Re: [tied] Re: h1,h2,h3 in Albanian

altamix wrote:

> apparently I stil misunderstand something. Is the "bH" not the
> notation for the aspirated "b"(bh)? If not, then maybe here is where
> I have the first problem in understanding. If yes, then the "bhr.h1-"
> shows some strange things in the -good said- this Rum. relative:
> -the "r." should be refletect in Rum as "râ" and not "r"

No! The change *r.h1 > ar is definitely pre-Proto-Albanian. It also
predates the vocalisation of the remaining instances of *r. > ri,
otherwise we would have had *r.h1 > *rih1 > *ri: > ri (no difference).
If the development was parallel to that in Iranian (or in Celtic, for
that matter), we should assume the following stages:

(1) compensatory lengthening upon the loss of the laryngeal, *r.H > r.:
(2) vocalisation of long *r.: > ar
(3) vocalisation of *r. > ri

(in this order). It makes sense, since long syllabic resonants are
inherently less stable than short ones (cf. Cz. vlk but dlouhý)

> If all I mentioned here is not too far from the truth, then the
> word "barzã" has nothing to do with "bardhë"; the fact the semantism
> of the both words is not the same -despite the try to explian it-
> will underline the pair barzã-bardhë is a false one.

As long as the white stork is (mostly) conspicuously white, the semantic
match is perfectly OK. It's funny that I should be defending a
Romano-Albanian conection and you should be so sceptical of it.

Piotr