Re: [tied] Re: Early PAlb Depalatisations of k', g' > k, g
- On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:27:00 +0000, alexandru_mg3
>I.I asked him this morning at Zagreb airport.
>> >Indo-European reconstruction: k^le:uH-
>> Derksen doesn't mean that *k^le:uH- would have given
>> *s'lo:u(?)-, which is impossible. He means that the PIE
>> _root_ can be reconstructed as *k^le:uH- (which is
>> doubtful). BS *s'lo:u(?)- would then be o-grade.
>I doubt. Dersken clearly indicates the derivations, even the endings
>are present whenever they are clear enough. Please check.
>II.Just type 'k' in the "Proto-Slavic", select "Match
>> That rule is surely wrong (see Derksen: kleg-/klek-,
>> kleNc^ati, kleNtI, klik-, kljuc^I, and I stopped checking
>Could you indicate me Dersken's pages for these words.
>I mean the url-s? I couldn't find them.
beginning", hit Enter, and browse through the k's.
>III.Both are possible.
>> >So for sure the PIE was k^le:uH-. and not *k^low-
>> Slava and s^love: are certainly not from *k^le:uH-.
>> They are innner-Balto-Slavic lengthened grade from *s^law- >
>> *s^la:w-. *s^law- itself can come from *k^low-, or as
>> Sergejus rightly remarked, from *k^lew-. It depends on
>> whether the lengthening from a to a: took place before or
>> after the development ew > aw (and eu > jau).
> a) Miguel, only to clarify: you have said *k^low not *k^lew.
> Viewing this I said: "if klausyti is from *k^low (and it is)I never said that. s^love: is from PBS *s^la:wija:.
>šlove couldn't be for k^low too (->as you initially have said)"
> So is not *k^low- or *k^lew- as you tried to say above. IsNo-one in his right mind sees an /e:/ there.
>either *k^low- or *k^lew-, but *k^low- couldn't be in any case, so
> And this is indicated/depends on the output k^l > k^l in
>opposition with k^l > kl. Or do you think that there is no de-
>palatisation in Balto-Slavic?
> b) Next the discussion is : it is *k^le:w- as Derksen proposed or
>it is *k^lew- as Serghei have said.
> In both situations there are still some workarounds to be done
>for Baltic and Slavic forms.
> But either was e: or e this form respect Kortland's rule.
> Kortlandt himself indicates šlove as an example to his rule...
> So (excluding myself from this equation) there are three persons
>that reject *klow : Derksen, Kortlandt and Sergei: all of them "see"
>an *e/e: in the PIE form and not an *o.
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
- On 6/23/05, Abdullah Konushevci <akonushevci@...> wrote:
On 6/23/05, Abdullah Konushevci <akonushevci@...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@i...>
> > alexandru_mg3 wrote:
It must be noted that the first linguist that have explained Alb.
<gjuhë> was Henrik Barich through the reconstruction *gl.undh(wa) <
*dlong'hwa:.Just one think I want to point out. -*g'hwa:. If one accept etymologies *legWh- 'light' > Alb. <leh>, later <lehtë> 'light' and *snoigWh- 'snow' > Alb. <neh> 'place where the snow melts', I guess that -g'hwa: could be easy treated, by analogy leveling, as *-g'wh > Alb. /h/.Konushevci