--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3"
<alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
> > Piotr wrote:
> > *swek^uro- > *wesk^uro- (or *wek^suro-), otherwise
> > the medial <-h-> is even more puzzling than the initial <v->.
>
> Their is an 'alternance' s <-> c /ts/ well attested in Proto-
Albanian:
>
> See the following examples:
> Alb. 'thumbull' ~'sumbull' <-> Rom. sâmbure
> Alb. 'kurthë' <-> Rom. cursã
>
> So for the above derivation:
> *swek^uro- > [s/w > zero; o > a; "alternance c<->s"] > *wesura >
> [V-s-V > V-h-V] > wehura > [we > vje; ur > ër] > vjehërr 'father-
in-law'
>
> I couldn't explain yet why/when this alternance s<->c appeared
but for
> sure is present (see the above examples and there are also other
> examples too)
>
> So there is no need to suppose a Metathesis here, we need to
explain
> when/why this alternance appeared.
>
> Best Regards,
> Marius
NOTE : I want to complete me here with the intervocalic s > h in
PAlbanian (Pedersen proposed 's > h before u')
I. Despite Hamp's reserves ('s > h not possible in Albanian') there
are at least 2 words in Albanian indicating s > h:
a. PIE *gl.so- (zero grade) > [l. > ul (> lu)] > PAlb. gulsa > [
(l.>) ul > lu ] > PAlb. glusa [V-s-V > V-h-V] > [gl> gj] > Alb gjuhë
'tongue'
b. PIE *ke:sa: > [e:>a:] > PAlb. *ka:sa: [a: >o; V-s-V > V-h-V] >
Alb. kohë
c. also vjehërr (see my previous derivation) is in the same
situation:
*swek^uro- > [s/w > zero; o > a; "alternance c<->s"] > *wesura >
> [V-s-V > V-h-V] > *wehura > [we > vje; ur > ër] > vjehërr 'father-
in-law'
NOTE: Other cases indicate also s > h > (later) zero
II. But there are also other cases of intervocalic V-s-V indicating
today an Albanian sh
a. PIE su:sa > PAlb *suSa > [su:/stressed > gju:] > PAlb *gju:Sa >
[u: > y] > Alb gjysh <-> Rom. ghiuj 'grandfather'
b. PIE *dhouso- (o-grade of *dheuso-) > PAlb *dauSa > Alb daS <->
Rom. daS 'ram'
(see also other examples like: lesh 'wool'[e < ai], prush 'ember')
So without trying to invent additional sk^ , several metathesis
etc...the conclusion is simple: there was two types of outputs for
an intervocalic PIE *V-s-V in Proto-Albanian times...
Explanation
============
We already have had an S /sh/ after u:,u,i,i: in Proto-Albanian
times. This indicates an ancient Ruki-Rule at least for u:,u,i,i:
Timeframe-1:
Ruki.1 PIE *u:s > PAlb *u:S
Ruki.2 PIE *us > PAlb *uS
Ruki.3 PIE *i:s > PAlb *i:S
Ruki.4 PIE *is > PAlb *iS
For my examples: in *dauSa we have already sh in Proto-Albanian
times and in *suSa too.
For all the other contexts we still have a intervocalic s in Early
Proto Albanian
Next this s goes to h (this transformation could be made in relation
with sk > ks > h that is a logical assumption but is still not
mandatory to be supposed)
So Timeframe-2:
PIE *s/V-s-V > PAlb *h
For the examples above we have *gluha and *ka:ha: forms that have
already appeared during Proto Albanians times.
NOTE-1: Knowing that the PRomanian-PAlbanians contacts ended before
600-700 AC and viewing that the corresponding Romanian words (linked
to the Proto-Albanian ones) show all of them a sh(>j) (not an s, as
it is the case with the Latin treatements in Romanian, see also Rom.
sh- Alb. sh in Rom. cãpuSã <-> Alb. këpushë), the presence of S /sh/
in Proto-Albanian times receives an additional argument.
NOTE-2: I also suppose (however without to check case by case) that
the real cause that generated for the PIE *sk -> 2 different outputs
in Proto-Albanian *h and *sk is also related to this ancient
existance of a S /sh/ in Proto-Albanian that goes back to the
ancient Ruki Rule:
based on this the older shk > remains shk and the 'remaining' sk >
ks > h) became (later!) h.
Best Regards,
Marius
P.S. : => if sk>shk is older than sk>h in Albanian, the Sh in
Shkodër could be very old, older than the supposed missing h ('the
missing H' was the argument invoked on this forum by Piotr several
times related to a 'Recent' Albanian Presence in Balkans).
Shkodër < PAlb. *S-kodra < PAlb *iS-kodra 'behind/outside-of the
hills' =>
see Romanian codru 'wood' < ORom. 'hill with woods' <-> Alb.
kodër 'hill'.
Both Albanian and Romanian words 'are supposed' to be derived from
Latin quadrum 'square' (another 'nice' Latin derivation regarding
the proposed semantism Lat. 'square' > Rom./Alb. 'hill with woods')
Also because we would have:
Lat. quadrum > Rom. codru (strange enough because we have in the
same time Rom. patru from Lat. quattuor and also a supposed Lat.
aqua > Rom. apa (when we have: Lith. upe, OPrus. ape, Skt ap-,
TocharianB a:p)
So 'trying' to solve 'qua > pa and qua>co' issue, a Latin form
*quodrum was invented in order not to have: qua > p and qua > co in
the same time, but here also we still have Rom. potârniche... for
which 'to avoid' (once again) any issue with a 'quo>po and quo>co'
another derivation was proposed : 'Probabil lat. perturnicula (< per
[dix] + *[co]turnicula)' (DEX)
Also a Lat *quodrum was proposed in place of quadrum, because o>a or
a>o is impossible in Romanian : see also Rom. azi 'today' supposed
to be from Latin hodie: (It. oggi, Sp. hoy) where in place of
hodie: a Lat. *ha:c die: was proposed for the Rom azi, in order to
solve o>a issue: but why to 'split back' the Latin 'hodie:' when
this word was already a single word in Trajan's Times and to
replace 'the splitted' 'hoc' with the ablative ha:c 'from here'? (
when we have the Skt. a-dya 'today' and Rom. a-ia/Alb a-jo showing
the dem. particle a- in all these cases)
Best Regards again,
Marius