Re: [tied] Labiovelar in Latin

On Thu, 15 May 2003 22:42:01 +0200, alex_lycos <altamix@...>
wrote:

>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

The root, as I said, is *gW(e)ih3(w)- Latin vi:ta is regular from
*gWih3-teh2. The developments are regular:

Skt. Slav. Lat. Osc-U. P-Celtic Q-Celtic Grk
*kW k, c k, c^ qu p p k(W) p,t,k
*gW g, j g, z^ v b b b b,d,g
*ghW gh, h g, z^ f, v f b g(W) ph,th,kh

>We observe that the change is indeed gw > b.

No we don't. We observe that the change is *gW > /b/ in Celtic and
Osco-Umbrian only.

For Latin, it's impossible that *gW > w went through a stage *b,
because then this /b/ would have merged with /b/ from PIE *b (rare,
but not inexistant) and /b/'s from other sources (*dw as in *dwenos >
bonus). This doesn't happen: *b gives Latin /b/, and *gW gives Latin
/w/. Otherwise there would have been no distinction btween bibo "I
drink" and vivo "I live".


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...