From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 4743
Date: 2000-11-15
>I assume you really propose *h3 > Pre-Germanic *g > Germanic *k. All the forms you quote are problematic:True, although in this "long diphthong" context (-VHi-), metathesis is
>
>(1) *daHiw(e)r- > *daiHwr- requires an ad hoc metathesis.
>(2) The Gothic word for "quick/alive" is qius, and the other Germanic forms (OE cwicu, etc.), even if they are not NW Germanic innovations, may be explained in less exotic ways, e.g. as reflecting a reduplicated deverbal adjective (root clipping is a frequent feature of such formations).*weh1
>
>(3) "You two" is evidently analogical (influenced by "us two", hence the nasal), and "us two" doesn't match attested forms in other branches well enough for the reconstruction *nh3- as the ancestor of *unk- to be valid. BTW, how would you explain the OCS Nom.du. vE 'we two' < *we:?
>Since you do not specify the environment in which this particular form of Verschärfung applies, I don't know what your "etc." is supposed to mean.There are some additional examples: *spaikul- "spittle" (*spaiw-),
>The change is apparently sporadic, and if so, any other sporadic fortition could be proposed instead, e.g. *w > *g (strengthening of the velar component), so that *daiwer- > *daiger- (as in Arm. taygr) > OE ta:cor. Same problems, of course, but fewer ad hoc assumptions (no metathesis).Of course in Armenian *w > g is regular (under certain conditions),