Re: [tied] Re: again gW>b and getae

----- Original Message -----
From: "gleyink" <eyink@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 5:46 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: again gW>b and getae


> --- In cybalist@..., alexmoeller@... wrote:
> > Is this?Piotr forget something very important.
> > And what?That kW>p and gW>b are inseparable from each
other in
> > a language. There where we have kW>p we have automaticaly
and
> > gW>b. And because of it, it is enough to have the
> > demonstration thatn just only of two is right ( kW>p or
gW>b).
>
> There are counterexamples to this statement of
"inseparability."
> In Q-Celtic languages, kW- was preserved (hence the name),
but
> gW- > b- regularly. Thus, we see Old Irish ben < IE *gWena:
'woman'
> Old Irish bo < IE *gWous 'cow', and Old Irish beo < IE
*gWi:wos
> 'alive' along with many other examples. Here kW- and gW-
happily
> went their separate ways! ---Greg
>
[Moeller]not only in Q-celtic. Even in modern languagesc. And
I gave an example which trorsten ( i guess) called it a
shiboleth or so:-)
Today in rom. language you can interchange "k" with "p" .But
not allways. Just under one condition. when "p" is fallowed by
an "i" or "e".
Examples:
stone= piatra/kiatra:
breast: piept/kiept
legs=picior/kicior
The same thing is to say about "g" interchange with "b"
bull= bivol/ghivol

It seems that under the influence of "i" or "e" the same
langauge handle in opposite way the "k" and "g". And this
intersting enough.
If someone will now nothing about rom. lang and will see the
paars ghi/bi and pi/ki will think there are not the same words
in the same langauge.