Re: Proto-Albanian Timeframes

> Dear Marius,
>
> it can be I missed a lot and I cannot follow with lexical data

some

> of the aspects you mentioned here. Thus, I will cut up what I can
> trace and I will let & comment the aspects where I cannot trace

it,

> hoping you will revert with additionly explanations.
>


> > II. Pre-historic times (before sec V BCE)
> > ==========================================
> > II.1 n. > a ->shared with Pre-Rom.
> > II.2 m. > a ->shared with Pre-Rom.
>
> examples for "n., m." > a ?

1. PIE *septm.-(ti) > PAlb (III) septa-(ti) /septa-/ > PAlb (IV) së-
ta-ti > PAlb(V) shta-të >

2. PIE dek^m.-(ti) > PAlb (II) *detsa-(ti) /deca-/ > PAlb dheth-ti >
dhjeth-të

NOTE-1: My opinion is that the final -ti were added only at the end
of the Roman Time

NOTE-2: Despite other explanations I suspect an assimilation d<->th
<-> dh-th (at the begining of Roman Times soon after ts>th).
In any case d>dh in 'ten' happened Before e >je otherwise *djetsa

> *dzetsa- > *zetsa- ( similar with Romanian zece; Ar. dzeatse <

Latin decem)
I suspect also, that at Pre-Romanians there wasn't any d>dh
in 'ten' because there wasn't any ts >th to influence that
transition...so the Pre-Romanian Form was *dzetsa-

3. PIE n.bh(u)-lo > PAlb (III) *abula > Rom abur <-> Alb avull

> > II.20 k^ > dz (before sec V BCE)->shared with Pre-Rom.
> > II.21 g^ > ts (before sec V BCE)->shared with Pre-Rom.
>
> is this not other way arund? k^ > ts and g^ > dz ?

Of course, k^ > ts /c/ and g^ >dz => Sorry, I have typed by error

> > II.40 -tt- [-tst-] > c^
>
> examples?
>

pasur~pasun (part. of kam) > pac^un- >*potst- > PIE *pot'-to
< PIE *pot-to

> > IV. Before Roman Times
> > ========================
> >
> > IV.20 sk/'some' contexts? > ks (before sec V BCE) ->shared with

Pre-

> > Rom.

Is considered that sk > ks > h skeud-a > kseud-a > heudh-a > hedh

> > IV.20 sp > ps (before sec V BCE) -> shared with Pre-Rom.
> >

PIE *kep-so > PAlb *kjap-sa > Alb. qafë <-> Rom c^afã

PIE *spel-h1-no > psjal-na > fjallë > fjalë 'word' (l?)
(or only *spel-a: > fjalë but even so l? )

> > IV.30 e: > a: (later on sec III BCE) -> shared with Pre-Romanians
> >

Alb. plo-të 'full' > PAlb. pla:-ta > PIE *ple:-to 'full'

> > IV.40 s-/w,accented syllable > zero (later on sec III-II BCE)
> > -> shared with Pre-Romanians
>
> examples for all these 4 situations?

Alb. vëlla < PAlb *swe lauda:
Alb. vajzë < OAlb *varë < *vë-ha-rë (Hamp) < PAlb *swesara:
Alb. vetë < PAlb *swai-ta
Alb. vatër~votër < PAlb. *swai a:tra (Rom. vatrã/vetre)

See the long discussions on this subjects...

>
> > IV.41 s-/accented syllable > gj (later on sec III-II BCE)
> > -> shared with Pre-Romanians (su:sa: > PAlb gjush <-> Rom. gjuj)
>
> something doesnt fit here. an "gi" in the protoroman times should
> yeld an "g^" in Rum, not an "gi".

Today we have Rom. chiar (that is almost q) and Rom cer (c^) in
the same time (so is possible to have both sounds in the same time)

At that moment (Before Roman Times (not during Roman Times)) g^
was present but it was from gW/+ not from gi, and gi wasn't g^ but
only gi ...On the other hand this gj appears from s-/accented like
su:sa: or su:s^a: 'progenitor' > Rom gjuj <-> Alb gjysh

I think that in Roman Times we have in Proto-Romanian both gj and
g^ as distinct sounds (see Romanian ghiuj, ghiara, neghinã etc...All
these gj are not only from gl)

> > IV.60 ps > f (later on sec I CE) -> shared with Pre-Romanians
> > IV.61 ks > h (later on sec I CE) -> shared with Pre-Romanians
> > IV.63 Maybe s/intervocalic > h (later on sec I BCE) -> ex.gjuhë -
>
> > shared with Pre-Romanians
>
> example for all 3 situations?

ps>f see ceafã

For sk>ks>h see Rom. hudã > *sku:d-a

s/intervocalic > h see the discussions around gjuhë, kohë, vajzë
vjehërr etc...

> > V.43.b we-/unstressed > ve- (sec I- III CE) -> PreRom preserved
> > the we (later we > wã > wo > o -> Rom. hots < *wedz-tsa)
>
> is there any other example of dz-ts > ts beside of "ots" (hots) ?
> >

I don't have other examples by now:
But:
we/unstressed > o in Romanian
and hots < *wedz-tsa is 'identical' with Alb. vjedh < *wedz-a
regarding the semantism
2 strong matches is too much: should be linked each-other

In my opinion dz-ts functioned like 2 Stops (the last one remains) -
see also Albanian words that finished in th

> > V.50 ai > e (sec II - III CE) -> shared with Pre-Romanians
>
> example?

PAlb *aidz-a > PAlb *edh <-> Rom. ied (<Lat. haedus)
PAlb *aidzi-ja: 'she-goat' > PAlb *edhi > Alb dhë

See Also the Attested: Dacian Aidzisis (in Banat) > *aidzi-ts(j)a
or *aidzi-s(j)a

NOTE: Initial e>je in Romanian even is not from a short e

> >
> > V.60 lw > ll (sec II- III CE) -> shared with PreRom.
> > V.61 rw > rr (sec II- III CE) -> shared with PreRom.
>
> example for both?

lw > ll

Alb. mjell < PAlb. melwa(:)
Rom. mãlai < PRom *me-llá-ja < Pre-Rom *melwa(:)-ja

rw > rr

Alb. berr 'sheep' <-> Rom. bâr(r) 'interj. to call the sheeps'
< PAlb barwa: (Germanic barug 'hog')

Alb. morr 'louse' > ma:rwa: (Slavic *morv&)


NOTE: Note also the reason why there is no rothacism in Romanian
mãlai



Alb.

> > V.91 b/intervocalic > zero (sec V-VI CE) -> shared with PRom.
> > V.92 w/intervocalic > zero (sec V-VI CE) -> shared with PRom.
> > V.93 y/intervocalic > zero (sec V-VI CE) -> shared with PRom.
>
> examples for all 3 situations?

y/intervocalic => PAlb *treje(s) > Alb tre <-> Rom trei (<Lat tre:s)
It's true Alb tre seems to be an isolate example...

I will come back with b and w...

> > VI. End of Roman Times (sec V-VII)
> > ===================================
> >
> > VI.2 ms > s (sec IV-V CE)-> shared with PRom.
> example of ms > s ?

Alb. mish < PIE *mem-so

I don't know ms > s in Romanian but I considered that should be
similar with ns>s
Latin mensa > Rom. m(e)asã pl. mese

> > V.40 a-,w-,e-/not-stressed > zero (sec V-VI CE) -> partial

shared

> > with PRom.
>
> examples?

In Romanian

a-/not-stressed > zero
Lat. araneam > râie
also
toamnã, unchi, noaten, miel...

e-/not-stressed > zero
Lat ex- > Rom. s
Lat extra- > Rom. strã

w-/not-stressed > zero
No such cases in Romanian

In Albanian :
e-/not-stressed > zero

PAlb *aidzi-ja: 'she-goat' > PAlb *edhi > Alb dhi

a-/not-stressed > zero
see Alb rem

w-/not-stressed > zero
Sorry, I put by error this.
I have had in mind:
rrime 'rainworm' > PAlb *wrim-a < PIE *wr.mi ~ wr.mo but there is
wr>rr not w->zero

> > VI.50 nt > nd (sec V-VII)-> NOT shared with ORom.
>
> I will write here nC > nC1 where C1= sonor alophone of C mute

I prefer to enumerate all the cases ...even there is a general rule
too

> > VII.12 ei > i (sex IX-X) ->NOT shared with ORom.
>
> I will say this feature is shared as well see fetei > feti

Yes, but we have also Rom. trei (-> in Albanian ei>i is general)
We can say 'partial'

> > VII.13 a/before i > e (sec IX - X) -> NOT shared with ORom
>
> the apophony is known in both Lang. in Rom. "a" > "e" before "e"
> and "i".
>
>
>
> Alex

Could you give some examples....