g wrote:
>> The rom. word "colo" ( there, far (about distance), far(about the
>> time) "mai incolo"= later) resemble from phoentical and semantical
>> meaning the o grade of *kWel an not an eccum-illoc
>
> What if eccum-illoc's place was taken afterwards, for
> a period of time, by an *[e'kwilo]? It would nolens-volens
> and anyway have looked like the PIE *kWel. Thus, it
> would've looked... _again_ like that.
> g
I forgot about this question. There are some impediments. Miguel and mr
Iacomi will tell you there is no way to get eccum-illoc > e'kWillo.
Allex will say that because "eccum" has as cognate from phonetical
aspect _and_ semantical aspect Rom. "iacã" from an older *ieca there is
no way to have eccum > e'kW-
The problem which I have is that I stil am very convinced that kW & gW >
c^i and g^i in Rom. when followed by front wovels and "kW" > "p" and
"gW" > "b" when followed by other vowels.
And here is my problem.
One has to recognise that that in Rom. speaking about demonstrative
pronoun the end "-cela" for singular means "far". A person who is
present is "this2 aka "ãsta", "acesta", "aista". A person who is not
present, which is "far" temoraly or spatialy is denominated with
"acela","ãla", thus the root kWel- will fit very well my ecuation for
demonstrative pronouns.
For the locative adverbs as "acualea, acolo, incolo" & co it will fit
the /o/ grade of the same root.
but here is the problem. Normaly after a such rule , one will expect
kWel > cel ( c^el), and kWol > *pol- which is evidently not the case.
Instead of this one has "colo" < *kWol. Which should be the way? Why not
*polo but colo ?
Is there no labiovelar? It appears imposible since the labiovelar is
requested by Greek and Celtic reflexes of the root. And we know for sure
that kW ( it does not matter if from PIE or Latin in this case) yelded
"p" in Rom. ( see equa > iapa).
Then which is the explanation? Can it be that the /o/ after the
labiovelar played a role here?
akWa, ekWa, in these examples the labiovelar is followed by an "a". I
guess here _is_ the explanation. The change of "kW" > "p" was
conditionated by the phonological medium too. It can be very posible
that the labial aspect of "kW" was absorbed by "o" since the "o" is very
appropiate by "w".
I don't have a better explanation but if one assume that "kWo-" > "ko"
due w+o > o, then the change of "kWo" to "po" was simply stoped and we
have accurate kWol- > col-
Alex.
Alex