alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> P.S.
>
> 1. if a) it was *ac^i:-u: and
> if b) (based on Hamp) we have here the same pattern as in dy:
>
> then the derivation of Alb. dy: could be PAlb *dwai:-u: < PIE
> *dwo-ih1 (+ -o:u < *eh3u).
> For what reasons *dwo-ih1- was rejected as source of /dy:/?
You seem to be in agreement with Hamp about the development of *-o:u (in
masculine *dwo:u) into *-u: > Alb. -y. But if /-y/ is a "regular"
masculine dual endings, the simplest derivation of feminine /-y:/ from
it is preferable. *dwoi(h1)- + -o:u unnecessarily complicates things.
*-oi- normally gives Albanian /e/, and you need more ad hoc "rules" to
explain the modern vowel. Modern Albanian length is not inherited but
results from relatively late syllable contractions. How do you propose
to get /y:/ from expected /e + y/ in post-PAlb. times?
Since I don't particularly care for the reconstruction of the dual
ending as *-o:u, I'd prefer to derive /dy/ from the disyllabic Lindeman
form *dú[w]o: (cf. Gk. dúo(:)). This would have given *dúö:, contracted
into *du: already by the Roman times, but after the delabialisation of
final *u: in monosyllabic words. My solution is actually very similar to
Hamp's except that no special rule is proposed (the contraction is of a
natural type, so it's not ad hoc), and therefore may be preferred on
grounds of parsimony.
> 2. (No link with the topic above) but could you explain why you have
> written (a) in (a)c^-u:? I asked this, because the initial a was for
> sure there in Dacian Times.
Of course it was originally there, but then was dropped, hence the
brackets. I don't know the exact date of the loss, so I prefer not to be
too specific about the uncertain details of "Dacian Time" Proto-Albanian.
Piotr