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

>> This 'Genitive form - argument -' invoked 'by some' is a fake:
>> 1. first the fact that we have an 'ablauting type a noun' is only a
>> supposition => that need to be demonstrated first and not to be
>> supposed as a Fact.

>? As if we knew nothing about ablaut in the IE declension of u-stems.
>BTW the form I quoted was the nom.pl., not the gen.sg.

No, as if you try to find more and more complicated explanations to
sustain your point...

> 2. *perkW-ew-es CANNOT gave Latin quercus => there is no -kWewes > -
> cus in Latin
>
> Based on what Latin quercus is not *kWerkWus?

> What I'm saying is that the original declension involved *perkWu-

(in

>the nom. and acc. sg.) alternating with *p(e)rkW-ew-. The former gave
>regularly *perku- (with early delabialisation), the latter -- PIt.
>*kWerkWew-. Then the nom./.acc.sg. *perku- was levelled out, yielding
>*kWerku- > Lat. quercus.

Are you sure about your logical sequence, before to use kW/e ~
kW/u 'workaround'?

1. the delabialization kW/u > ku happened AFTER p..kW > kW...kW
Why? Because otherwise we need to see at least in one language p/qu
alternances for the same root: that is not the case.

So Based ON WHAT YOU SUSTAIN that the delabialisation preceeded
the p..KW > kW..kW?

=> so based on this timeframe:
1. p..kW > kW..kW
2. kW/u > ku

the 'Nom. pl or Gen sg. proterokinetic ablaut patterns' quoted
by 'others too': is a no-sense in relation this topic.

The sequence for Latin was :
*perkW-us > *kWerkW-us > *kWerkus > quercus
So quercus is regular, not irregular as you try to present.


On the other hand, *perkunyo is not OK.
*perkW-unyo > *kWerkW-unyo cannot give Hercynia in any
circumstance because ONLY an original p- > h- > zero could yield
Hercynia

>> You need to prove that Querquetani is really a Proto-Celtic word.
>> More sure with toponyms but when we arrive to tribal names : is
>> difficult to prove from whta Language that word appears

> Why should it not be Celtic if it makes sense in Celtic terms?

Because is in contracdiction with Hercynia...and we cannot have
Hercynia and Querquetani in the same time...

> based on
> *perkunyo where we have a Gothic loan starting with f- indicated for
> sure an initial p-

>The Germanic may have the same morphological structure as Hercynia,
>but
>not the same as Querquetani. They are from the same root, but not
>parallel, so don't compare apples with oranges. And why do you call
>it a
>"Gothic loan"? Goth. fairguni corresponds to OE firgen, OHG Fergunna
>and
>ON Fjörgynn. They all come from PGmc. *ferGu(:)ni: (--> Slavic
>*pergyni). If the ultimate source is, as some believe, early Celtic,
>the
>word was borrowed before Grimm's and Verner's Laws at a time when
>Proto-Celtic still had initial *p or *f for later *h or zero >>>

(<Hercynia
silva>).


Is what I said initially : the loan happened when Celtic has an
initial p- and the German still have the p ...(so aprox. before 1000
BC)
This was my point. (I quoted the Gothic word as an example)

>But it may also be a native Germanic word. I'd derive the
>*perku:n-o-/*perku:n-i: word-family from *perk[W]u-h3(o)n- 'place
>with
>many big trees', perhaps contaminated with *per-wr./n.(t)- 'rock,
>mountain' (Hitt. peruna-, Skt. parvata-) in some branches.
>Piotr

Native?

*perkW- > *perku:-
and
*penkWe > *pempe

seems ok for you?


Marius