Re: [tied] Re: The role of analogy, alliteration and sandhi in coun

Pe�us Hrubi� wrote:

>
> Well, I doubt. I might accept pre-PIE **pW- > PIE *kW- (via
> dissimilation?), as one can hardly explain satem forms - just like in
> Slavic languages (Cz c^tyr^i "4", c^tver^ice "a group of 4", Ru
> c^etyre "4" and sim.), is there any analogy of a bilabial pW > c^ in
> any language? Or, do you think Germanic underwent a different
> evolution? Like pre-PIE **pW > Pre-Germanic > *p- as opposed to the
> rest of IE? I might have poor imagination...or is the /e/ so strong a
> palatalizing agent that it would make pWe- > c^e- ?

I mentioned once the alternance pi/ki in the same word in Rom. so if I have
to plagiate Richard , I will say, there is even today a suci alternance, a
dialectal alternance, so why shhouldn't have been in IE an pWe/kWe
alternance as today in Rom. pi/ki or bi/gi

Alex