Abdullah Konushevci wrote:
>> Interesting appears here something else. The word "-lig" appears to
>> be the
>> counterpart of Latin "ligo" but the Latin word yelded in
>> Rom. "lega" , thus
>> it cannot be of Latin origin. Of Albanian origin cannot be as well
>> since Alb. present the "satem" form of *lig-" or I make some
>> confusion here?
>>
>>
>> Alex
> ************
> Yes, PIE root *leig^- 'to bind' yields in Albanian in both dialects
> <lidh> 'to fasten, bind, tie', until prefixed form g- + *leig- yields
> in Geg <zgidh> 'to untie' and in Tosk <zgjidh> 'id.', due to regular
> evolution of cluster gl > g in Geg and gl > gj in Tosk.
> I supose that o-grade form *loig- yields too Albanian <ledh> 'bank,
> barrier'.
> This root yields in Lat. agent noun <lictor> and zero-grade form *lig-
> a: > ligare 'to bind' and other derivatives, like: ligament,
> ligatura, re.ligio, ob.ligere, etc.
>
> Konushevci
>
This is what I meant about *leig- comparative with Latin "ligo", Alb. "lidh"
and Rom "lig". The "substratul" words as "c�rlig" for instance show a clear
compositum of *ker and *leigh- where the meaning is exactly "bound crooked"
< *ker-leig-.
The differences are visible here as follow:
Latin has a short "i"
Unknown Language (substrate) has a long "i"
Albanian has a long i as well
Albanian has "dh" instead of "g"
This is one of examples I intended to put up for Richard since it appears
the unstressed IE "e" > & in a very ancient times, thus there was not
posible the palatalisation of the velar. That is: latin ke, ki, ge, gi have
been palatalised, the substratual IE ke, ki, ge, gi have yelded k&, g& or
ke, ge; in the time as Latin has entered the Balkanic space, there was
already the k& and g& and the evolution to k1 and g1 happened after that.
That will fit with what Rosetti say that Latin itself have had a slight
palatal pronounciation of the velars when they have been followed by
front-vowels and the palatalisation was helped by the fact the IE k^and g^
have had already the pronounciation of today , they being "c^" and "g^". Tu
summ up , the rules appears to be as such:
IE k^, g^ > c^, g^
IE k , g > k, g (no matter if followed by front vowels)
It remains to be sure what did happen with the IE labiovelars since in Latin
words the reflex in Rom. is a labialised one as the supposed aqua > apa.
If that is true, then regardless which was the ancient idiom spoken before
mixing up with Latin, that was for sure no satem idiom.
Alex