Re: Tow demonstrative particles *h1e- and *h2e-/h3e-/h1o- ?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3"
<alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Abdullah Konushevci"
> <akonushevci@...> wrote:

> 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?

************
-tero is adjectival suffix of compartive, marking contrast, as in
*eg'hs-tero (ADI, pp. 91). See also *sm.-tero > Greek <heteros>,
Alb. <jatër>, later umlauted prefixed form t-jetër 'other'.
In "Meshari" I found also <sjetër>, probably from *kWe-tero.

Konushevci