Re: [tied] Latin is a q-Dialect having p- from kW , PIE is simil

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 7:46:58 PM on Sunday, May 13, 2007, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
> > <gpiotr@> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Thirdly, even in Gmc. we have a reflex of fem.
> >> *wl.kW-íh2- > *wulGi- > ON ylgr, demonstrating that the
> >> shift of *kW > *p (or even *xW > *f) is relatively
> >> recent.
>
> > You are right ON ylgr shows kW, but this doesn't show at
> > all a recent transformation : it shows only the same
> > dialectal variance kept from PIE times /kW versus p/
> > inside different dialects of the same language.
>
> But ON also has masculine <ulfr> (later <úlfr>) alongside
> feminine <ylgr>. It's much easier to see the /f/ of <ulfr>
> as a relatively recent shift in Gmc. than to see <ulfr> and
> <ylgr> deriving from distinct forms in different dialects of
> PIE.
>
> Brian
>

If only ulfaz / ulfr would be in question I could agree with you...
Even there we have Latin lupus and there is no kW > p in Latin...

But when we have *penpe > *fimfi and *petwores > pithwor (as in p-
Celtic and p-Italic) I cannot see anything 'recent'

Marius