Re: [tied] Albanian intervocalic s > h

alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> I. I agree with your derivation ja supposed still a PAlb. dets-sV-
> so the stages were: k^s > cs > c > th

But I don't :). Seriously, I've just hit on the optimal solution. It's
so obvious that my only worry this morning was that somebody would beat
me to it, and it looks like a publishable finding ;). I'll reveal it in
a separate posting soon.

> III. Also the derivation gjuhë < PIE *gl.sa: seems ok too.
>
> In conclusion : is difficult to reject intervocalic s>h in PAlbanian.

Where else do you see this "*gl.sa:"? Slavic has *golsU < *galsos, which
is hardly the same thing, and if it had an Albanian cognate it would be
something like <gall>*. The development of *l. in the 'wolf' word is
probably exceptional (due to the labialising influence of *w);
Cimochowski found a couple of examples of *l. > li, parallel to *r. >
ri, so I'd expect hypothetical *gl.sah2 to yield <gjish>*. I recall
there's an article by Hamp somewhere with an alternative etymology of
*gjuhë, but I'll need some time to find it.

> IV. "Regarding *-sk^- certainly gives Albanian <-h->"
>
> It could be very probable that sk^ merged to sk in PIE times (see
> Lubotsky's article), so if true, this fact will put in cause your
> metathesis's timeframe (*swek' > *wesk') that should be moved in
> PIE's time, that for sure it wasn't the case.

Why? If *sk^ (as distinct from *sk) was not permitted by the phonotactic
rules of Pre-Albanian, it would have automatically be adjusted to *sk.
It doesn't matter when the merger took place.

> Also there are not other examples showing *swe > *wes.

Not everybody agrees with Lubotsky's views re *sk^, though the
neutralisation of *-sk- vs. *-sk^- is of course frequent and I, for one,
accept some of Lubotsky's analyses of such cases (e.g. *ske- > IIr.
*sc'a- > Proto-Indic *c'ha- > Skt. cha- [and Grassmannian s'a-!] = Av. sa-).

> But if sk' merged with sk already in PIE is another subject. Now
> regarding Proto-Albanian: we cannot detect any opposition sk / sk'.
> There are no examples showing a different treatement so for sure we
> can talk in Proto-Albanian only about sk > ks > h doesn't matter the
> original source: PIE sk or sk'.

It's of no consequence whatsoever as regards my derivation of <vjehërr>.

Piotr