From: Anders R. Joergensen
Message: 43892
Date: 2006-03-16
>Well then you just give up explaining the British Celtic reflex
> > for- is probably not a case of rounding, but rather
> > influenced by
> > *upo > *wo
>
> It could be analogy, but if the other examples are
> true it's not necessary.
>Yes, this is u-infection, not the same as influence from a
> > You may have to elaborate on the other examples.
>
> Most of the stages in the derivations are mine; they
> are given with tacit acceptance of rounding i>u in:
>
> from Andrew Sihler's _New Comparative Grammar of
> Greek and Latin_:
>
> ruud nom., roída gen., "great wood" OIr < * prowidhu-/
> prowidhous (pronounced ru:D(W?) roiDa)
> from
> *widhu- "division, border" > wood fid OIr, gwydd W,
> widu OE
>Again, u-infection (1sg. -fonuch, -fonug < *-wó-nigu:). It has
> from Alexander Macbain's _Etymological Dictionary of
> Scottish-Gaelic_:
>
> dofonuch "I wash" OIr < *do-upo-nigWoH but nigid
> "washes" < * nigWeti
> from
> *nigW- "wash"; nib- (Myc. niq-) niz- (from before y)
> Greek; nij- Skt; niz^- Avestan (from before e).
> unstressed -nug), cf. conjunct. -biur < *-beru:.How can you tell whether it's inherited or borrowed?
> >
> > fescor is probably /f'esk&r/, just like lebar, lebor
> > 'book'
> > is /l'ev&r/ etc. I feel inclined to regard it as a
> > borrowing from
> > Latin vesper, just like W gosper, Bret. gousper
>
> It's no borrowing; "evening" W ucher; Co gurth-uher
> from my *wesxWeros (we>wi>wu>u as ugeint "twenty") in
> Proto-Celtic.
>There are many restrictions to the workings of palatalization,
> Why would unrounded e not give palatalized sg?
>