Re: [tied] Question on Albanian sy

alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> If I understood
> well you have also the opinion: that there is no i>y rule in Albanian.

Not as far as I can see.

> b) On the other hand, I want to add an additional question:
> Why in your opinion we need to reject the idea that a final u(:)
> existed in PAlb form *ac^-i(:)-u(:) with an additional corresponding
> ending to PIE *h3okW-íh1 + 'source of this u(:)'? Only because the
> other cognates don't show us a similar ending?

Mind you, what I said (after Hamp) was that the ending *-i: in something
like *ac^í: was _replaced by_, not _extended with_ a reflex of *-o:u. An
archaic, non-productive dual ending was replaced with one borrowed from
the numeral "two", which is a perfectly natural process.

Note that Proto-Albanian also introduced an innovated form of the
feminine numeral, which doesn't reflect PIE *dwoih1 (n. and f.) but is
derived from the inherited masculine and correlated with it (cf. Sard.
dúos, dúas). Whether Hamp is entirely right about *-o:u > -u: > -y is a
different question. I don't think he fully explores other possibilities,
e.g. the contraction of *du[w]o: > *dúö: > *du: > dy, but the rest of
his argument stands in either case.

> c) Talking about singularities: Did the Latin oculus shows an initial
> PIE long vowel (even the initial o in the Lat. oculus was a short
> one ?) Something like: oculus < PIE *h3o:kWe-los?

No, there's nothing to suggest a long vowel here. It's oculus < *h3okW-elo-.

> P.S. A not related question: why you preferred *h3okW-ih1 in place of
> *h3ekW-ih1?

Because I generally prefer surface-true reconstructions to highly
abstract ones. Whatever the underlying form, the phonetic realisation of
the vowel in PIE was /o/ because of the colouring effect of *h3.