Re: The oddness of Gaelic words in p-

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

>
> At 5:58:12 PM on Monday, June 2, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 3:37:11 PM on Monday, June 2, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> And *-ka: is? If that's the general rule, how come there
> >>> are so few geminates in Latin (apart from in preverb +
> >>> verb combinations)?
>
> >> How common is *TK in any other context?
>
> > If that *-ka: thing had been a real suffix, very common.
>
> Depends entirely on what it is, obviously. As I recall,
> Beekes somewhere mentions that a *-k- suffix of some kind is
> found in a number of Latin thematic verbs.

Déjà vu. That's a verbal suffix, not a nominal one. And the unattested
(in Latin) verbal stem *ped- "fall" is obviously non-thematic, so the
presence with this verb would be a one-off. Otherwise, with a general
-TK- > -TT- rule, there would have been plenty of geminated Latin
verbs. There isn't.

> But by all means don't let the opinions of real linguists get in
> your way.

So far it seems they weren't.

BTW, when would *-k- -> -x- have happened in the Welsh and Breton words?


Torsten