From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 42380
Date: 2005-12-02
On 12/2/05, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:Abdullah Konushevci wrote:
> I don't like to argue, but how do you explain in this case the Geg
> variant <kepa>: where do you see /ie/ that will couse probably
> palatalization of velar /k/ as it did in <qiella>, where probably we
> have to deal with diphthong. And, if we follow your explanation, why,
> for example, Alb. <nge> from <ngae> didn't couse also the palatalization
> of velar etc., etc.
Romance /E/ had a tendency to diphthongise, hence its falling together
with the native source of <je> in Albanian (cf. medicus > mjek, etc.).
<kepë>/<qepë> must heve developed out of Latin ce:pa yielding the close
vowel /e/, which did not diphthongise. <nge> has the North Geg variant
<ngæ> which, together with the absence of palatalisation, indeed points
to an original contracted form, *n-gaë, usually thought to reflect
*-gHodH-ah2, uncertain as such etymologies inherently are. I don't know
of any evidence suggesting *a + *ë contraction in the case of <pre:>,
for which the most straightforward and most likely source is *preë <--
*prEda < Lat. praeda, just as in the Romance languages. There's no
diphthongisation here because of the initial cluster, cf. drejtë <
d(i)réctu-.************Why not we assume that much more straightforward and most likely source is *preu-k 'to hop' (cf. *reug- 'cloud' > Alb. <re>) with compensatory lengthening of dropped velar. Further more, they belong to same paradigm: undf. pre, def. pre-ja; undf. re, def. re-ja.Konushevci
Piotr