Re: *H2kous- ‘to hear, feel’

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci"
<akonushevci@...> wrote:

> Yes, you are right. I quote from Çabej's translitaration. There

are

> three other more examples, where the rhotacism is present:
>
> 1. Hinje se të mos FLERË as të mos e marë gjumi kush ty ruon (Ad
> sextam X, pp. 19,)
>
> 2. E aj të SHPËRBLERË Israelnë n gjithë së këqiasht. (Ad

completorum

> XIII, pp.29)
>
> 3. N. e aj atë të SHPJERË mbë mishërier të Bagmit shenjt tat.
> (Exorcista Cathecuminorum, XXIV, pp. 73)

Are you sure these forms are Tosk? They are all 3sg present
subjunctive. The normal ending is -ë or -jë (older -një), in some
cases Tosk -rë, Geg -në, but in others -rë in both dialects. There
is certainly old -r- in shpjerë from shpie 'bring away' which is a
compound with bie, sbj. bjerë. Pekmezi cites <të flerë> and <të
blerë> as analogical on forms with Tosk -rë from -në, but since he
gives no Geg forms with -n-, I cannot see that this is necessarily
correct. If it is instead analogical on të bjerë, no Tosk influence
is needed, for -r- yields -r- in Geg all by itself. Ar you awar of
Geg forms with -n-?

> I agree that all this could only marginally affect the debate over
> the basis of /dëgjo-/. Buz. <endiglo-> (sorry for these

corrections).

Oh, feel free, it is important that forms are quoted correctly even
when one gets tired.

> But, if we accept the Alb. <dëgjoj> is derived from Lat.

intelligere,

> as Meyer, Orel, You, Çabej, in some way also Hamp (*int(l)ligare),

I

> am not able to explain other derivatives, like: për•gjoj 'to spy',
> sendër•gjoj 'to lie, fabricate' or Geg derivative

<bri•goj> 'censure,

> <dë•goj> 'here', force someone to not talk' (cf. synonym
> <gjegj> 'here' in "Meshari" and its derivatives: përgjegj 'to
> answer', <ndërgjegje> 'consciousness'). If you give answer on all
> these questions, I really give up.

There does not seem to exist a preverb bri-, so brigoj is hardly a
compound with a second part "-goj". That practically leaves us with
dëgjoj and -gjegj. Meyer explained gjeg- from *degj- by
assimilation, but that is hardly correct. In Buzuk, gjegj- is a
common verb for 'to hear', and since Buzuk has preserved gl, it
seems impossible to have *degl- (supposedly from intellig-)
assimilate to gjegj-. I do not know what gjegj- is, but it looks
like something like *sagi-. Could it be identical with Lat.
sa:gio: 'trace' (said of a hunting dog), Gothic sokjan 'seek'? It is
in part a verbum sentiendi, but involving a different sense. The
phonetics seem fine: *s- > gj- as usual; *a: > o, with umlaut then
e; g is palatalized to gj before the old y-present suffix.

Jens