Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2003 21:34:24 +0200, alex_lycos <altamix@...>
> wrote:
>
>> Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 May 2003 18:40:28 +0200, alex_lycos <altamix@...>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In what turned the labiovelar *gW in latin?
>>>
>>> /w/, /gw/ after /n/
>>
>> I understand that after /n/ the PIE *gW became eiter /w/ or /gw/. Do
>> I understand it right?
>
> No. *gW gives /w/ (*gWih3wos > vi:vus), except that *ngW gives /ngw/
> (*h2ángWis> anguis)
>
>
> =======================
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...
wait a moment Miguel. you said "vivus"
this one cannot have the evolution gW > v but due an intermidiary "b"
this is shown by the other PIE cognates and specialy from italic
dialects.More interesant as "vivus" is "vita". Let's take a look for
"vita" for instance:
Latin: vita
Oscan. bittam
Greek : biote
skt: jivathu
For "vivus":
Oscan: bivus
Old Iris: biu
Kymrish: byu
Breton: beo
The root here should be alike to *gWiuo ( lebendig, alive) and it is
indeed *gWieta
We observe that the change is indeed gw > b. This was the first
transsformation, the second one was b > v and here I suppose, like in
Rom., just when followes by /e/ ( in Ltin or a dialect wherefrom Latin
loaned it) and just when followed by /i/ in Rom.That in Rom. the word is
with /b/ is demonstrated by aromanian "bana"= life which cannot derive
from any latin *vivitia, as well as Rom "viaTa" cannot derive from latin
vita, therefore was supposed a Latin *vivitia, as well as for Latin vita
was supposed a proto-latin *vivitia.
It seems indeed that gw > b > v. This "v" is obteinaed in certain
condition ( not as assumes it is an alternance without rule) and this
condetion seems to be the presence of a fronted vowel here.
Since pie *gW did not changed into "b" in Latin it is to assume that the
Latin got the words from some italic dialects or which an explanation
whould you see?