Re: PK

From: richardwordingham
Message: 14943
Date: 2002-09-02

--- In cybalist@..., guto rhys <gutorhys@...> wrote:
> Thanks for the comprenesive answer. This helps me a great deal with
a subject which has long perplexed me. How far back does this push
the separation between p-Celtic and c-Celtic?

It doesn't affect the dating at all. Miguel is taking about the
development of *pW; the P- v. Q-Celtic split is marked by the
development of *kW.

Hoe common is the term C-Celtic? It's seems much better than Q-
Celtic, which is purely the primitive form.

*pW seems an ill-supported, but neat idea. The Germanic evidence
could simply indicate that the merger xW > f (or, if earlier, kW > p)
started but soon halted. In Germanic it could easily spread word by
word. To demonstrate it, we'd need evidence in another IE group, or
Nostratic evidence for a labial instead of a guttural in these
words. The non-Germanic parallels seem weak, and the Germanic
inconsistencies point to a sporadic change. (But then Pre-Germanic
*pW > *p may also have been sporadic.) I find it had to believe that
the Nostratic evidence could be strong, even if the theory be
correct. So far I think *pW is not proven.

gLeN hasn't attacked this thread yet. Perhaps he now understands
that 'labialised' simply means 'with rounded lips'; labialised
labials are not 'labio-labial'.