Re: [tied] Albanian as a satem langauge

alex wrote:

> 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.

Most of the above is inaccurate. First of all, PIE *k^ yields Modern
Albanian <th> [T], not <s> or <sh>. It's only the cluster *k^w that is
reflected as modern <s> (via Proto-Albanian *c^(W), identical with the
reflex of palatalised *kW).

Secondly, the modern phonetic values [d ~ D] and [T] are much younger
than the Albanoid loans in Romanian. The latter were taken at a time
when the Albanian reflexes of *g^(H) and *k^ were sibilant affricates
(*3 and *c, i.e. something similar to [dz] and [ts], respectively), and
are accordingly reflected as Romanian [dz ~ z] and [ts ~ s], the most
natural substitutes in the receptor language.

Piotr