Re: *H2kous- ‘to hear, feel’

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jens Elmegård Rasmussen <jer@...>
wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Abdullah Konushevci
> <akonushevci@...> wrote:
>
> > Thanks a lot for your feedback. I guess that as Barich, as well
> as mia
> > parvitas, are aware for Meyer's etymology. With due respect to all
> > predcessors, I think and I find more plausible my etymology,
> suggested also
> > by Barich.
> > But, lets see what Meyer have written: "digjonj, dëgjonj", geg.
> auch
> > <ndëgjoj nigjoj>, in Fieri <ngjonj, ndërgjonj> Mitk. Alb. B. 169,
> gr.
> > <dëlgjonj> (Poros), cal. <dëlgjonj> (Greci) <diligjonj> (Barile),
> sic.
> > <dëlgonj, ndëlgonj> (Pal. Adriano), <glëgonj> (Contessa) 'höre,
> gehorche'.
> > Aus lat. intelligere. Das it. und gr. Alb. hat die altesten

Formen

> bewahrt.
> > <ndëlgim> ist sic. Pitre 290 'intellegenza'; auch im Matth. 15,

17

> von
> > Frascineto übersetzt <ndëlgonj> gradezu 'intellegere'. <ngjonj>
> ist nach
> > Doz. 'entendre' und 'écouter'. Vgl. <intendere> für 'hören'. Aus
> der 1.
> > Sing. Praet. <intelligo> staumt, mit Assimilierung des Anlauts an
> das
> > inlautende /gj/ aus /gl/ (füur -lg), <gjegjenj, gjegjin>
> cal. 'höre' (Aor.
> > <hörte> S. Caterina Pap. 668), <gjegjun> geg. 'gehört'; Pass.
> <gjegjem>
> > 'höre, gehorche', als Antowrt auf den Namensanruf 'hier!'
> <përgjegjem>
> > 'antworde, erwidere'. (Meyer, EW, pp. 66-67).
> > Lets see also what Orel have written too: <dëgjoj, aor. dëgjova>.
> Dialectal
> > forms <ndëgoj> and, particulary, <dëlgonj, diligonj> reflect the
> obvious
> > Latin source - intellegere 'to percieve' (Meyer, Wb. 66-67).

Meyer-

> Lübke Gr.
> > Grundriss I 1054; Barich ARSt 33-34 (related to Gk akouo 'to
> hear', Goth.
> > hausjan 'id.'); Çabej Etim. III 217-218. (Orel, AED, 62).
>
> Sure, that's what they write. And what's wrong with that?
>
> > First, to be taken as a true etymology Meyer's one, we may have
> other
> > examples where Latin long /e:/, followed by liquid /r/ have
> yielded Alb.
> > <-onj> (cf. Alb. <vyej> 'to be worth> from Lat. <vale:re>, so
> long /e:/
> > followed by liquid is regularly diphthonged.
>
> What is the relevance of that? What "Latin long /e:/" are you
> talking about? What "liquid /r/"? Have you completely changed the
> subject?
>
> > Second, supposed metathesis l - g > g - l must also be proven, as
> well as in
> > infinitive form <intelligere> as wel as present <intelligo>.
>
> In many of the forms you cite the order -l-g- is preserved as it

was

> in intelligo. So what's the need of a metathesis? Or are you saying
> that Buzuk's <endiglogn-> is not the same word as ndëlgónj and
> modern standard (3sg) dëgjón?

[AK]

No. I didn't say nothing about different dialectal forms, cited by
Meyer and Buzuk's form <endiglogn>, but I like to point out, even
more to strongly stress, that not only Meyer, but also many others,
are not aware that Tosk preposition <ndë> 'in' is simply homorganic
form of oldest one <në> (see also Meyer under *ndë unit). So, Buzuk's
form <endi-glonj> is indeed prefixed form, as is Geg <n-goj> 'I
hear', where e- is epenthetic sound, like in <embetha> 'on them,
attack' etc. Otherwise, PIE cluster *-nt- has been developed in *-nd-
(under the impact of nasal /d/)> nn (/d/ assimilated in contact
in /n/) and, at last, in /n/, as testify words like Alb.
<hânë/hënë> 'moon', <janë> 'are', <punë> 'job, work' etc., the reason
why intevocalic /n/ was not rhotacized. So, -nd- and -mb- are simply
homorganic alomorph of -n- and -m-.

> > Third, instead of all these nonsenses, where do you see

defficulty

> of Alb.
> > <ngoj> to be derived from *H2kous-n-yo, attested as well in
> Arbëresh (see
> > Meyer above) and Tosk variant as regular hypercorrection of Geg
> form.
>
> I see an insurmountable difficulty in the fact that your chosen
> <ngoj> has so many variant forms which you apparently refuse to
> accomodate in a meaningful way.

[AK]
No, I didn't refuse. I bilieve that the problem of hypercorrection is
much clear. Because, as you may have seen, also in some idioms of
Tosk dialects exists form <ngonj>, we may conclude that form with -gl-
cluster are an hypercorrection, for this cluster was developed in
Geg dialect as /g/ and in Tosk as /gj/: Tosk <gjuri> vs. Geg <guni>,
both from older form *gluni; Tosk <gjemb>, Geg <gem>, both from older
form *glem- or Tosk <gjuha>, Geg <guha> etc. So, Geg <goj>, Tosk
<gloj>.

> Jens

Konushevci