[tied] PIE *y > Alb. /z/ (was Re: Romanian Verb )

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

> elmeras2000 wrote:
> >
> > Well, did I write that? Then of course it *must* be good. And,

come

> > to think of it again, aí would be structured just like Greek

autós,

> > e.g. acc.sg.masc. atë = autón. And if *au is 'away', as Lat. au-
> > fero: 'I remove', Slavic u-myti 'wash off', then k- would make

good

> > sense as 'close, at hand, with', which would indeed remind one of
> > Lat. cum. So yes, I like it again.
>
> and what does one with the reflexive pronoun in Alb. which

is "vetja"?

> Of course on this reason (au >a), this cannot be related anymore

to

> Greek "auto". But IE au > Alb. "ve" as we seen in many words, so

one of

> the derivations is wrong. Presumabely the one about demonstrative
> pronouns is the wrong one.

Could you mention, say, six of those "many words" that show IE au >
Alb. ve ?

I do not know what vet- is (vetë 'person', def. veta; vete 'own
person, one's self', def. vetja). Due to the use as a reflexive
pronoun one thinks of course of IE *swe-, but in what derivational
form? And with what development of the initial? The unconditioned
development of *sw- is Alb. d- (via *s^v > *z^v > *dz^v > *dv >
d ?), but if there was a reduced form the reflex of s- could perhaps
end up being zero in the cluster; cf. also the enclitic <u>. But as
long as the word-formation of vet- is obscure we cannot use the
example as an argument for or against anything.

Jens