Re: Existence of PIE

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 12:48:24 PM on Tuesday, January 29, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Latin /w/ had already become /B/ by the time the Gmc.
> >>>>>> word was borrowed; Gmc. /w-/ hardened to OFr /gw-/,
> >>>>>> while LLat. /B/ > OFr /v/.
>
> >>>>> You don't need the detour via /B/ if Germanic /w/ was
> >>>>> borrowed directly.
>
> >>>> What are you trying to say here? The evidence for
> >>>> development of Lat. /w/ to LLat. /B/ is extremely clear,
>
> >>> What is it?
>
> >> For instance, Latin <Nerva> appears in Greek as <Nérbas> and
> >> <Nérouas> in (I think) the 1st century CE. At Pompeii
> >> <veni> appears as <beni> and <valeat> as <baleat>. By the
> >> 2nd century CE the reflexes of Classical Latin <v> /w/ and
> >> <b> /b/ were regularly confused in writing, e.g., <vibe> for
> >> <vive>, <iuvente> for <iubente>. The simplest explanation
> >> of this and other similar evidence is that /w/ > /B/. (At
> >> the risk of waving a red flag in front of a bull, I'll note
> >> that it's also the generally accepted view.)
>
> > The really simplest solution is that -VbV- > -VBV-,
>
> Of course.

Of course what? You just said /w/ > /B/ unconditionally.

> Hence the late confusion between <v> and <b>: *both* went to /B/
> here.

No, the /v/ allophone prevailed outside of Spanish.

> > also across word boundaries, and that /b/ and /B/ became
> > confused (cf. Spanish), later to be sorted out.
>
> >>>> and what I said about Gmc. /w-/
>
> >>> I had no problem understanding what you said.
>
> >>>> is that it *was* borrowed directly -- as /gw-/.
>
> >>> Except in Northern France?
>
> >> And Lorraine, and to some degree in Champagne; very
> >> simply, /w/ was retained in those dialects that had the
> >> most contact with Gmc., especially Frankish.
>
> > So Germanic /w/ was adopted into Northern French, Lorraine
> > and Champagne as /w/ and into the rest of Western Romance
> > as /gw/ in two separate processes?
>
> I have no idea what you mean by 'two separate processes'.

Very convinient of you.
I proposed (modified with your information) this sequence of events:
Gernmanic /w/ is borrowed as into Soldiers' Latin as /w/; the /w/ >
/gw/ everywhere outside of Northern France etc.
You proposed that Germanic /w/ was borrowed as /w/ in Northern France
etc and as /gw/ in the rest of Romance. That's two separate processes.
And the words borrowed were the same, more or less in the two areas.

> > Bear in mind that that /w-/ from American native names
> > (written hu-) have no problem coexisting in Spanish with
> > B/v.
>
> So? Different time, different place, different language(s).

I sensed that the real reason why Germanic /w/ is proposed to have
been borrowed as /gw/ is that someone felt Germanic /w/ if loaned
directly would have merged with the b/v of Late Latin. I pointed out
that they did coexist in Spanish.

BTW it's interesting as Arnoud points out that Germanic -VwV- becomes
French -VvV- *trewa > trève, since English does something similar in
inherited Germanic vocabulary, eg wave.


Torsten