Re: PIE w, v (was: Latin tendere, -fendere)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Sean Whalen <stlatos@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Sean Whalen
> > <stlatos@...> wrote:
>
> > > gWm,yox gWHenyox tenyox medHyos verdHom
>
> > > v > w
>
> > What's the v > w rule for? I thought PIE had /w/,
> > not /v/?
>
> I believe that in PIE b > v except after u or um
> and v > u in the coda of a syllable (with other rules
> I've described in the past happening during this time
> also).

Aha, to explain he lack of /b/, I suppose?

> In most languages v > w but with some intermediate
> rules causing changes giving evidence for v.
>

> Mostly evidence in Armenian where a/e>o after w; w
> > g (except after velar); but v > M > m before n
> (atamn "tooth") and remains v (with no vowel rounding)
> in most positions.

How does this prove the presence of original v ? What's wrong with
w > M > m before n (or better w > G > m before n) and w > v?

> Also in Greek (such as *trixYvox > tri:bo: "rub"
> Greek; syllabification differing between *xYnYew-n and
> *do-vns leading to *do-wns > *do-uns > *douns ( >
> edous/odous by contaminatin with "eating" and vowel
> assimilation) but *xYnYew-n > *xYnY-nYew-n > en-new-a
> > en-ne-a "nine").
>

But shouldn't it be -eU- instead of -ew-, and -un- directly?
Danish has a /v/ with allomorphs syllable-initial /v/, medial and
final /w/ (or -U, ie diphthongisation with preceding vowel). But
Danish /v/ goes back to Proto-Germanic /w/, not /v/.


Torsten