Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> On Sun, 09 May 2004 01:25:08 +0200, alex
> <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>
>> I understand you was talking about Albanian change here. I brought
>> the example of "gjendër" because we have had as target an another
>> word, namely "ngjesh" which I see to be cognate with Rom.
>> "inghesui"; both compositum (ngjesh & inghesui) but too "gjesh" and
>> Rom. "ghes"; the outgoing point was the derivation of Alb. word
>> which was supposed to be from the root *h1en-)joh3s-
>
> I assume that stands for *(h1en-)joh3s-?
Right; in fact written without laringeals I would writte it*(en-)jos
>
>> and from this root I cannot see any
>> modality to get Rom. "ghes" or "inghesui".
>
> Why not? *(h1en-)joh3s- > pre-Alb. *(n-)gjes- regularly.
> From this are derived Alb. (n)gjesh- (s > sh) and Rom.
> (în-)ghes-.
that will mean in the time of Roman empire the word should have been
already *gjes at least. And a such form should have had the output
"g^e" in Rom ( with lost of final consonant too ).
>
>> As for the derivation from Latin glandula > ghindura.. there is
>> nothing againt derivation from IE *ghend as well; the suffix "-urã"
>> makes the job: *ghend +ura > ghendura > ghindurã.
>
> There's lots of things against it. For starters, you
> probably don't mean *ghend- "to grab", but *ghendh-
> (*gh(&)ndh-) "ulcer, tumor" (Grk. kanthúle:, konthe:laí
> (Hes.), Goth./OE/OHG gund and that's it), a rather obscure
> root which is not attested in e-grade anyway.
I mentioned previously I mean Pok. #650 , thus *ghend with the meaning
"Geschwür"
> Secondly,
> ghíndurã obviously does not contain the suffix -úrã, which
> always carries the accent.
"viézure", "mázãre" do not have the stress on the "suffix" as well;
however, the words ares considered to be a compositum with
uffif -alle, -ulle ( in Alb. both words being suffixed with "-ulle")
> In the third place, gh- should
> have palatalized in Romanian before a front vowel (or do you
> think that PIE *gh and Romanian <gh> mean the same thing?).
No, I consider that the presence of "h" did not allowed the
palatalisation of the velars; the "h" must stil have been feelt there
thus the change "g" > "g^" and "k" > "g^" before a front vowel was
possible but the change "gh" > " g^" or "kh" > "k^" before of a front
vowel was not anymore possible and the result was the velars remained
unaltered here.
> In the fourth place, why invent such a fantastic scenario
> when a much better, easier and more logical solution is
> offered by Latin glandula?
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
If one thinks at the various Alb. testimonies, I don't see why your
"fantastic" would be too wrong here :-)
Some additional explanations as per my sources; there is given as
follow:
Alb.-Greek variant "gl'ëndërë"
Alb.-Tosk variant "gjëndërë"
Alb.-Gheg variant "gandërë"
Gustav Meyer and Schmidt consider the Alb. word is a loan from
"Balkan-Latin" and the semantic change did happened in that part of
the world (Balkan); the word entered Albanian with this meaning from a
form like *glandura ( the rotacism of "l" should have worked already
in the time as the word was loaned into Albanian).
Skok consider the Alb. word and its variants are not loans from
BalkaLatin but directly from Romanian.
Rosetti does not say anything in his ILR about this word, he just
mention the opinion of Skok.
So far about shcolars and this word. Now, phoneticaly I have trouble
with Latin "glandula" because I am not aware of any reduction of the
"ia" to "i" even before "nC", thus glandula > gl'andura; expected
should be "ghiandurã".
Do you have some examples which will show that the diphtong "ia", "ie"
> "i before "n" or "nC" for sustaining the change "glandura > ghindã?
I just know some examples where "ea" remains "ea" before "nC"
(leandru, creangã, fleandurã etc).
to sum up:
against IE *ghend speaks Greko-Albanian "gl'ëndërë" which point to a
previous *gl-
against Latin *glandula or Romanian *glandura speaks Alb. "ë" (Latin
"u" or Rom "u" rendered as "ë"?)
against Latin "glandula" speaks Romanian "in" where one expected "ian"
(*ghiandurã instead of ghindurã)
For IE *ghend speaks the regular change ghen > ghin; the stress is in
the same position as in "mázãre" and "viézure" and point out to an old
compositum *ghend-ulla > ghíndura
I do not know the Aromanian form of the word; if there is an
"gl'indurã" or not.
Both Alb. and Rom. suggest the protoword was a *glendura or *ghendura;
because of the Greek-Albanian variant, the form *glendura should be
seen as the favorised form of the protoform.
Alex
Alex