Re: [tied] Re: *gwistis

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 15631
Date: 2002-09-19

----- Original Message -----
From: Sergejus Tarasovas
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:19 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: *gwistis

> At least Vasmer is not on your side. Indeed, aren't parentheses in *gH(w)osdH- just a way to get rid of an actual problem? What's the reason to postulate a deletion of *w in Germanic here?
Slavic and Celtic (see Pokorny) require the *w. Germanic *gw [Gw] < *g(^)Hw or *gWH was _always_ simplified, one way or the other (that is, giving *g or *w) in initial and most medial positions (we only find a direct reflex post-nasally in Gothic -ggw- [-Ngw-]). I wish I knew what (if not blind chance) governs the lexical distribution of the *g- and *w- reflexes, but at any rate PGmc. *gard- seems compatible with PIE *gHwosdH-.