Re: [tied] Albanian as a satem langauge

Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> 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).

so IE k^> th via "ts" (stage which is kept in Romanian) and "k^w" and
"kW/+" yelded "s" via "c^" (stage which is kept in Romanian). I agree
with you until this point.

>
> Secondly, the modern phonetic values [d ~ D] and [T] are much younger
> than the Albanoid loans in Romanian.

That is a rethoric affirmation. Of course they are younger since their
corespondent in Rom. is stil "3" and "ts".

> 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

So you say, *3, *c have been "replaced" by "dz" and "ts" but the reflex
of "k^w" and "kW/+" should have been not replaced at all since it is
stil "c^". I guess you are making a mistake here.I think the stage "ts"
and "dz" "c^" is the _real_ aspects of the sounds as they have been in
the language and they are stil preserved in Rom. in that form while in
Albanian they evolved to "d/dh", "th" and "s". But this stage is a
preroman stage and it will point more to a relationship deep in the
prehistory. Your statment about "receptor language" makes me wonder.
The Carpathian-Balkan language which is considered to have been
latinised is considered now "receptor language"? Or we have to consider
what Bari� meant that here we don't have to deal with "loans" but with
"rests" ?

Alex

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