[tied] Re: Romanian Verb Endings and Substratum influence (repost)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Abdullah Konushevci
<akonushevci@...> wrote:

> Look, Marius, I have no resaon to dislike your explanation, because

as

> *so-, fem. *saH2, as *e:- 'this' with its variant *ya:i- are PIE
> roots and I don't find first to be "beautiful" root and
> second "ugly" one.
> I really don't know how one can derives PAlb /j/ from PIE /*e:/ or
> /*ya:i/, for PIE /*y/, as far as I know, yields PAlb /z/ or,
> porobably later, /gj/ (cf. PIE *yes- > PAlb. ziej 'to boil'. Greek
> yeraks, -kos gjeraqinë 'hawk', in one place name Gjerek•ar,
> Lat. > judicare > gjykonj 'to judge', junctura >
> gjymtyrë 'extremity, > limb, side' etc.).

I guess there is the need to show some more examples where initial
IE "y" has an output in Albanian. The other examples you give are
from Latin and Greek, thus very psobile on another time line. From
these examples we can just see Latin and Greek "y" in initial
positions yelded Alb. "gj-" which is very plausible since Romance and
Romanian has too the same output ( g^ > j(consonantal "j" here). That
is, it fits with the time line of Latin and Greek here.

> So, I find very convinceiving Mr. Rasmusen's expalantion that there
> is no other way to derive Alb. possesive pronoun <jonë> 'our'
> for animate than from a PIE compound *saH2 + *n.s.

One of the problems with Jens's solution is that there is not
explained why "jonë" did not rotacised in this time. That is, we
must consider the *saH2 remained as stand alone until the rothacism
was over and the output of *saH2 alone cannot be "jo".

> In same way we derive <tonë>
> 'our' for inanimate, as well as <a•jo> from compound *au- +
> *saH2 'she', *au- + *so > a•i 'he', <ky> 'this
> one' < *ko(m)- + so,
> feminine form <k(ë)•jo> from *ko(m)- + saH2 etc.

"tonë" has the same problem with the rothacism

>
> Konushevci

Alex