Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tied] Re: Early PAlb Depalatisations of k', g' > k, g

Expand Messages
  • Miguel Carrasquer
    On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:27:00 +0000, alexandru_mg3 ... I asked him this morning at Zagreb airport. ... Just type k in the Proto-Slavic , select Match
    Message 1 of 237 , Jul 4, 2005
      On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:27:00 +0000, alexandru_mg3
      <alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:

      >> >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.

      I asked him this morning at Zagreb airport.

      >> That rule is surely wrong (see Derksen: kleg-/klek-,
      >> kleNc^ati, kleNtI, klik-, kljuc^I, and I stopped checking
      >> there).
      >Could you indicate me Dersken's pages for these words.
      >I mean the url-s? I couldn't find them.

      Just type 'k' in the "Proto-Slavic", select "Match
      beginning", hit Enter, and browse through the k's.

      >> >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.

      Both are possible.

      > Viewing this I said: "if klausyti is from *k^low (and it is)
      >šlove couldn't be for k^low too (->as you initially have said)"

      I never said that. s^love: is from PBS *s^la:wija:.

      > So is not *k^low- or *k^lew- as you tried to say above. Is
      >either *k^low- or *k^lew-, but *k^low- couldn't be in any case, so
      >remain *k^lew-
      > 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.

      No-one in his right mind sees an /e:/ there.

      Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
    • Abdullah Konushevci
      ... Just one think I want to point out. -*g hwa:. If one accept etymologies *legWh- light Alb. , later light and *snoigWh- snow Alb.
      Message 237 of 237 , Sep 24, 2005
        On 6/23/05, Abdullah Konushevci <akonushevci@...> wrote:
        On 6/23/05, Abdullah Konushevci <akonushevci@...> wrote:
        > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@i...>
        > wrote:
        > > 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) <

        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/.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.