--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci"
<akonushevci@...> wrote:
>
Indeed, as I have
> proved *au yields in Alb. <a> in demonstrative pronouns: a-i, a-
jo,
> a-ta, a-to and is in opposition with *ko(m)-.
> Konushevci
>
The Albanian Demonstrative particle *a- was only *a- also in PAlb
(despite Demiraj's reconstruction < PIE *h2eu). I say this based on:
Romanian a-ja 'she, that one fem.'' <-> Albanian a-jo 'id.' < PAlb
*a-ja: because in Romanian *au is not reduced to a in such short
constructions (and also because Alb o <-> Rom. a < PAlb a: precedes
any (Balkan)Latin Loans in PAlb.)
The demonstrative particle of PAlb *a- is the same as the Sanskrit a-
in a-yám , a-dyá (see also Romanian a-zi 'today')
The origin of this particle was reconstructed by Beekes as *h1e- but
I think that 'he puts together by mistake 2 distinct particles' *h1e-
with another one that is either *h2e- or *h3e- (or, why not: *h1o-)
(See Lubotsky' note on Leiden related to [ay-ám] "The PIE nom.sg.m.
was *h1e, to which -i- (+ PIIr. *-am) was secondarily added. For the
reconstruction of the PIE paradigm see Beekes 1982-3: 208ff."
(if somebody has Beekes's articles I kindly ask him to post it)
Beekes' 'mistake' (the fact that we have two dem. particles and not
only one) is highlighted by the Albanian jetër 'other, another' <
PIE *h1e-tero- in opposition with Albanian a-jo a-to etc... where a
could be only from PIE *h2e-/*h3e-
Another possible reconstruction could be *h1o- `this one here'
versus *h1e- `that one there'
Marius
P.S. I put Beekes' "mistake" between "...", because I couldn't read
directly his article so I really don't know his arguments (so I only
suspect that he's wrong)
Question: the suffix -tero- in *h1e-tero- is from te+ro or from ter-
o or was directly -tero- ? With what meaning?