" should have
> been the output.

It's only the *ju:mit- or *ju:met- part that is the same in Romanian and
Albanian. The final suffix is different in either case (*-ja: vs. Latinate
*-a:t-). The Romanian word must have been contaminated with Lat. medieta:te-
'middle, half, moiety'.

> BTW, is the word "gjysm�" a newer form as "gjym�s�"? In my dictionary
> there is no trace of "gjym�s�" but a lot of derivatives with "gjysm�-"

I should have asterisked it, since I meant the Common Albanian form.
*gjym�s� is the historical common denominator of all the many dialectal
variants (such as <gjyms�>, <gjims>, etc.); <gjysm�>, as Abdullah correctly
said, is a secondary (metathetic) variant of <gjym(�)s�>.

Piotr