[tied] Re: big-mouth 'brbljiv' or crazy 'brljiv' Milosevic

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

> 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 "cârlig" 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

************
Dear Alex,
I suppose you have mixed up two PIE roots *leig^- 'to bind, tie,
fasten' and *leik- 'to bend'. In first case we have to deal with pure
palatal *k^- or &k'-, as you wish, and in second with pure velar *k.
Until *leig^- yields regulary in Alb. interdental /dh/, second form
yields -lik, like in <ndërlik> 'to entangle, to complicate' from
*H1enter- + *leik- and other derivatives: <ndërlikem> 'to get
confused, to became muddled up', <ndërlikoj> 'to complicate',
<komplikim> 'complication', <i ndërlikuar> 'complex'. Further more,
<ndërlik> is used for the tooth that grew up between two regular
teeth and for the bended tree <kërligat>, that has no regular shape,
but bended one, so is used often for fire.
It is attested in Illyrian as Epi-licus portus (cf. Epi-cadus, Epi-
damnus, etc.).

Konushevci