> III. Also the derivation gjuhë < PIE *gl.sa: seems ok too.
>
> In conclusion : is difficult to reject intervocalic s>h in PAlbanian.
I.
> Piotr wrote:
> 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>*.
I don't have another zero-grade cognate: but to have a zero-grade
cognate for a full-grade (Sl.->PIE *galsos) is not perfect but is not
bad either....
So to can present zero-grade cognates for some full-grades is not so
bad, is quite acceptable...
II.
> Piotr wrote:
> 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.
Sorry, Piotr but when you said:
"'wolf' word is probably exceptional "
you apply once again one exception for one word...
There is no Rule wi > wu in Albanian ....."due to the labialising
influence of *w"
So wl.kWos > [l. > ul] PAlb. *wulk- > Alb. ulk/ujk is regular
The outputs for PIE *l. *r. are also ul~lu and ur~ru and not ONLY
li~il and ri~ir
Examples:
1. grurë 'wheat' < PAlb *gruna: < PIE g'r.:nom 'grain' ->so r. > ru
2. ul-zë 'elm' < PAlb *ulma < PIE l.mo- 'elm' ->so l. > ul
3. ujk 'wolf' < PAlb *wulka < PIE wl.kWos 'wolf ->so l. > ul
So gjuhë 'tongue' < PAlb *glusa(:) < *gulsa(:) < PIE *gl.sos is
regular.
III.
>> Piotr wrote
>> It was *gjishë
Of course if you don't accept that the intervocal s gave h you will
apply sh.
But for intervocalic s that gave h (>zero) we have :
1. Alb. kohë < PAlb *ka:sa: < PIE *ke:sa (see Sl. c^as&)
2. Alb. gjuhë < PAlb *glusa(:) < PIE *gl.so zero-grade for Sl.
*galso
3. Alb. vjehërr < PAlb *wesura < PIE *swek^uro
based on 'alternance c <-> s'-> for which we have more then 1 example
4. Alb. vaj-zë < LPAlb *warjë <- *warë < PAlb *wehara: < EarlyPAlb
*swesara: (-> Hamp's derivation)
You need to propose other derivations for all the above examples in
order to explain the h in all the above forms.
(for No. 3 you have proposed *swe > *wes but for this supposed
metathesis you don't have a second example).
Best Regards,
Marius