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

Abdullah Konushevci wrote:

> PIE *y > Alb. /z/

Via PAlb. *3^? Not implausible phonetically, but is there really any
evidence for it?

> 1) *yes- > Alb. <ziej> 'to boil, cook' (cf. also Illyrian Aquas Jasas);

And what happened to the *s?

> 2)*yew- > për•ziej 'to mix meal', probably from a variant *yew-nyo
> (cf. av. yuvati 'id.'); për•ziem•je/përzierje 'mixture' (Pokorny,
> *yeu-1, 507)

Why should the roots under (1) and (2) be different? And if the one
under (2) is from *jeu-, why does it always contain <ie>, also in
polysyllabic forms?

> 3) *yeu-4 'to separate, to hold off' > Alb. përza/përzë (cf.
> Përzâ/përzë djalin nga shtëpia 'To separate the son from the house, to
> hold him off') from o-grade form *you-; i për•zënë 'outlaw', përzënie
> 'ouster' (Pokorny, *yeu-4, 511).

The reconstruction in Pokorny is based on practically no evidence and co
can't be taken seriously.

>
> 4) *yem- to hold > zâ/zë 'to hold', prefixed form <nxe> 'hold' (cf.
> Skt yamati 'id.')

Given the number of possible sources, *jem- is hardly a self-evident
etymology, though it's perhaps the only one here that can't be dismissed
at once.

> 5) As I claim before, I think also that Alb. <zgjebë> 'scabies' is
> derived from *yebh- 'to copulate' (cf. Slavic jebati 'id.', Lat.
> iacere 'to lie down').

The semantic connection seems absolutely arbitrary to me; Lat. iacere
has nothing to do with *jebH-; and the form cannot be used to support
your *j > z idea anyway, since the initial in the Albanian word is
<z-gj->, not <z->.

> 6) Alb. <zgjedhë> 'yoke' from *yeug- 'to join' (cf. Greek zeugma
> 'bond', Lat. iugum 'yoke', Sanskrit yoga 'union' etc.)

The *(H?)jeug- root does not contain a Satemisable *g^, so the
development to Alb. <dh> is ruled out.

> 7) *wikm.ti- 'twenty', zero-grade form *ikm.ti > zati > zet in një•zet
> 'one twenty', dy•zet 'two twenty', trezet 'three twenty' etc.

*wik^m.ti- [sic] is already as zero-grade as possible. No forms without
the initial *w are attested anywhere, and to get <-zet>, you'd need
*jm.ti or the like. How do you propose to derive it from the PIE
numeral? I much prefer the orthodox derivation of <-zet> from *3^Wm.ti,
where *3^W is the regular reflex of *wk^- < unstressed *wik^-.

> In my view, exactly through this sound-law we may be explained today
> form of Zadar from Illyrian Iadera.

But if there is no such soundlaw, you must look for another explanation.
I don't mean that the two can't be connected, but they don't seem to be
relatable by means of regular sound changes.

Piotr