[tied] Re: PIE *kwokt

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" wrote:

> Unfortunately DEX gives it as a derivative of "ciocani"= to
> knock at, to peck.

Unfortunately, _it is_ derived from "ciocani".

> I see it otherways since Albanian "c^ok" is the same with Rom
> "c^oc (cioc) meaning beak.

No. It's onomatopoeic and it means simply "knock!"

> Funny is that "ciocani"= to peck is given as a derivative from
> "ciocan"= hammer and this one should be an loanword from slavic
> "cekanU"

Probably yes, since the root is (not surprisingly) very similar
but the suffix looks Slavic.

> And it is interesting the rule applies again. Some scholars
> belive that

[my labels here:]

> PIE kW > p and gW > b in Romanian when not followed by /e/ & /i/

[statement #1]

> and kW >k and gW > g when not fallowed by /e/ and /i/.

[statement #2]

No scholar could "belive" that. Statements 1 and 2 are mutually
incompatible.
The rule is: _Latin_ qua > Romanian pa & _Latin_ gua > Rom. ba
with exception of wh* words (in Miguel's notation).
Otherwise, the normal evolution is elimination of labial /W/.

Cheers,
Marius Iacomi