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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapoviæ <mkapovic@...> wrote:

>
> On Pet, lipanj 23, 2006 5:31 am, junk554 reèe:
> >
> > --- 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>.
>
> Assimilation of *farba to barba, *f-b > b-b.
>
> Mate
>

I doubt. Why not the same assimilation in faba too

Marius