Re: [tied] PIE *akWa: 'water' (was: The role of analogy, alliterati

Richard Wordingham wrote:

>> Can one agree the PIE *kW was as actually italian "qu"
> in "aqua"?
>
> No. In part see below. The choice seems to be between a labialised
> velar ([k_w] in X-SAMPA) and a *co-articulated* labiovelar ([k_p] in
> X-SAMPA). Neither is the _cluster_ [kw].

"labialised velar" do not say anything. Give us a word in teh actual
languages where one can pronounce this sound. Theoreticaly constructs are
nice just as joker, one need the "kW" to hear how is the pronounciation
here.
I cannot see which is the difference between Latin "aqua" and Italian "aqua"
in pronounciation so why shouldn't be the "qu" from that word the named
labiovelar?

>
>> Can
>> one agree the PIE k^w was as in english "chew" ?
>
> No. A better choice is [kw], say as <qu> in English _queen_.

And what is please soooo palatal in "quin" ? It looks more "velaro-labial"
this group to me since there is the same "kW".
I tought "k^" is a palatalised velar and the "w" is the halfvowel so the
pronounciation should be somethinc with "c^"+"u" this is why I choose "chew"

>
> As I understand it, the most popular opinion for the dorsals is:
>
> /k^/ was [k]
> /k/ was [k_q] (any takers for [q]?)
> /kW/ was [k_w]
>
> /k^w/ would then be [kw].

Have the people tried to pronunce these sounds before writing them down? IE
was a language , our mother language and its words should have been
pronounceable not just scriptic ghosts. what should be the difference
between "k" and "q", betwen "w" and "W"? Or these are just simply jokers in
examplanations there where one has no idea how to explain further?

>
>>> a) kW is commoner than k^w
>>> b) Sanskrit _ka:m_ 'water' may be connected
>>
>> Walde Hoffman doesn't like to connect the sanskrit word here, but
> the
>> Letonian "aka"
>
> What's the meaning? I'm surprised Pokorny doen't have it. If it
> belongs, it clinches the argument in favour of *kW.

Lethonian "aka"= Quelle (well, spring)

>
>> Germanic "-apa" is to see under Latin amnis from *ap-nis and
> Germanic
>> "affa".
>
> What's Germanic about Latin _amnis_?
>
> "affa" looks like an Old High German derivative of Germanic *apon,
> referable to PIE *h2abon- < PIE *h2ap-h3on-. Pokorny lists the
> words that belong here under *ab.
>
> Richard.
>

Walde Hoffman see the Germanic "affa" as being from an older *apa,
ultimately from ap ( *h2ap- )
and cognate with Latin amnis < *ap-nis , ultimately too from < *h2ap-; Rom.
"apa"(water)< h*ap-