--- alexandru_mg3 <
alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
> 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
It happened before p[]kW > kW[]kW in Celtic and
after in Italic. Just because a common Italo-Celtic
change was given as one possibility doesn't mean it's
true or necessary. An areal change works just as well
at explaining the alternation.
> 4. If so, p...kW > kW..kW didn't happen AT ALL in
> Celtic, because
> we have *perkunya:
Of course it happened in Celtic. This word needs
explanation and kWu>ku is obviously the solution.
Any other problem with the analysis would be from
insisting on a strict timeframe (such as a PIE date
for kWu>ku, a PIE alt. of kW/p, or an Italo-Celtic
date for p[]kW > kW[]kW). None of those are
necessary.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com