Re: [tied] Re: *H2kous- ‘to hear, feel’

From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 41372
Date: 2005-10-13

On 10/13/05, Jens Elmegård Rasmussen <jer@...> wrote:
--- 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-?
 
Dear Jens,
 
I am sorry for I can't reply now, because I have problem with Internet connection, but be sure that these verbs used in conjunctive in function of infinitive are pure Tosk phenomenon.
I will come back with enumerues other examples, where subjunctive is used instead of infinitive.
Usual form of third sentence would be: 2. E aj ME SHPËRBLYEMUN Israelnë n gjithë së këqiasht. (Ad completorum  XIII, pp.29) or 3. N. e aj atë ME SHPUEMUN mbë mishërier të Bagmit shenjt tat. (Exorcista Cathecuminorum, XXIV, pp. 73). Nevertheless, I must consult also original.
 

> 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

I am afraid it is much closer to PIE *ghel-, indeed from reduplicated form *ghi-ghl-yo. But, your etymolgy seems very correct.
 
 
Konushevci

 


SPONSORED LINKS
Online social science degree Social science course Social science degree
Social science education Bachelor of social science Social science major

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS