Re: PIE *kwokt

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:

> m_iacomi@... wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" wrote:
> >> And it is interesting the rule applies again. Some scholars
> >> belive that
> > [my labels here:]
> >> PIE kW > p and gW > b in Romanian when not followed by /e/ & /i/
> > [statement #1]
> >> and kW >k and gW > g when not fallowed by /e/ and /i/
> > [statement #2]
> >
> > No scholar could "belive" that. Statements 1 and 2 are mutually
> > incompatible.
> > The rule is: _Latin_ qua > Romanian pa & _Latin_ gua > Rom. ba
> > with exception of wh* words (in Miguel's notation)
> > Otherwise, the normal evolution is elimination of labial /W/

The 'not fallowed' should read 'followed'! Then Statement 2 becomes
compatible with Statement 1.

> Sir, please. None spooked about your Latin here. There are many

words

> which do not derive from Latin and not about _Latin_ transformation

I

> was speaking here, but it seems some people are too busy for

showing the

> Latinity of a language with a bit over the half of the pan-romanic

words

> and where, for these 300 words ( where from over 100 with a funny
> semantic shift) are around 170 derivations rules.

But what happened to Latin words is highly relevant if Latin and
Dacian (or whatever) elements both had /kw/ (or similar) at some
stage in the Romanian language. The words would have undergone the
same sound changes whatever their origin.

Note that a Satem /kw/ would derive from PIE /kw/, as opposed
to /k^w/ (as in ek^wos 'horse').

Richard.