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

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> On Sat, 08 May 2004 18:55:04 +0200, alex
> <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>
>> 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'"
>
> gl > gj = G' (voiced palatal stop).
>

and the change G' > ghe in Rom should be seen as a "depalatalisation"?
I was knowing that even because of the fact there was an "l'" stopped
the palatalisation of "g" and as the palatalisation was over there was
no posibility anymore to get an "g^" from "gl'". Do you assume that
here Alb. went on a way and Rom. on another way from a stadium "gl'"?

Alex