alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> Piotr, you need to add an argument to the following question:
> 'Why -(ë)shti in madhështi: couldn't be added later?"
>
> I ask this because -(ë)shti seems to be an 'active' suffix in
> Albanian...
Abdullah has already explained part of it. A few additional comments:
The vowel of the suffix is etymological, not merely epenthetic, since a
cluster of three consonants would otherwise have been simplified at a
very early date (cf. *s(w)ek^s- + *-ta: > gjashtë. The suffix is not one
of those recent things (like -ishtë/-ishte from Slavic) but looks like
an old and unproductive formation, possibly derived from a comparative
in *-jos/*-is-. I believe the absence of palatal umlaut excludes in this
case a preform like *ma3-is-t-ija:, with the nil grade of the suffix,
and the *a vocalism here and in the basic adjective <madh> makes a
direct connection with *meg^h2- rather difficult. It would perhaps be
easier to derive the Albanian words from the root *magH- via *magH-jó-
(or comp. *mágH-jo:s), *magH-jes-t- (cf. Lat. ma:iesta:t-). We only need
to assume that *-gHj- developed like *-g^H- in Albanian. I know of no
counterexamples to that.
Piotr