*kwetwores > *petwores **penkWe > *penpe

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3"

<alexandru_mg3@>

> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > After Romanian kw > k/p 'duality' another similar and
> unexplained
> > > > situation is that one of "pre-germanic p" originated in PIE

*kW

> > >
> > > > So we have kw/p alternance spreaded in : Celtic, Italic,
> Germanic,
> > > > Balkans (Romania)....as I said this duality kw/p need
> a 'global'
> > > > explanation.
> > >
> > > The best explanation I've seen is the postulation of *pW. See
> > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/9530 and
> > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/14885 et

seq.

> > >
> > > I don't believe there is any problem in Celtic or pre-Romance
> Italic -
> > > the development was pretty regular. The basic point in these
> > > languages is that a change of the type kw > p is always

possible.

> > >
> > Hans Kuhn: Das letzte Indogermanisch has the following Germanic
> doublets:
> > "
> > kriechen und nd. krupen,
> > [Pok. *gr-eu- + -g / + -b, Balt., Germ.]
> > streichen und streifen,
> > [Pok. *str-ei- + -g / + -b, Celt., Balt. Germ.]
> > tauchen und taufen,
> > [Pok. ?, *dheu-b-, Gr., Celt., Balt., Germ.]
> > nd. Siek und Siepen "feuchte Bodensenke",
> > [Pok. *seikW- *seip-, Skt., Ital. Celt. Balt. Germ.]
> > engl. shrink und hd. schrumpfen,
> > [Pok. ?, *skerb(h)-, *skreb(h)-, Gr., Ital., Balt., Germ.)
> > Strunk und Strumpf,
> > [Pok. *strenk *streng-, ?, Gr., Celt. Germ.]
> > got. *auhns/ altschw. ugn und dt. Ofen,
> > an. ylgr "Wölfin" und ulfr ,Wolf,
> > dt. leihen und bleiben
> > "
> >
> > Odd geographical distribution, if it's caused by a PIE morpheme

and

> > not substrate.
> >
> >
> > Torsten
> >
>
>
> Proto-Germanic 'four (4)' reflects for sure a *p- not a *kw-
>
> Maybe we need to supose a PIE variant with *p- for '4' ?
>
> Any help here?
>
> Thanks,
> Marius
>

We have a *p also in Proto-Germanic '5' => Proto-Germanic *fimfi

a) PIE *penkWe > *pempe > Proto-Germ. *fimfi > Gothic fimf
b) PIE *kwetwores > *pethwor > Proto-Germ. *fethwor > Gothic fidwor

So => PIE kw > Proto-Germanic p is obvious both in '4' as in '5'

PIE *kwetwores > *petwores PIE *penkWe > *penpe
-------------------------------------------------------
Gaulish petor *pempe (pempe-dula)
p-Celtic petuar pempe

Pre-Germanic *petwor *penpe

p-Italic *petwor *pempe
Oscan petora pompe-
Umbrian petur pumpe-

(p-?)Dacian **patwar *penpe < *pr&p& (prope-dila/propo-dila)
Romanian patru

Sardinian battor


Too many p-forms not to be linked from to a common one :

More probable: *penpe & *petwores belong to Dialectal PIE Times

Marius


P.S. : Could somebody help me : Why we have an a- in Latin quattuor?