Richard Wordingham wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>> 1) the begin of the word is problematic for Romanian. There cannot
> be
>> any "ghian" > "gin" unless one want to admit as follow:
>> - a > â (before nC) prior to gl > gl'> ghi
>
> Why does the order matter?
>
> Richard.
Assuming the gl > ghi' before a >â then we have:
glánda > ghéanda ( conform glacia > gheatsa )
this form should have remained the same as "geana"< *ginna, with no
further transformation except final "a" > "ã"
assuming the a > â before gl > ghi then we have:
glánda > *glânda ( with stress on â, cff. rulles stressed a > â before
nC)
*glânda > ghiândã; the "â" was absoerbed by "i" since i-â-n is almost
i-0-n, thus > in
In this manner we will have an nice explanable glanda > ghindã
That will explain the Albanian "glën-" as well loaned in a time where
the Romanian word was *glân-" already.
So I should see this scenario.
Alex