From: petusek
Message: 34690
Date: 2004-10-16
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Pe»us Hrubi¹ <hrubisp@...> wrote:I see. So, the satem developement would be a pretty late one...?
>> 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- ?
>
>Look at the threads, especially at
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/14923 ! As I
>understand Miguel's idea, *pW was neither stable nor common, and
>tended to become *p or *kW. However, the elimination of *pW
>proceeded at different rates in the different branches, and with
>varying preferences. The branches need not yet have become separate
>languages. What we see is similar to the Germanic merger of *w and
>*hw. It is complete in most dialects, and from a sample of modern
>dialects one might very easily reconstruct just *w. That would
>leave isolated forms like English <who> /hu:/ (compared to <what> -
>/wOt/ in much of English) to hint that things were once more
>complicated.
>
>I don't think a direct change pWe- > c^e- is necessary or
>impossible. I would assume the usual route appplied, so pWe > kWe >
>ke > c^e. However, given the Latin to Romanian development kwe >
>c^e, the Greek development tw > ss, the hypothesised Albanian
>development k^w > c'w (ultimately > s) and the widespread
>development pj > tS, pWe > c^e does not seem far-fetched to me.
>
>Richard.