Re: [tied] Albanian as a satem langauge

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> alex wrote:
>
>> 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.

to go a bit deeper into this one. Since you consier the g^> d is the
satem shift for Albanian we have to assumed the "k^" > "s" belongs to
the same satem shift. I said in a previous email there is as well as not
an eveidence for Rom-Alb cognates where wher have Rom. "g^" versus Alb.
"d" but we have plenty of evidence of "k^" verus "s".
If the changes g^> 3 and k^> s did happen in the same historical time
and you consider the g^>3 in Alb _is_ the satem shift, then you agree
indirectly the corespondance between Rom. "k^" and Alb. "s^" belongs to
the same centum/satem split.
That will say the logic. And I am not sure you agree with the logic
here.

Alex




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.5 - Release Date: 04.05.2005