Re: Latin is a q-Dialect having p- from kW , PIE is similar

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

>
> On 2007-05-15 00:44, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > p-Celtic *pempe
> > pre-Germanic *pempe
> > p-Italic *pVmpe very probable *pempe too..
> >
> > I mean this is quite enough to postulate : Dialectal PIE *pempe
>
> Of course it isn't, and nobody to my knowledge has postulated any
> such thing.

There's a first time for everything.

> Regular and independently confirmed sound changes account for
> Gallo-Brittonic and Sabellic *pempe, so no arbitrary "dialectal
> variant" is needed for them.

If one theory fits the data, no other theory can?
And what exactly do you mean by "regular and independently confirmed
sound changes"?

> The most parsimonious Proto-Italic and Proto-Celtic reconstruction
> is actually *kWenkWe (if one accepts the Italo-Celtic hypothesis,
> this is one of the shared innovations of both branches). It accounts
> not only for the *pempe reflexes but also for Lat. qui:nque,
> which you can't explain at all.

*penkWe, sociolectal variants *penkWe/*pempe and a shibboleth-theory
would produce *kWenkWe by hypercorrection in those dialects which
choose to purge "wrong" p's (those assumed to be from kW)

> > 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...
>
> That's why the Germanic facts have to be explained on their own. The
> Germanic *f ~ *x(W) variation has its own pattern, different from
> what we see in Italic and Celtic.

Because the early dialectal variants were treated differently.

> Similarly, although we have developments like *kW > p in Greek, they
> are entirely different in details, and so must be independent of,
> the changes in Italic, Celtic and Germanic.

Who mentioned Greek?

> > NEXT: 'What seems to have happened in Germanic' (what you
> > described below) is only a suposition
>
> So what? Almost everything in comparative reconstructions is
> hypothetical. What counts is how well the reconstruction fits the
> evidence.

So true. And sometimes the reconstructions from more than one theory do.

> > we have *penpe > *pempe in Germanic , p-Celtic and p-Italic :
> > three distinct evolutions ? why not a single dialectal form *pempe
> > in PIE?
>
> Because it appears ONLY in the languages where we can expect it to
> result from branch-specific phonological changes.

Circular.


Torsten