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

Hello Piotr,
You said :

> If that's right, the word was borrowed when the Albanian reflex of

*j- was

> something like *G'-.
>

If that's right this had to be in Roman Times (if not earlier)
because we have here for Alb. sh for Rom. s.

Once again the 'loan theory' has some issues with its timeframes,
and the 'substratual theory' fit better but I will wait June or July
when you will post the next Albanian series....

Best Regards,
marius alexandru


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<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'-.
>
> > "*ju:mitja:" looks somehow odd to me; the root for Rom. "jumãtate"
> > appears to be "jumã-" due the expression "half-half" which is
> > "juma-juma"( if in this expression is not a reduction of the word

due

> > the lassyness of the speakers, thus a reduction of "jumatate-

jumatate"

> > to "juma-juma"). Beside of this an "tj" here will have had the big
> > chances to have an "T" as outcome in Rom., thus "*jumiTa-" should

have

> > been the output.
>
> It's only the *ju:mit- or *ju:met- part that is the same in

Romanian and

> Albanian. The final suffix is different in either case (*-ja: vs.

Latinate

> *-a:t-). The Romanian word must have been contaminated with Lat.

medieta:te-

> 'middle, half, moiety'.
>
> > BTW, is the word "gjysmë" a newer form as "gjymësë"? In my

dictionary

> > there is no trace of "gjymësë" but a lot of derivatives

with "gjysmë-"

>
> I should have asterisked it, since I meant the Common Albanian form.
> *gjymësë is the historical common denominator of all the many

dialectal

> variants (such as <gjymsë>, <gjims>, etc.); <gjysmë>, as Abdullah

correctly

> said, is a secondary (metathetic) variant of <gjym(ë)së>.
>
> Piotr