Re: [tied] just verifying a point

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 14916
Date: 2002-09-01

----- Original Message -----
From: alexmoeller@...
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 11:25 AM
Subject: [tied] just verifying a point

> Some romanic linguists see that the latin equa became "ebba" in saridc and "iapa" in romanian ; so , there they like to observ a labialisation of  latin "qu". I ask myself why these rule forget something else. And in this case that in P-celtic dialects we have an teonim Epona = the goodes of horses and in celtic "epo" meant "horse ...
No. The Proto-Celtic 'horse' word was still *ekwos (OIr. ech). It became <epo-> in P-Celtic only -- a development parallel to but independent of similar changes in Greek, P-Italic, Sardinian and Romanian (it's enough to point out that these changes took place at widely different times in different languages).
> ... and in the same time we have too thracians antroponims like Eppa.
Names like Eppo occur in Pannonia and are probably of Celtic origin (hypocoristic abbreviations of compound 'horsey' names like Eporedorix). It's hard to say how the labiovelars developed in Macedonian; let's say that the development of *k^w, *kW > p is not impossible. In Thracian, however, we find names like Esbenus, where *k^w > sb (probably /sv/ with phonetic assimilation --> [zv] or even [zb]).

> Because someone doubt gratefully about this I should like to see your opinion about that. The fact of a pre-latin labialisation of "kW" in thracian and celtic could too be
sustained with teh PIE *akWa which got in romanian "apa" how the dacian toponims Salapia , Naparis, etc. let us know.
Thracian had no *kW > p rule. As far as I can see, PIE *kW > Thr. k and PIE *k^w > Thr. sb (see above on the pronunciation of this cluster). What makes you "explain" Romanian apã as a substrate word if it can be derived regularly from <aqua>? *h2ap- 'river, flowing water' is a different PIE root. It may have existed in Illyrian/Messapic, judging from the hydronymy of those areas (Salapia is in Italy, isn't it? so why do you call it "Dacian"? and it doesn't seem to make any sense to divide Naparis into N-apa-ris). It seems that the Dacian words for 'water' were based od *ud-, *ud-sk^o- (cf. Alb. ujë).