Re[2]: [tied] Existence of PIE

At 5:18:29 AM on Wednesday, January 30, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:

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

>> At 12:48:24 PM on Tuesday, January 29, 2008, tgpedersen
>> wrote:

[...]

>>>> 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?

Of course /-VbV-/ > /-VBV-/.

> You just said /w/ > /B/ unconditionally.

Erh, so?

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

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

I prefer to see /w/ > /B/ > /v/; the last change is hardly
unexampled.

[...]

>>> 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.

Inconvenient, actually.

> 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.

I don't really see it as such, hence my confusion. Speaking
of the Gallo-Romance area, at least, I imagine that /w/ was
borrowed as /(g)w/, the actual realization depending on
exposure to Gmc. and showing considerable variation before
stabilizing in the various dialects.

[...]

> 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.

Seems unnecessarily complicated, since borrowing of Gmc.
/w-/ as /gw-/ is the obvious interpretation of the written
evidence. (And /w-/ > /gw-/ is hardly unnatural.)

[...]

Brian