Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>>> What final consonant?
>>
>> "s" if the Albanian form was *gjes
>
> No, the pre-Alb. form as I gave it was *(n-)gjes-. The
> final dash means that something follows.
"something" caould be just a vowel; the evidence for this supposed
vowel is neither in Albanian nor in Romanian to find. The dash here
appears valueless.
>> -ure = -urã
>
> No it isn't.
There is the bundle of suffixes like "-ur, -ure, -urã" which appears
to be only one and the same suffix. Exemples:
buture-buturã ; that is one and the same word; the plural of both is
"buturi"
graur-graure ; one and the same word, pl. is "grauri"
grangur-grangure; one and the same word, pl. is "granguri"
viezur - viezure; one and the same word, pl. is "viezuri"
So far I remember Rosetti does not mention the suffix "-urã" as being
a suffix from Latin or from Slavic. As Latin suffix which point
somehow to "-ura" he mentzions the suffix "-tura" but this is too
uncshure IMHO since all the derivatives where a such "-tura" appears,
are verbal derivatives where the root in participium have already the
"t" there. One can see it immediatly even from the examples he
gives:încarcatura ( a incarca; participium= "incarcat"), amãgitura ( a
amãgi; p. = amãgit), sãritura ( a sãri; p. "sãrit"). My suspicion
there is no Latin "-tura" is confirmed by the verbals nouns which are
derived in the same wy from verbs which this time have the participium
in "s" as:
arsura ( a arde; p. "ars"), tunsurã( literary corect->"tunsoare" form
"a tunde"; p. "tuns") mulsura from a mulge; p.
"muls"
So, it seems we have to deal with that suffix which has no diminutival
function and in Albanian is seen as "-ulle" and in Rom. as
"-ur, -urã,-ure" with pl. form "-uri".
that there is a suffix, this is confirmed by Albanian sound laws. The
word "vjedhulle" is a later compositum otherways the "dh" there should
have been gone.
Cimochowski at least see it too in the same way where he see an
*vjedh, *vied, *viet in Alb. which later was suffixed with "-ullë"
The function of this suffix "-ulle" is (as per G.R Solta) correct
identified by II Russu which see there a "collective suffix" which
sometimes can be too a "diminutival suffix". This idea was sustained
by Jokl as well when discussing the word "modhullë".
That is: we have an collective suffix "-ulle" which in Alb. is
rendered as "-ullë" and in Rom. as "-ure". From that one, there is
made an singular trough lossing of "e" in same cases ( graur-graure)
or trough cheng of "e" to "ã" ( buture-buturã): The general working
"i" in the plural form changed the old "-ure" in plural in "-uri". No
big deal.
>
>>>>> 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;
>>>
>>> Rubbish.
>>
>> that "rubbish" does not explain why I should be wrong.
>
> That "rubbish" means that you are wrong at such a basic
> level, that an explanation is unnecessary.
>
> For this once: PIE *gh merges with PIE *g everywhere, except
> in Indo-Aryan (gh ~ g), Greek (kh ~ g), Latin (h ~ g) and in
> Germanic and Armenian (g ~ k).
a lot of exceptions I will say
> Since I assume your fantasy
> "Romanian" does not belong to the aspirating group (not that
> it matters for palatalization: Indo-Aryan gh palatalizes
> exactly like Indo-Aryan g), nor to the Grimm-shifted group,
> it should belong in the majority group (Celtic, Iranian,
> Balto-Slavic, Albanian, Tocharian, Anatolian) where *g and
> *gh merged. Therefore, there can be no difference in the
> palatalization behaviour of *g and *gh.
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
I can just remember waht R.G. Solta said: "the Romanian Lang presents
amasing paralels with Old Greek regarding the palatalisation and
labialisation" but I gues this is known to you already.
Alex