From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 38858
Date: 2005-06-22
> for 1: if you mean with "z" the sonor "s" then I guess the intermediaryWhatever it was, it was the voiced counterpart of *s. If you know the
> *z there is a wrong postulate. The "gj" is to explain other way, via an
> another "altered" sound, but not from a clear "z" as in Slavic "za".
> for 2: s > sh regardless if the following vowel was stressed or not, seeThese Latin words were borrowed after the operation of the voicing rule.
> the final "sh" or Latin loans (shálë, shékull, shénjë)