[tied] Re: *pYerkW+

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

>
> On 2007-05-26 11:46, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Another Slavic Germanic word is:
> >
> > *kwors-to > Proto-Slavic *kwarsta > OCS *xvrastU 'osier', Russian
> > xvorost 'brushwood'
>
> > *kwors-to > Proto-Germanic *kwarsta > OE *hyrst 'bush'
>
> There's no Germanic *xwarsta- (I suppose this is what you mean).

Yes, sorry: I didn't changed kw > xw after copy/paste.

>There
> are only reflexes of *xarsta- 'wickerwork, grid' and *xursti-

'wood,

> shrubbery' (OE hyrst derives from the latter). They are probably

related

> to each other, in which case they should both be assigned to the

root

> *kert- 'turn, weave', and analysed as *kort-to- and *kr.t-ti-. As

an

> alternative, *xursti- (but not *xarsta-) could be related to *kWres-

(as

> in Celt. *kWristo- 'wood'), but even so it's relationship with

Slavic

> *xvorstU is difficult to maintain. In my opinion, the Slavic word

could

> be a blend involving Germanic *xarsta- and Slavic *xvostU 'tuft,

clump;

> tail'/*xvastU 'weed'.

I understand this root like this:

The original root is *kWres- 'bush' but this yielded a secondary
metathetic form *kWers- (-> see Slavic)

1. Slavic : *xvarstU < PIE *kWors-to- (o-grade *kWors- < *kWers-)

Question: why you wrote Proto-Slavic *xvorstU and not *xvarstU?
(o>a belong to Balto-Slavic times, a>o is 'recent' in Slavic:
OCS xvrastU )

2. Celtic : *kwres-no (OI crann, Mid.Welsh prenn) < *kWres-no-

And you are right sorry (-> was my error):
3. Germanic : *xwrs-ti (OE hyrst) < PIE *kWrs-t- (nil-grade of
*kWers- too as for Slavic o-grade)

Note: Dersksen linked also OE hyrst as cognate with OCS xvrastU (see
on Leiden)

Question: So why 'it's relationship with Slavic *xvarstU is difficult
to maintain' ? *kWres- could yield *kWers- , that's the whole
point...

> > P.S. : On the other hand, you can see that Germanic kw is not kw
> xw
> >> fw > f here as you have supposed for : penkWe > *fimfi etc... :

his

> > output is *h
>
> My suggestion was that the assimilaton of *xW > *f took place if

there

> was another labial segment in the same root. Of course in numerous

words

> pre-Germanic *kW yields *xw, and the assimilation doesn't occur

100% of

> the time, e.g. *kWekWlo- 'wheel' > *xWexWla/*xWeGWla- >
> *xwexla-/*xWewla-/*xWeGla- (e.g. OE hweohhol ~ hwe:ol ~ hweogol ~
> hweowol), where I would expect assimilation at least in some of the
> variants. However, OFris. fial proves that it did sometimes occur
> (perhaps to be analogically removed throught the influence of those
> forms in which the second labiovelar had been delabialised

sufficiently

> early).
>
> Piotr

Ok, with 'an additional labial segment' : But even so, this new rule
is not 100% accurate, and a rule that is not accurate...is not quite
a rule -> this is the fact that 'disturb me' (like kw>p and kw>k in
Romanian)

Why not?
a) kW > p , from some Pre-Germanic influences (->Dialectal PIE)
and
b) kW > xw > h , as rule?

Marius