--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
>
> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > In conclusion Piotr: So many 'analogical restaurations or
> > retentions' that you can see above could sound finally for
you 'like
> > a rule'...?
>
> You are just recycling your original argument ad nauseam without
> offering any new evidence.
I indicated about 5 additional words with their derived forms 3-4
derived form for each of them....showing an intervocalic d that is
still visible (so I'm not 'recycling'...)
> No matter how many such verbs you quote, it's
> simply more of the same thing: the restoration took place
_generally_ at
> the end of verb stems, where intervocalic stops alternated with
final
> ones.
Ok. It's all I want to hear '_generally_' ...so if it was
a 'general retention' => the intervocalic d>dh remain
there '_generally_'
> If there was no such alternation, as in nouns like <thëri> (Geg
> <thëni:>) 'nit' < *k^oníd-ah2 or <be:> 'vow' < *bHoidHah2, the
stop,
> never exposed, could not be restored.
a) First, PIE *k^oníd-ah2 had 3 syllables in PAlb *Tsa-ni-da: /ca-
ni-da:/ so this example failed 'in my garden'
b) Regarding Alb be we need to talk about it Only Together with
Alb. besë (because both words have more or less the same meaning)
(<PIE *beidh- 'to persuade; persuasion, oath' )
So is better to assume here a single PAlb form *bai-da-tsi-a:
having to different stressed patterns that gave 2 forms in Albanian
depending on the stress position:
a) a contracted one:
PAlbanian *bai-dtsi-a: /bai-dci-a:/ (3 syllables) > Alb be(:)
b) a non-contracted one:
PAlbanian *bai-da-tsj-a: /bai-da-ci-a:/ (4 syllables) > Alb
besë
In both cases we have 3 or 4 syllables: so the lost of
intervocalic dh (<d) is regular...
For a Similar Contraction: see Romanian words: bade, baci /bac^/
and bãdiTã /b&dic&/ where baci (my opinion) arrived from *baditsa >
*badtsa/ > baci
As for the final *-d(H) being
> reflected as <dh>, it shows an Old Albanian final sandhi rule: *d
was
> lenited in this position. The same happened word-initially, though
here
> the lenition is variable, and it seems that initial *d- originally
> changed to /ð/ only when it followed a vowel or *r at the end of
the
> preceding word or prefix.
I would not link the initial dh(<d) (as in Alb 'ten') with the
history of intervocalic d>dh(>zero) or with that of rd>rdh...
> The loss of intervocalic *-d- vas probably via *-ð-, though we
have no
> direct evidence of the intermadiate stage, which must have been
rather
> short-lived. It seems to be the most natural path of development
and is
> consistent with the observation that *-d(H)- often ends up as
Mod.Alb.
> <dh> in non-intervocalic positions.
At least we agree here ...so you need to take into account all the
bi-syllabic words still containing an intervocalic dh like vjedhull
(not only that ones showing a dh from a d)
But we agree on d>dh>zero, with the exception of the idea 'of a
short stage' :
intervocalic d>dh and rd>rdh was the first stage (with visible
results even today) and dh>zero was the second one : this model is
in accordance with the Facts that we have...
> > And the 'stupid idea' that Alb va is inherited could appear now
as a
> > reality....?
> I didn't say the idea was stupid. I just don't believe the final
*d
> would have been lost from pre-Alb. *wad-(os), which is why I much
prefer
> the loanword solution (also admitted by Demiraj -- note his
uncertainty
> about the PIE reconstruction).
>
> Piotr
>
If the PAlb was *wad-a < PIE *vad-o(s) ...you are right, of
course.
But if the PAlb was *wa-da-wa (with the ending -wa as in Dacian
malwa- > Alb mall <-> Rom. mal (see 'Dacia Maluensis' (attested)
later translated in 'Dacia Ripensis') => there is no issue...
Note: See here also the timeframe of PAlb lw > PAlb ll (ended on
the first period of Roman Times in Balkans, so later sec III CE
[201,300]) because next lw > lb in Balkan Latin & PAlbanian ,
together with the explanation: why we have no rothacism in Romanian
mal (and not only there)
Best Regards,
Marius
P.S. I remembered also the times when you have derived besë from
*benc^a and the PIE *bindh- and you refused to take into account my
argument <that the semantism 'doesn't fit'>...