Re: "b" versus "g"

--- In cybalist@..., "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@..., "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...>
> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@..., alexmoeller@... wrote:
> > > I have in romanian "bine"= good.
> > > But I have in sub dialect of romanians the same word whichi is
> > > pronounced "ghini"
> > > And here I wonder. I should understud if tehre should have
> > > been a "vini" a "pini" a labial one .
> > > But ghi? How can be such kinds of divagations explained in the
> > > same language at all?
> >
> > This change, particularly in voiceless consonants, has already

been

> > described in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/15344
> and
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/15380 . Indeed the
> > latter describes it as a reversal of the change kw > p, though

that

> is
> > not strictly true.
> >
> >
> > Richard.
>
> That's what I'd call a shibboleth-induced retrograde development.

;-)

Not advisable.
Latin /kw/ > standard Romanian /p/ before o, u and sometimes a.
Latin /kw/ > standard Romanian /tS/ before e, i.
Standard Romanian /p/, /t/ & /k/ > Dialect /kj/ before e, i.

As you see, the change is hardly ever, if at all, 'undone'. I'd save
you shibboleth idea for where it makes some sense.

> There are also examples of Irish converting
> Latin words in p- to k-, loans that went through Welsh. Perhaps they
> were aware of the p/q thing as a shibboleth between their languages?

Or maybe they couldn't be bothered to struggle with the foreign /p/?
I believe we have an Irish text advising how to pronounce <p>, namely
/b/ and /h/ together. Having said that, the substitution could well
have been based on a knowledge of the correspndence.

Richard.