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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> 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). 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.

Well, *are* there any examples deciding whether non-labiovelar *gh
is palatalized or not in Albanian? I wouldn't like to stake too much
in gjenj 'find' vs. Lat. prehendo:.

Jens