Re: [tied] Re: celtic

From: guto rhys
Message: 26224
Date: 2003-10-03

Correct me if I am wrong - which I often am.
The initial consonant of PIE *penkWe was analogically remodelled on the preceeding numeral *kWetWor (??) in early Celtic. Giving thus *KwenkWe, latter *kW- > p- in P-Celtic. Attested by Welsh 'pump', rather thatn **ump.
An identical process happened in Proto-Germanic but it was the form for the numeral 'four'  that was remodelled on the following numeral, thus *kW- > f- (Goth. fidwor).
Is this the same logic used for the apparent initial p- in the word for 4 in some Italic dialects?
How common is analogical remodelling in numerals??

alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> 02-10-03 19:10, alex wrote:
>> So far I could accidentally gather from the information exposed with
>> several
>> occasions here, I retained that in Celtic , better said in the
>> "P"-dialects the initial "p" was lost.
>> Question:
>> -what did happen in the "Q"-dialects of Celtic with the initial
>> "q"? Was this lost too as the initial "p" in "P"-group or it was
>> retained?
> Pre-Celtic *p- was lost in _all_ of Celtic without exception. The
> change of *kW > p in Gallo-Brittonic ("p-Celtic") was later, and the
> secondary /p/ resulting from it was not lost! In the rest of Celtic
> old *kW simply survived as a dorsal consonant.
> Pre-Celtic *kWenkWe 'five' > OIr. c�ic; Gaul. pempe, Wel. pump.
> Piotr

I guess I got it now. The "wonder" here was in fact one has to deal with
two kind of "p". One older, before kW >p , thus a PIE "p" and a celtic
"p" ( from a PIE "kW.")

Thank you Piotr.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search