Re: [tied] Question on Albanian sy

Sorry please read

PAlb *dwai:u: > [ai >e] PAlb *dweiu:

in place of

PAlb *dwai:u: > [ai >e] PAlb *dwei:u:

In the derivation below:

a) PIE *dwo-ih1 + uh1 > PAlb *dwai:u: > [ai >e] PAlb *dweiu: >
PAlb [w>zero; ei>i] > dju: > [iu:>y] > Alb. dy 'two'


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3"
<alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

>
> > 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?
>
>
> Hello Piotr,
>
> My main assumption is that (and I hardly tried to respect this
> rule):
> "The single source of Albanian y is iu (u:) or ui (knowing

also

> that the intermediate stage of u: was iu (my opinion)"
> Note: Other opinions (like Orel) proposed ui as intermediate
> stage of u: (but this not change the assumption above).
>
> I know that different authors have proposed other sources for
> Albanian y, but their examples are not very reliables.
>
> If you know a good example showing a different source of
> Albanian y please to indicate it here...
>
> a) So in my opinion o:u cannot generate y (as Hamp proposed).

And

> before this o:u cannot generates u: also ...
>
> b) Also (sorry but I couldn't find another example to can accept
> your rule) I have also doubts that *ú[w]o: (in dú[w]o:) can

generate

> u: (via *úö:). Please to post another example to can validate your
> proposal.
>
> Next trying to respect the rule above both sy and dy needs an u:
> (and my issue is that I cannot identified well the source of this
> u:) I said this because both PIE Roots already contains the
> necessary i: but there is no trace of u:
>
> From here my derivations:
>
> a) PIE *dwo-ih1 + uh1 > PAlb *dwai:u: > [ai >e] PAlb *dwei:u: >
> PAlb [w>zero; ei>i] > dju: > [iu:>y] > Alb. dy 'two'
>
> The derivation is ok for me (there is no 'ad-hoc' rule

or '/e+y/'

> as you told me, due to the right timeframe of each transformation:
> 1. ai > e
> 2. ei > i
> 3. (i)u: > y
>
> b) PIE *h3e/okW-ih1 + uh1 [h3e/o > o >a ; kW/i>c^] > PAlb *ac^i:-

u:

> > [c^> c > s] PAlb *asi:u: > [a >zero ; i:u: > y(:)]> Alb. sy

(:)'eye'

>
> The issue that remains is 'from where this u:' ? But whatever

was

> its source ( :) ) if 'the single source of y is iu (u:) or ui '

for

> sure the presence of u: is necessary.
>
> If we will not go 'for this 'additional' u:' we are obliged to
> find a reliable source for y (so a new rule) other than iu(u:) or

ui.

>
> From here 'my preference' for the 'additional u:'...
>
> Best Regards,
> Marius
>