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

On 2007-05-17 19:01, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

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

I'm not inventing anything new. The behaviour of *-u-stem nouns is well
known.

> 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

That's what I've been saying all along. There was no Proto-Celtic *kW in
this word because of its early delabialisation before *u, and
accordingly there was no assimilation of the initial *p.

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

We can, because the phonetic environment is different. In *perkW-eto-
(or perhaps *perk[W]w-eto-) assimilation operates normally. In
*perku(:)n- it doesn't.

> 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)

How did you calculate that? The first stages of Grimm's Law and Verner's
Law operated ca. 300 BC, given the treatment of dateable loans. It's
hard to say when *p was lenited in Proto-Celtic, but a borrowing taken
at a time when the pronunciation was *f would still have looked the same
in Germanic. 1000 BC is a gross overestimate. And of course nothing
forces uus to assume that the Gmc. word _is_ native, not borrowed.

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

No. Actually, I prefer dating the assimilation after Grimm's and
Verner's Laws, so it's

*perku:ní:- > *ferxu:ní:- > ferGu:ni:-
*pénkWe > *finxW > *fimf

Piotr