[tied] Re: *pYerkW+

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

>
> On 2007-05-27 00:06, Sean Whalen wrote:
>
> > It doesn't necessarily prove anything more than a
> > sporadic xw>f in some form of Old Frisian.
>
> I believe it's unique rather than sporadic. One could also say that
> *wulfaz, *fimf-, etc. prove nothing but a sporadic *xw > *f in
> Proto-Germanic. It's probably the majority view among historical
> linguists nowadays. In my opinion, however, the assimilatory influence
> of labials is borne out by the data, and therefore a form like

<fial> is

> expected.

The word is attested in many variants in many languages; no other
Germanic form shows initial f-. Why would it only be preserved in Old
Frisian when it could be a result of a change entirely internal to
that language? There's also w>g more commonly than most Germ. also
with no wholly regular cause.

The examples you gave for KW>P ignore all cases that don't occur by w/P.