--- "Brian M. Scott" <
BMScott@...> wrote:
> At 4:30:33 PM on Tuesday, March 14, 2006, Sean
> Whalen wrote:
> > What does it matter if only one form retains w?
>
> On the available evidence I see no reason to think
> that it
> didn't *introduce* /w/. MacBain even mentions an
> OBr <gen>,
> though I don't know on what evidence.
There are some words with analogical shift of g to
gW>gw (such as Welsh gwneud < g^n- due to suppletion
with forms of *upo-ag^- > *wag- > gw- (again,
according to Pedersen).
For that reason I gave multiple examples both of
gWH>gw and w>g(w) kW>k(w) etc. The distribution of
forms retaining w is not regular and some languages
have both (optional).
Whatever the status of this example, and I don't
know what analogy could cause g>gW here, most seem
certain to show gHW and w > gw initially in P-Celtic.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com