Re: [tied] Output of l. r. in PAlb and some Early PAlb Depalatisati

On 6/23/05, Abdullah Konushevci <akonushevci@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
> wrote:
> > alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> >
> It seems that Hamp's etymology is much more based, for I lack indeed
> the presence of nasal vowel /û/, that can be explained only by some
> nasal sound. So, derivation from *dlHn- > glûn- is correct, but
> regarding the second part, I really can't understand him.
>
> Konushevci

It must be noted that the first linguist that have explained Alb.
<gjuhë> was Henrik Barich through the reconstruction *gl.undh(wa) <
*dlong'hwa:. Otherwise, it was seen as a loan from Greek <glossa> or
<glotta>. Marius etymology is Orel's one.
If we take inton consideration English <talk>, I can't find any
obstacle to derive it from *dl.Hng'-saH2, where we have same treatment
of cluster *-g'(h)s- > -h- as *-k's->h (cf. *plok'-so > Alb. plah,
*pok'-so > Alb. <pah)

Any comments?

Konushevci