[tied] Re: Question on Albanian sy

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

>
> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > No *-o(s) and *-o: wasn't lost Piotr in pre-Roman time: they
> > passed to ë. And that ë was still there when the intervocalic -d-

was

> > lost...
>
> I think it's clear that I mean the IE endings *-os (the nom.sg. of
> thematic masculines) and *-o: (the 1sg. pres. of verbs). If you

insist

> they were still there at the time of the -d- loss -- well, I give

up.

> This conversation is terminated as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Piotr
>

Hello Piotr,
Ok, Piotr : *-o: (the 1sg. pres. of verbs) was lost before the lost
of intervocalic -d-, so in hedh we have had only one syllable *hedh
when the intervocalic -d- was lost

But next, please explain us why the dh in the form <<Ne hedhim>> 'We
throw' (see below Abdullah conjugation) wasn't lost? It was
intervocalic or not at that moment :) ? Same question for other bi-
syllabic forms in the below conjugation ...

Best Regards,
marius

--- In balkanika@yahoogroups.com, Abdullah Konushevci
<akonushevci@...> wrote:

>
> Unë hedh 'I throw'
> Ti hedh 'You throw'
> Ai/Ajo hedh 'He/She throws'
> Ne hedhim 'We throw'
> Ju hidhni 'You throw'
> Ata/Ato hedhin 'throw'
>
>
> On 11/28/05, alexandru_mg3 <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Abdullah,
> > Please to conjugate the Alb. hedh at Ind. Pres. (all the persons) I
> > want to see if the dh in hedh is lost in bi-sillabic words...
> > I'm almost sure that dh remains there in all the derived forms
> > having only 2 syllables...but I need to can check this.
> > Thanks a lot,
> > Marius
> >