Re: boskO

> Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

> I concede that irregular development may sometimes be admitted, but one
> can't assume it whenever there seems to be some degree of tempting
> phonetic similarity or other impressionistic justification. That's why
> the equation *pokW- = Arm. hacH is of no value (while *paxsk- = hacH is a
> good match), or why *pekW- is not equated with *bha(:)g- 'bake' despite
> the place-of-articulation match and a similar meaning. By admitting
> *paxsk- > bosk- (what about the Greek vowel quality??) we would be
> relaxing the formal constraints of the comparative method beyond what's
> normally acceptable.

Dear Piotr,
Only Greek is within my powers, hence, it would be inappropriate to
comment on Arm., etc.

The very pronunciation of p and b must self evidently make us very
careful of ruling out their exchange [cf. also pallO-ballO,
pikros-bikros] and in fact, p in Gr. dialects is quite flexible,
p > ph, p > k, p > m, p > t, p > pt, as I'm sure you well know.
Greek is not -imho- a language susceptible to strict rules.

And I still think that a Lat. pascere and an irrelevant Gr. boskO is
rather an extremely wild "coincidence". But that's only my opinion.

And you do not really want me to comment on the Greek vowel quality, do
you? :-)

Best Regards
Christos