Re: [tied] Lost of intervocalic -d- in Albanian bi-syllabic words?

From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 42383
Date: 2005-12-02

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
>
> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > And if you will try to explain this too 'by analogy'...next
you
> > will need 'to assert an analogical restauration', for vjedhull
too
> > where the intervocalic dh is well visible...and this 'analogical
hocus-
> > pocus' will never arrive to an end...
>
> Of course it's highly likely that the <d> of <vjedull> owes its
presence
> there to restoration before a productive suffix. Cimochowski cites
the
> dialectal forms <vjedhullë> (the word was originally trisyllabic!)
and
> <vjetullë>, suggesting an original *vjed (> *vjedh) alternating
with
> *vjet (with normal final devoicing), possibly related to the verb
> <vjedh> 'steal', and extended with <-ull(ë)> after the operation
of
> word-final phonetic rules. He also notes another dialectal
variant,
> <vjellë>, which may be the expected regular reflex of inherited
> *vjed-ëla:, an elder cousin of the standard form.
>
> Piotr
>

I. Regarding: "dialectal forms <vjedhullë> (the word was originally
trisyllabic!) "

For sure the word was originary tri-syllabic: see Romanian vie-zu-
re => but it had only 2 syllables vje-dhull(ë) (with unvoiced ë)
when intervocalic dh>zero (sec VII -X) took place.

II. Regarding: "suggesting an original *vjed (> *vjedh)"

Seems that Cimochowski didn't know the Romanian Substratum word:
viedzure when he did his analysis (Once again? as in case of fluier<-
>fyell):
Otherwise nobody can suggest 'an original *vjed' when the
Romanian words is viedzure, isn't it? (there is no du>dz in
Romanian... )
The PAlb/Dacian? form was *wedzula (see Romanian dz(>z); and the
l-rothacism) => that goes to the PIE *weg^h-ulo < PIE root *weg^h-
'to drive ; to pull' (cognate: Skt. váhati)

Note-1: The only true part at Cimochowski, is that vjedhull '
badger' is derived from Alb vjedh 'to steal' (PAlb *wedza < PIE
*weg^h-o)=> and that -ullë is a suffix
And I will add on my side, that the originar PAlb/Dacian?
meaning for 'badger' was in this case 'Romanian: hoTomanul' Eng. 'a
kind of (small?) thief')

Note-2: But Cimochowski was again wrong: -ullë is an ancient suffix
present in PAlb times => that wasn't added 'after the operation of
word-final phonetic rules' :
Arguments:
1. -ullë participates only on the derivations of the inherited
words but not on the derivations of the Latin Loans in Albanian =>
so 'it wasn't active' in Roman Times...
2. Next -ullë is affected by the Romanian rothacism (Romanian
rothacism : 'later' sec VI ) ('-ure': viezure, nasture, strugure,
mãturã, mazãre)...
in Conclusion: the suffix : -ullë was long before there
(in 'Decebal's times for sure' because in Rom. madzãre (word having
this suffix: Alb modhull) we have Romanian a for Albanian o < PALb
a: (and the Timeframe of PAlb a:>o ->is 'before Roman times' ( at
least before 0CE))

So long before d>dh (not to talk about d>zero) -ullë was
there ...seems that Cimochowski have had some problems to establish
the right PAlb&Alb timeframes

III. "He also notes another dialectal variant <vjellë>"

=> this is fully understandable: the reduction to 2 syllables
took place later in that dialect. Having 3 syllables the lost of
intervocalic dh happens...

IV. By the way, Romanian hoT 'thief' belongs to the same family of
PAlb words : Rom. hoT /hoc/ 'thief' (DEX 'unknow etimology') < PAlb
*wedz-tsá /we3-cá/ < PIE *weg^h-k^-o.
I have had difficulties, until I could link Rom. hoT here, even
the semantism was obvious: the issue was until I have realized that
in hoT, I need to take into account an initial non-accented *we >
PRom *wã >ORom uo > Rom o: in opossition with the accented wé in
Rom. viezure
a) Rom. non-stressed we >(>wã>wo) >o as in
Lat.cubitus>*cuetu<*cuãtu>*cuotu(attested sec XVI)>cootu>cot and not
only there...)
b) for the PAlb suffix -ts- in HoT => see Albanian suffix -th (<
PAlb *ts /c/ < PIE -k^- (present in Skt. yuvas'á > Lat
juvencus 'young')

Best Regards,
Marius


P.S.: 1. Piotr do you realize that because d>dh took place earlier
you need to explain Any intervocalic dh that still remains there
(not only that ones that belongs to an originar d)? This is what I
wanted to say when I indicated vjedhull...
This is the real issue that I wanted to talk about when I give
vjedhull as example....
2. As regarding Albanian be => it has 3 syllables too in PAlb
times (I will vome back on this)