From: alex
Message: 37594
Date: 2005-05-05
> alex wrote:I have nothing against g^Hesr- > dor-; I just underline the word is in
>
>> I still connect Alb. "dor�" with Rom. "ghear�"; the "sr" cluster
>> shouldn't be any trouble since it got reduced to "r"; then the "d" in
>> Albanian won't speak for a satem shift but a later one.
>
> ??? What later shift? Any examples thereof, or is it just an ad hoc
> application of wishful thinking? And why should the consonant
> independently reconstructed as *g^H have been preserved as a velar in
> Albanian? As I proposed here a while ago (and I am pretty sure by now
> that the proposal was correct), PIE *-sr-/*-rs- yield Alb. -r- plus
> compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel. The development of
> *g^Hesr- > *3e:r- > dor- is therefore entirely regular and I see no
> reason to abandon or modify this reconstruction.
>> the "dh�mb" .. are you sure it derives from g^ombHos? I think hereWhich one of these languages speaks against a long "o:" in g^Homb - ?
>> more at "g^embHos".
>
> There is no such thing as PIE *g^embHos. Gk. gompHos, Germanic
> *kambaz, Slavic *zo~bU, Lith. z^ambas and Toch. A kam, B keme
> unequivocally require the reconstruction *g^�mbH-o-. Skt. jambHa- is
> consistent with it, and so are Alb. dh�mb, dh�mb as the regular
> reflexes of PAlb. *3a~b- < *g^ombHos.
>a bit scarce the evidence here but better as nothing. Thank you.
>> Which are other IE cognates for *k^onid?
>
> The closest match for the Albanian word is Gk. kon�d- (kon�s,
> kon�dos), also with a vowel between the *k^ and the *n. A less direct
> correspondence is visible e.g. in Germanic *xnito < *knidah2 (OE
> hnitu > nit, OHG (h)niz > Nisse).
>
> Piotr