--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:
>
> alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > As you know Piotr, the Whole Reconstruction of PAlb c^, c,
dz,
> > g^ are mainly based on the Attested Romanian dz, c and c^ still
> > present 'in the PAlb/Dacian? loans of the Balkan Latin' and not
Only
> > on the Albanian dh, th, s, z ...so please do not open this
subject
> > (when even you, didn't trust in it)....because this will affect
the
> > WHOLE MODEL only because you cannot justify the preservation of
> > intervocalic dh based on your own local rule...
>
> The fact is that the preform of <dh> was never lost if it
represented an
> older afficate (*3) rather than PAlb. *d, so that there may have
been a
> contrast between the product of the lenition of *d and the reflex
of the
> affricate.
What contrast Piotr, when we talk here about sec V-X? in sec V-VII
when d>dh took place you expect dh-1 <> dh-2 and next in the sec VII-
X you expect dh-1>zero and you imagine in the same time dh-2 not
zero, but later that dh2 to really passed to dh ?
Do you think that somebody will trust you with this theory?
I prefer to consider va as inherited and pre from *pra-a-da or
*pra-e-da and to apply the dh>zero contraction only on tri-syllabic
words than to invent dh-1 and dh-2, dz, ddz etc...with no link with
the reality...
Romanian evidence is nice indeed. It confirms the
> independently established reconstruction of PAlb. as having two
types of
> affricates, one from the old *K^ series, the other from palatalised
*KW
> (later merging with a few other sources of Mod.Alb. /s, z/; but it
> cannot be used as the cornerstone of PAlb. reconstruction, which
must be
> done primarily on the basis of inner Albanian evidence.
Of course we need also the inner Albanian evidence but these
evidence 'are identical' with Romanian ouputs:
So the inner Albanian evidence shows us:
1. dz > dh
2. g^ > dz (>z)
3. dj > dz
4. intervocalic d>dh rd>rdh
5. dh>>zero (only in try-syllabic words)
in this order... and this model allows us to explain all the cases
(with some discussion regarding va, pre, be~besë)
b. For all these transformation and timeframes the Romanian
outputs 'fits perfectly': dz, g^, ts, c^
So there is no difference between the inner Albanian evidences and
Romanian Ouputs from Proto-Albanian...If you see one please post it..
> How did *3(') change into /ð/, avoiding merger with /z/ from *3^
(W)? If
> the latter passed through a stage resembling *[3], old *3 must have
> changed into something different by that time, and that "something"
must
> have been both sufficiently contrastive and relatively similar
to /ð/.
> Hamp reconstructs a non-strident affricate like *[dð], and its
voiceless
> counterpart *[tþ], even for the earliest stages of Albanian; these
look
> like plausible intermediate steps between *c('), 3(') and modern
<th,
> dh>. Proto-Romanian *3 (modern /z/ ~ /3/) may very well reflect
this
> stage. If the lenition of *d yielded [ð], its similarity to [dð]
would
> have prompted the same kind of phonemic substituion in Romanian.
>
> Piotr
This 'hocus-pocus' Piotr of 'dz and ddz' :) (in place of 'dz>dh
finished earlier then g^>dz' etc..) is once again based on 'your fix
idea' that there is "no phonetic influence of Romanian Substratum on
the Balkan Latin and next on Proto-Romanian" => Based on this 'fix
idea' => 'you have tried first to put all these transformations
between sec II - sec V CE' ...
But because you cannot do this without to obtain a lot of
contradictions (see my logical presentations regarding different
tiemframes) you have started to invent different intermediary stages
for different transitions ....:
Here are some of them: dh-1, dh-2, dz-1, dz-2, Latin a:-1, PAlb
a:-2 ...Of course that "by inventing as many new sounds as you need"
(especially when you have no attestation for them) finally you will
arrive "to keep all the PRomanian 'loans' and the related PAlb
timeframes on an interval between sec. II-VI"...
By doing this you force the evidence based on the "fix idea" that
you "don't want" to accept "the phonetic 'autonomy' of Romanian-
Substratum" and "its evolution before and during the Romanization"
On my side, because all my logic related the PAlb timeframes is
accurate, "I'm not obliged" to accept "these allambications": with
dh-1, dh-2, dz-1, dz-2, Latin a:-1, PAlb a:-2...and I think that
nobody else will trust you on this direction...
Especially when the Romanian Language really kept all the ancient
traces and we can use these traces in accordance with PAlb inner
evolutions in order to establish a logical model without to invent
these additional sounds in PAlb...
By the way Piotr: why you don't present us all these dz-1 dz-2 dh-
1 dh-2 Latin a:-1 PAlb a:-2 during Albanian 1,2,3 ? Why you have used
only g^, dz, z and dh there?
I can answer you: because you have considered at that moment that
your short timeframes will not generate any contradictions: that
wasn't the case....
Best Regards,.
Marius