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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci"
<a_konushevci@...> wrote:

> I don't know what are you really aimed, but Alb. <gjenj> is hard

to

> be separated from *ghod-ényo > gad-ényo (due to merger of voiced
> aspirate stops and voiced stops and –VCV- = -V) > genyo > gjânj,

due

> to e > ja (cf. <gjâj fëmijë> `beget', <gjâj me faj> `find

guilty'),

> but aor. <gjeta>, part. <gjetun/gjetur>, s. <gjetje> `finding,
> discovery'. Umlaut is caused probably from third p. sing. gjati >
> gjet. Today's <gjenj> is remodeled by aorist form. Form <gjâj>

could

> be heared even now in many dialects. Also <gjoja> `booty' with o
> vocalism.
> Other from *ghend- > gjind- (cf. bhendh- > Alb. bind `to

convince',

> due to eCC > icc) with tendency to be reshaped in <gjendem> `to be
> adepted, to be situated. to succed somehow'. Causative *ghond-ényo
> yields in Alb. <gandoj> 'to injure, to hurt'.

I do not dispute that gjen means 'find', but I am not sure its
initial consonant reflects IE *gh-. Even if it does I am not sure
its original vocalism was *-e-, cf. own analysis which gives it an *-
o-. Verbs with umlaut also have it in the middle voice (marr merr,
mirrem/merrem), so gjindem is not a safe guide.

And are an aorist gjeta and a ptc. gjetur really favourable to a
derivation from a root *ghe(n)d-?

Jens