Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> 07-07-03 07:07, alex wrote:
>
>> Are there more examples where from an IE *pe/pi we have in Latin a
>> "qui/que"?
>
> Second thoughts:
>
> If you mean _any_ cases where *p > Latin /kW/, this happened through
> assimilation in words originally containing *p followed by *kW in the
> next syllable:
>
> *pekW-e- > *kWekWe- > coquo: 'cook'
> *penkWe > *kWenkWe > quinque 'five'
> *perkW-u- > *kWerk(W)u- > quercus 'oak'
>
> Piotr
My questin was formulated bad since I did not gave any example but I
asked if there are more examples of this assimilation. I was indeed
thinking at "quinque" and the fact that the the PIE root is "*penkWe".
Comparating some Latin and Rom. words where we have this alternation, I
cannot agree anymore with the explanation quoted by Mr Iacomi that the
Rom. "piept /kiept, picior/kicior" are simple palatalising of the
labials.
In fact there are multiple examples where we see in Latin an "que" from
PIE *pe and even the interesting change of /e/ to /i/ before /n/ as Rom.
actualy is supposed to do from the Latin layer.
I see very interested the suposition of Abdullah of changes who took
place even in the time of PIE and they became somehow frozen and does
not fit very well in the centum/çatam thesis.
Just an theoretical example:
PIE *penkWe > *pinke _a_certain_idiom_in_balakan_called_UBI
On the bassis of the alternance stily alive in Rom. of pi/ki, we can
assume that there was the same alternance of *pinke/*kinke. The
alternation in this case was keept up until the affrication of "k" took
place. In the monment as *kinke > *c^inke , there was not possible
anymore the alternance pi/ki since there has been for now the forms
pinke/c^inke. Thus I could explain Rom. "cinci" bypassing Latin. The
only problem is:
why was prefered the form "c^inci" instead of that of "*pinci ( <
pinke )" ? And herefor I do not have a plausible answer.
Alex