Re: [tied] Greek labiovelars

--- "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

> At 4:05:02 AM on Tuesday, March 14, 2006, Sean
> Whalen wrote:
>
> > --- "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> *g, *gH, and *gWH all become OIr /g/; *gW becomes
> OIr
> >> /b/. Jackson says that all of this is Common
> Celtic, at
> >> least initially.
>
> > I looked at a few sources (most very old) but it
> > seems like gWH remains separate from gH:
>
> I presume that you mean in Common Celtic. Matasovic
> appears
> to agree, and at least one of your examples looks
> legitimate, but two definitely aren't:
>
> > *gWHer-; gorim (I warm) OIr; gwre:s (heat) Welsh
>
> The <w> is a vowel; this is /gure:s/.

If you're saying that because of this gwre:s can't
come from gw- from gW- I disagree (see below).

> Also, it may
> be an
> idiosyncratic development; Pokorny gives <groez>,
> <grouez>
> as the Breton cognates

There's nothing idiosyncratic about it:

PIE* wlh2nah2 "wool"; gulan Old Welsh; gwlan Welsh;
gluan Cornish; gloan Br

*wlat- "chief, dominion"; gulatic "king" M Welsh;
gwlad "region" Welsh; gulat "homeland" Cornish; gloat
"realm" Br

So w>gW initially and gWH>gW>gw (or >w>gw if you
prefer) and w>u between consonants, optional
metathesis in C/Br.

> > *gWHen-d-; geind (wedge) Ir; guenn M. Breton
>
> OIr <genn> (I presume from *<gend>) 'a wedge, a
> block of
> wood'; Pokorny gives Br <genn>, MCo <genow>, Co
> <gedn>, and
> W <gaing> and derives the lot from *gHe(n)d-. The
> MBr form
> is clearly not representative.

What does it matter if only one form retains w?
There is loss of w after a velar in apparently
sporadic fashion in P-Celtic:

*s(e)kW- > *skWetlo- > "tale" sce:l OIr; chwedl W;
whethl Co; -hezl Br

*gWHdi:tis > *zgW- > "~weariness" sci:th OIr;
ski:th/sqwyth Co; skui:z Br

*upo- > *u[f>xW>h>0]o- > *wo- > "under" fo OIr; guo-
OW; go- W/Co; gou- Br



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com