From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 42397
Date: 2005-12-04
>But why can't there have been a contrast in Proto-Albanian between *dz
> >Therefore, for all I know, /D/ could
> >derive from PIE *g^ or *g^H in all of these cases. Pokorny agrees
> >that _vjedh_ derives from PIE *weg^H, so I don't think there is a
> >problem with _vjedhull_ 'badger'.
>
> There is a problem Richard, because a dh is a dh whatever its origin
> was...(see below the timeframes)
>
>
> >On what basis do you claim contrariwise that /D/ from *d or *dH merged
> >with the outcomes of PIE *g^and *g^H before the loss of
> >intervocalic /D/?
> So the
> intervocalic d>dh(>zero) together with rd>rdh (see Latin o:rdinem >
> Alb urdhër) happened after the Main Waves of Latin Loans in PAlb
> (somewhere between sec V-VII) but before the Slavic Loans in Albanian
> where Slavic d > Alb d ...This timeframe is used also by Rosetti to
> explain why he considered Rom. gard <-> Alb gardh coming from the
> Balkan Subtratum and not from Slavic...
> On the other hand, PAlb dz > PAlb dh is ancient (together with PAlb
> ts /c/ > PAlb th) (see Piotr's question: 'how do you know that PRom
> do not used dz when they have loaned a PAlb dh?' -> of course 'a
> false' question but justified based on this ancient timeframe).
> Why ancient (=>it finished 'later' on sec. II max. III CE)?
> Because otherwise this dz (of < PIE *g^) would has been superposed
> with the dz of g^>dz>z (g^ < PIE *gW,*gw/+) and with the dz of PAlb
> *dj > PAlb dz, that is not the case : this dz passed to dh and all the
> others passed finally to z.
> Next because dj>dz(>z) has affected also the Latin loans in
> PAlbanian see Latin radius > Alb rezzë <-> Rom razã but not the Slavic
> Loans, we can fix its timeframe: dj>dz has ended 'later' on sec V-VI CE