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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2007-05-14 01:46, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > I. Pre-Germanic '5' was *pempe > Proto-Germanic *fimfi >

Gothic

> > fimf
>
> Not all that LOOKS similar IS the same. In Italic and Celtic

*penkWe >

> *kWenkWe > Lat. quinque, OIr. cóic, but P-Celtic and P-Italic

*pempe, as

> in OWel. pimp.

But based on What you CAN say that is NOT THE SAME for something that
LOOK SIMILAR ? There are similar things and finally you can find that
they are not only similar but quite the same...

p-Celtic *pempe
pre-Germanic *pempe
p-Italic *pVmpe very probable *pempe too..

I mean this is quite enough to postulate : Dialectal PIE *pempe

Also I cannot see the link with *kWenkWe : in petwores we don't have
p ...kW in wlkWos we don't have p...kW : why to invoke kWenkWe when
the probleam is more general that this kind of assimilations...


NEXT: 'What seems to have happened in Germanic' (what you described
below) is only a suposition

By the way: In wulfaz there is no distant asimilation of *kW/*xW in
*petwores no distant assimilation either

> What seems to have happened in Germanic (where the
> *p...kW > *kW...kW rule doesn't work) is the distant assimilation

of

> *kW/xW to *p/f (*penkW- > *fenxW- > *fimf- or perhaps pre-Gmc.

*penkW- >

> *pemp- > PGmc. *fimf-), see below.
>
> > Pre-Germanic '4' was *petwores > Proto-Germanic *fithwor > Gothic
> > fidwor
> >
> > So:
> > Pre-Germanic *pempe
> > p-Celtic was *pempe
> > p-Italic was *pVmpe probably *pempe too
> >
> > and you are talking about a recent transformations *kW>*p or even
> > *xW>*f for Germanic?
>
> Yes, of course. And the change of Middle English x > f (spelt <gh>)
> after rounded vowels, as in <cough, trough, laugh, enough, rough,
> slough> is even more recent (and _proves_ that such a change can

recur

> independently).
>
> > similarly : we have the same common forms for '4' *petwor(es)
>
> You fail to explain why the change is regular in P-Italic and P-

Celtic

> but seems to be weakly conditioned in Germanic (by another labial

in the

> same word: *feDwo:r, *wulfaz, *fimf-, *twailiB-).
>
> > II. Next because *wlpos is attested in Latin (lupus) too: wulfaz

and

> > lupus fitting perfectly => you cannot treat this as a pure
> > coincidence : same evolution in two different PIE languages
>
> Why can't I? Is there anything highly unnatural about *kW > *p?

So to resume your point : whatever kW > p appears belongs to a 'later
recent evolution' : you see as me that your model is worst than mine:

we have *penpe > *pempe in Germanic , p-Celtic and p-Italic : three
distinct evolutions ? why not a single dialectal form *pempe in PIE?

> > As result: the variants *penpe, *petwores, *wlpos didn't belong

to

> > the inner evolution of one PIE-language or of one of the dialects
> > inside one PIE language: they all belong to Dialectal-PIE-times
> >
> > And if so, akWa/apa belong there too
>
> Non sequitur, also because *h2ap- is found in languages that show

no *kW

> ~ *p variation.

lupus is found too in another Language that shows no kW > p ...so
this type of argumentation is not sufficient : lupus is there and is
from wlkwos doesn't matter is provenience...same for apa

Marius