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

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

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

> > But if *kWénkWe is accepted for common Italo-Celtic (whether a true
> > synapomorphy or an areal innovation), we get a neat scheme for both
> > branches, with *pompe and <qui:nqe> derived from the same PIt.
> form. The
> > overall picture _is_ parsimonious.

> Piotr, *kWenKWe CANNOT BE a Common Italo-Celtic form:

I agree it's not from a common genetic ancestor; that doesn't
matter. As long as the speakers of both IE dialects lived next to
each other at the time of the change it could spread from one to the
other.

> Let's follow your idea of p..kW > kW..kW Common to Italo-Celtic...
>
> There are three words having p...kW

More than that (prope, propius, proximus, propinquus, quernus,
cu:nctus). These show that the Italic rules are more complicated than
just p[]kW > kW[]kW alone.

> 1. penkWe 'five'
>
> 3. pekW- 'to cook'
>
> 2. perkW- 'name of a tree' ->*perkWunyo > Proto-Celtic *perkunia:
> (attested Hercynia (Caesar), loaned with initial p- in Gothic
> fairguni 'mountain') <-> and on the other hand: Q-Italic *kWerkWus
> (Latin quercus 'oak') => so you can see as me that there is no common
> p...kW > kW ...kW
>
>
> Because :
>
> EITHER
>
> 1. the delabialisation in Proto-Celtic *perkWus (-> *perkWunia:)
> happened BEFORE p..kW>kW...kW in Proto-Celtic
> but
> 2. the delabialisation kW/u > ku in Proto-Italic *perkWus (Latin
> quercus) happened AFTER the p..kW > kW..kW in Proto-Italic

> (The point was raised by Watkins 1966)

Dialects that have the same rules but in different order, or nearly
the same rules but with dif. sets of exceptions, etc., are perfectly
common.