Re: [tied] Celtic n (was: Greek labiovelars)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Sean Whalen <stlatos@...> wrote:

> > > That doesn't explain *ksum-h2ango-s >
> > *com-ango-s >
> > > cumang OIr; cyfyng W; "narrow"
> >
> > We don't expect palatalization of -m- folowing a
> > retained, non-
> > palatal vowel (exception in / a__i)... Or is that
> > not what you're
> > getting at?
>
> You said "unconditioned raising in front of *n+g" as
> but I suppose you mean before i>a in an unstressed
> closed syllable after a non-palatalized, etc.

The oldest form is cumung /kumhung/, later cumang /kumh&N/. The
first -u- from earlier -o- (*kom-) means that we should reconstruct
a raising factor in the following syllable (in this case *-i- < *-a-
/ __ng). That we then end up with -ang /&N/ < -ung, is due to u-
infection, *-ingu- > *-iung > -ung.

The W form cyfyng, however, is in itself a problem (as are the
reflexes of *exs-angu-(?) 'wide')

> > > possibly also:
> > > *h1lengWH- "light, leap" 3rd sng. perf.
> > *h1eh1longWHe
> > > *eh1longWHe > *leh1longWHe > *legWHlongWHe >
> > > *h1eblong^e > leblaing OIr
> >
> > I don't see what that says about the problem. I must
> > be getting
> > tired.
>
> If the second syllable is stressed it could
> represent l^eBlaN^g^

Still not gettin it. The second syllable is not stressed.

> > > > In British Celtic you _can_ tell the difference
> > > > between PCelt. *aNC
> > > > and *eNC
> > >
> > > But that could be because en- > e~n- then n. >
> > en or
> > > the opposite.
> > >
> >
> > Could you spell out your scenario?
>
> kWeNkWe km.tom
> kWe~NkWe km.tom
> kWe~NkWe kn.tom
> kWe~NkWe kemtom
>
> To Breton:
> kWe~NkWe kemtom
> kWe~NkWe kamtom
> etc.
> pemp kant
>
> To Welsh:
> kWi~NkWe kemtom
> kWi~NkWe kamtom
> etc.
> pimp cant
>

Isn't this extraordinarily complicated, against assuming that PIE
*eNT > PCelt. *eNT, PIE *N.T > *aNT? The vocalism of ModW 'five' is
secondary, by the way.

Anders