Re: [tied] Latin barba in disaccord with Grimm's Law?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2006-06-19 06:32, junk554 wrote:
>
> > Why does barba, the Latin word for beard, not begin with an f?
> > According to the First Sound Shift or Grimm's Law, Indo-European bh-
> > became f- in Latin and b- in Germanic.
>
> No. Grimm's Law says nothing about Latin. It only says PIE *bH became
> Germanic *B, so if the PIE prototype was *bHardhah2, everything is all
> right on the Germanic side. If, on the other hand, it was *bardHah2,
> then the Latin reflex is OK and we have what looks like a failure of
> Grimm's Law. Balto-Slavic *b- in this word proves nothing either way,

so

> it's ultimately a question of Latin vs. Germanic. Sice PIE *b is rare
> and there are a few possible (if rare) examples of sporadic

Grassmannian

> dissimilation in Latin, the reconstruction *bHardHah2 is generally

given

> preference.
>
> Piotr
>

Please excuse my incompetence for attributing Grimm's Law to the
changing of PIE <*bh> to Latin <f>. What I was wondering, and still am,
is the reason for the unexpected initial <b> in Latin <barba>, a cognate
of English <beard>. The expectation of the initial letter of a Latin
cognate of native English word begining with a <b> would be an <f>. (Cf.
the cognates: Eng. <ban> and Lat. <fa:ri:>, Eng. <barley> and Lat.
<far>, Eng. <bear> and Lat. <ferre>, Eng. <bide> and Lat. <fi:dere>,
Eng. <bite> and Lat. <findere>, Eng. <blade> and Lat. <folium>, Eng.
<blow> and Lat. <fla:re>, Eng. <blow> and Lat. <flo:re:re>, Eng. <bore>
and Lat. <fora:re>, Eng. <bottom> and Lat. <fundus>, Eng. <break> and
Lat. <frangere>, Eng. <brook> and Lat. <frui:>, and Eng. <brother> and
Lat. <fra:ter>.) For the unexpected initial <b> (initial <f> is
expected) in Latin <barba>, a cognate of English <beard>, is the reason
known? If so, what is the reason?