Re: [tied] Question on Albanian sy

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

>
> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > 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'
>
> Lotsa question-marks:

> I don't understand what this *-uh1 is supposed to be, and why I

should

> believe it isn't merely an ad-hoc ornament.

You are right. But on the other hand I have asked you : "Are you
sure about another source of y but iu (u:) and iu? "
a) If you are sure, please post here a reliable example.
b) If you are not sure, the u(:) and the i(:) was there because
otherwise we cannot obtain any y. So in this later case u: isn't
an 'ad-hoc' ornament _whatever_ was it's PIE source.

> I don't understand why the masculine form of "two" (/dy/) should

have

> been derived from the PIE feminine/neuter form plus this mystery

morpheme.

> I don't understand why, if the feminine/neuter form is historically

more

> fundamental (as the derivation above seems to imply), the actual
> Albanian feminine /dy:/ is an extension of its masculine

counterpart.

You are right again. But on the other hand I have asked you : "Are
you sure about another source of y but iu (u:) and iu"
a) If you are sure, please post here a reliable example.
b) If you are not sure, the u(:) and the i(:) was there because
otherwise we cannot obtain any y. So in this later case i: should be
there too. What are the forms of 'two' that contained an -ih1?

> I don't understand several minor details of the proposed phonetic
> development, and especially the failure of *dj- to yield

Mod.Alb. /z-/.

It's all about the timeframes ... dj > dz finished before (w)
ei>i ..so my derivation is correct

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

Best Regards,
Marius