--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> > 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.
> Piotr
>
Correct : there was no assimilation of the initial *p : it's me that
I said this first (I mean : in this topic).
But correct on one half: this cannot be due to : "the
delabialisation before *u" because this delabialisation happened
AFTER p..kW > kW..kW (see Latin quercus) and NOT before
So: sorry to tell you: but it's for the first time , when I think
that you didn't follow all the arguments:
Please to follow and to answer to the main points:
1. Is p..kW > kW...kW a Common Old transformation?
You said yes. (more precisely you said 'Common to Celtic and
Italic' so quite 'Dialectal PIE too', to use my words now)
And I said: yes, too: is very Old -> Dialectal PIE Times : because
it should happened before kW/u > ku .
( I didn't put kW/u > ku in PIE-times, as you said : BUT I put it
also as 'common' and very old : Dialectal PIE-times )
So kW/u > ku and p..kW > kW..kW are both very older transformation
belonging to 'Dialectal PIE times' (whenever appears).
Until here we are 'more or less' in agreement
Now I ask you:
2. What happened first on your opinion?
a) p..kW > kW..kW
or
b) kW/u > ku
I said :
1) p..kW > kW..kW
2) kW/u > ku
=> that is logical (see Latin quercus)
3. Now based on 1 and 2 : If delabialisation happened AFTER
the 'Common' p..kW > kW...kW and WE STILL HAVE *perkunya: in Celtic
this means that 'the preservation of initial p-' CANNOT BE DUE to
the delabialisation (that appeared LATER)
4. If so, p...kW > kW..kW didn't happen AT ALL in Celtic, because
we have *perkunya:
I hope that my point is clear enough now.
Marius