From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 32513
Date: 2004-05-09
>Miguel Carrasquer wrote:No, the pre-Alb. form as I gave it was *(n-)gjes-. The
>> On Sun, 09 May 2004 09:05:37 +0200, alex
>> <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> 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 ).
>>
>> What final consonant?
>
>"s" if the Albanian form was *gjes
>>> "viézure", "mázãre" do not have the stress on the "suffix" asNo it isn't.
>well;
>>> however, the words ares considered to be a compositum with
>>> uffif -alle, -ulle ( in Alb. both words being suffixed with
>"-ulle")
>>
>> Exactly. Neither word ends in -urã.
>
>-ure = -urã
>>>> In the third place, gh- shouldThat "rubbish" means that you are wrong at such a basic
>>>> 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;
>>
>> Rubbish.
>
>that "rubbish" does not explain why I should be wrong.