Re[3]: [tied] Greek labiovelars

At 5:38:27 PM on Tuesday, March 14, 2006, Sean Whalen wrote:

> --- "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.

[...]

> 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.

I certainly have no problem with *w- > gw-. My initial
objection to *gWH- > gw- was based on Jackson, and it's
clear that there's more going on there than I had realized;
in the previous posts I was specifically objecting to the
*example*.

Brian