In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex_lycos" wrote:
> P does not alternate with C^, but "pi" alternate with "ki".
Does not "alternate". In some regions, labials just get palatalized,
that's all.
> These are the observations. I guess there must be an explanation
> there
Yes. It's very simple. In several regions, linguistic phenomena
just do occur. Groups /pi/ and /bi/ (or /vi/) are spontaneously
pronounced with palatalization, which makes them evolve into
something like /k'i/ and /g'i/ respectively. There is no mistery
and nothing to debate on. Palatalized forms derive from original
labials and there is nothink to be linked with substrate. The very
same phenomenon appears in dialectal Italian: in all Mezzogiorno
they use "chiovere", "chieno" instead of "piovere"/"pleno" which
is the intermediate (also letterary and Northern regular) form
between Latin "pluvere"/"plenum" and meridional forms. The same
considerations are valid for /bi/ which is the intermediate and
letterary form in words like "bianco", sounded /g'ank(u)/ in
Ligurian and Lombard. There is even conservation (in Ticino) of
the "missing link" from the evolution chain /bi/ > /bg'i/ > /g'i/,
where the word is sounded /bg'enk/, and (to some extent), of the
other series /pi/ > /pk'i/ > /k'i/: /pc'u/ (instead of "più"),
/pc'enS/ (instead of "piange(re)").
The evolution is obviously from labials to palatals and cannot
be made the result of some fictitious substratal influences.
> gWei-2 > g'iu or Latin vivus > g'iu?
Stop producing nonsensical links. Regional forms are by no means
older than regular ones and they are by no means signs of mysterious
conservation of PIE phonetism.
Cheers,
Marius Iacomi