From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 32509
Date: 2004-05-09
> Miguel Carrasquer wrote:brought
> > On Sun, 09 May 2004 01:25:08 +0200, alex
> > <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> >
> >> I understand you was talking about Albanian change here. I
> >> the example of "gjendër" because we have had as target an anotherand
> >> word, namely "ngjesh" which I see to be cognate with Rom.
> >> "inghesui"; both compositum (ngjesh & inghesui) but too "gjesh"
> >> Rom. "ghes"; the outgoing point was the derivation of Alb. wordurã"
> >> 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 "-
> >> makes the job: *ghend +ura > ghendura > ghindurã.meaning
> >
> > 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
> "Geschwür"ulle")
>
> > 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 "-
>there
> > 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
> thus the change "g" > "g^" and "k" > "g^" before a front vowel wasfront
> possible but the change "gh" > " g^" or "kh" > "k^" before of a
> vowel was not anymore possible and the result was the velarsremained
> unaltered here.from a
>
>
> > 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
> form like *glandura ( the rotacism of "l" should have worked alreadydiphtong "ia", "ie"
> 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
> > "i before "n" or "nC" for sustaining the change "glandura >ghindã?
> I just know some examples where "ea" remains "ea" before "nC"expected "ian"
> (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
> (*ghiandurã instead of ghindurã)in
> For IE *ghend speaks the regular change ghen > ghin; the stress is
> the same position as in "mázãre" and "viézure" and point out to anold
> compositum *ghend-ulla > ghíndura*ghendura;
> 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
> because of the Greek-Albanian variant, the form *glendura should be************
> seen as the favorised form of the protoform.
>
> Alex