--- Abdullah Konushevci <
akonushevci@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Sean Whalen
> <stlatos@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- Abdullah Konushevci <akonushevci@...> wrote:
> >
> > > form *ko- + *wo:-n-yo > PAlb kwo:nja:. Greek
> verbal
> > > name ate 'fault,
> > > guilt, blame', aaein 'to insult, harm, injure'.
> > > (Pokorny 1. wa:-
> > > 1108.)
> >
> > > Cluster *k(o)-w- seems to be
> > > treated as *gwh-.
> > > (Pokorny 2. weik- 1128.)
> >
> > I'd consider the possibility that PIE *ksom
> > underwent changes such as:
> >
> > m>0/V_w
> > V>0/ [various]
> > ks>x/_G
> > kw>p
> > xw>f
> ************
> Dear Sean,
> If I understood you well, you claim that m become 0
> if preceded by
> vowel (V) and followed by semivowel (w). Later you
> claim that vowel
> become 0 in various contexts (I'm not sure about
> it)?
Yes. I'm not sure if *ksomw- > *ksw- happens before
most cases of vowel deletion (it's possible something
similar happens in Greek) so I didn't want to try to
specify the exact context before I know what order is
possible or necessary.
> Your third
> step is that cluster *ks > h if preceded by _ and G
> (I don't
> understand what you mean by this symbol).
G = any glide (w, j = y). The notation:
m>0/V_w = Vmw>Vw = amw>aw etc.
so
ks>x/_G = ksG>xG = ksw>xw etc.
or velar+fricative > velar fricative before w
and possibly all velar+fricative > velar fricative?
> Your
> fourth step is kw > p
> and final one xw > f.
Yes, since I've already said it looked like kw>p was
necessary in Albanian (Greek has kYw > kW(kW) > p(p)
but since kY>c^ etc. in Alb. an exact parallel is
impossible) so if there's a small bit of evidence that
xw>f both would become more certain.
Since Greek has *ksom- > *ksum- > xun- it seems
possible for Albanian to have a similar form (no
matter what the ultimate origins may be). If so then
instead of early kw>p then much later kw>f after V>0
there would only be one stage in which both kw>p and
xw>f occur at the same time. This doesn't make my
derivation certain, but I'd prefer it if
timing/ordering allows.
Of course, my derivation would be helped by any
supporting evidence that velar+fricative > velar
fricative (even if only in certain positions), then
probably xw>f and x>h elsewhere. I think I have some
slight evidence, but it's uncertain enough that it
can't really prove anything.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367