Re: [tied] Re: Ruki Rule in Proto-Albanian

alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> What I want to ask also: Does Piotr or somebody else in this Forum
> knows a proof that clearly demonstrate that there wasn't any Ruki
> Rule in Albanian ?

It is a proposal to be refuted (if possible), not one to be
demonstrated. As far as I can see there is no evidence of RUKI in
Albanian. Both *-rs- and *-sr- seem to have given -r- (lengthening the
preceding vowel), the cluster *k(^)s either loses one of its members or
ends up as /h/ (thus merging with *sk(^)), etc.

> Another pro-argument (this time one that I read), I agree that this
> is more speculative, is that in Proto-Albanian :
>
> 1. an OLD initial shk remain shk due to its 'RUKI' sh:
> from an initial *is-k- or from dis-k- etc...

How's that different from the following, more parsimonious theory: the
prefixes in question contained Proto-Albanian *s, which has yielded
Modern Albanian <sh> via the normal course of development, just like
Lat. sk is reflected as <shk>? The combination -s#k- in prefix/root
sandhi arose too late to produce <h>.

If there's no difference, there's no argument.

> To take a look on Dacia :
> 1. Marissos (today Muresh) was already Ma:rishV,
> 2. Sa:mus (today Somesh) was already Sa:mushV
>
> But what is sure is that the presence of -ss- in above attested
> forms confirms at least that there wasn't a simple s there.

This is a completely arbitrary supposition. There's nothing in these
forms (as transmitted via Greek) to suggest the pronunciation /s^/ in
ancient times.

Piotr