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

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

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

hmmm... why Alb. "G'"?
so far I know, Alb. "gjendër" is seen as a derivative from Latin
"glandula"(the same is said about Rom. "ghindurã"; if that is true we
have already the change "gl" > "g" in Alb. as well and then we do not
have to search for any Alb. "G'" here for Rom. "ghe/ghi") but for an
"gl-"; If that is true, then the "*h^en-)joh3s-" appears to be a wrong
derivation's basis.BTW, Rom. "ghindurã" can be as well a direct reflex
of IE *ghend-, thus my thoughts that Rom. "ghe/ghi" and "che/chi" can
be the result of IE "ghe" & "khe" not only of a cluster like "gl-" or
"kl". I don't know if one can derive Alb. "gjendër" from IE *ghend- as
well. (IE *ghend=Pok.#650)

>
>> "*ju:mitja:" looks somehow odd to me; the root for Rom. "jumãtate"
>> appears to be "jumã-" 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'.

Krepinski, C^asopis consider "jumatate" _is_ from Latin "medietatem"
but they let the "u" unexplained.Siadbei considers there is a
contamination of ProtoAlbanian *dyum- or *yum with Latin "medietatem".
Tagliavini considers in a contamination (me:-of what?) with Latin
"dimidietas".
It appears hard to find the right way here between many possibilities.
Fact is, there is the word "jumate" as well; thus at least in Rom. one
has 3 variants of this word: juma, jumate, jumãtate. It remains open
if the root is an *ju:mit-/ju:met- or a simply *ju:m- but .. which
should be the IE root for this protoform?

>
>> BTW, is the word "gjysmë" a newer form as "gjymësë"? In my

dictionary

>> there is no trace of "gjymësë" but a lot of derivatives with
>> "gjysmë-"
>
> I should have asterisked it, since I meant the Common Albanian form.
> *gjymësë is the historical common denominator of all the many
> dialectal variants (such as <gjymsë>, <gjims>, etc.); <gjysmë>, as
> Abdullah correctly said, is a secondary (metathetic) variant of
> <gjym(ë)së>.
>
> Piotr

Ah, ok, thank you.

Alex