--- Piotr Gasiorowski <
gpiotr@...> wrote:
> On 2007-05-27 02:07, Sean Whalen wrote:
>
> > Why would 'twelve' be the source of kW>b (not
> > ainlif)? Also, *LoikWeye+ > OE læ:fan > E leave,
> > Goth. bilaibjan 'leave behind', etc.
> These are not assigned to *leikW- by everybody.
> *leip- 'stick, adhere'
> is a possibility, especially as we have unambiguous
> reflexes of
> *leikW-e/o- and *loikW-no(s)- with a (labio)velar
> (Goth. leihWan, OE
> læ:n, etc.).
But almost all your examples of kW>P also have
another unambiguous outcome of the same root without
kW>P. Why should this *LoikWeye+ > *laibiji+ be any
different? Since there's often both a thematic and
causative from the same root, where is *LoikWeye+ > X
laigWiji+ and why has its meaning been taken by a form
of *leip+?
It seems the same argument could have been applied
to -lif if it happened not to have a Baltic cognate.
> > *gWhono+ > bana > bane; Skt ghaná- 'killer'
> >
> > *gWhonyo+ > benn 'wound'
>
> This, according to some, is the regular development
> of word-initial
> *gWH- as well as *g(^)Hw- in Proto-Germanic
But *gWhe/ormo+ > warm seems certain, especially
since *gWh>gW>w in other positions, also.
I believe some changes of KW are regular in
Germanic, of course. It's just that some seem not to
be, especially late ones that may vary between
branches or even languages.
> *ber-an- 'bear'. Anyway, I
> haven't claimed anything about the development of
> labiovelars other than
> *kW.
But if
> As there's no change in <ylgr> and <finger>, perhaps
> it's simply younger
> than Verner's Law.
then that wouldn't explain ainlif and dative plural
ainlibim, since Verner's Law also applied.
And in:
*pn,kWttis > *funxWstiz > fist
there's no xW>f either; it can't be the result of
kW>gW.
> > *xukWn.o+ > oven; Goth. *uxWnaz > auhns
>
> There is no secure evidence of *kW in this word
> (which, by the way, does
> exhibit *f in NW Germanic!):
Yes, irregular variation, optional forms, or
branch-spec. changes are fine; I'm not claiming any
more regular explanation of sporadic KW>P.
I know your arguments about *xukWn.o+, but I've
continued studying it and remain convinced. There is
aspiration after *kW in *pn,kWto+ > Paktha- in
Sanskrit, *xukWn.o+ > *xukWn.ho+ > ukha- seems
possible. Greek removes u between V and p as:
*kaupo:n > *kaupe:n > *kape:n+Lo+ > kape:los
so it's possible that the removal of rounding turns
u>i when not preceded by V. The early change of kW>p
between u and n would account for Myc. p and since all
u- > hu-, when u>i h- might automatically be removed
in some dialects.
> > Possibly
> > *sloxWgW+ 'be burdened/tired/weak' > sleep
>
> How about Slavic *slabU 'weak'?
I know some of these are controversial, so I wrote
"possibly" for the weakest examples. If these are
related, I'd prefer gW>b after xW in both, xW>xY (with
auto. o>e) before P in Germanic (also in *gYhloxWmo+ >
*gYle:ma+ > gla:ma-).
> > Since 'four' is most likely to get f- from
> 'five'
>
> ... and *fimf- got its second *f from where?
A sporadic KW>P, not necessarily influenced by
preceding P or w at all.
> > *xWexW/gWla+ is attested almost everywhere,
> Frisian
> > has neighbors with late x>f;
> In this position?
No, but the intermediate forms aren't clear; I can't
say exactly what produces fial, but there's no ev. it
isn't internal to Frisian.
> As to <fial> being isolated within
> Germanic, so is ON
> ylgr, and yet nobody doubts its archaic status.
Because there's no way B>G could be internal to ON,
and it is already known to come from *kW, so
kW>gW>GW>B>G wouldn't make sense.
Since the masculine vs. feminine alt. is irregular,
it was simply regularized in other languages. There's
no reason *f- wouldn't remain or be attested elsewhere
if it really were Proto-Germanic.
> It's
> a pity we have no
> Gothic attestation of the 'wheel' word, so
> "everywhere" refers only to
> NWGmc.
I specifically mean it has variants within Old
English, none show any kW>p>f. You said that you'd
"expect" some form with xW-xW > f-xW, but as stated
your theory doesn't express a preference for being
preceded or followed by P/KW/w causing kW>p>f. You
also said it's a "weak tendency" even in this
position, so no *gWem>pim, *gWhe/ormos>barm,
*kWerfn.os>frafn, *perkWus>*firf, or *pentkWus >
*ferfus instead of fairhwus. Therefore, it wouldn't
definitely create a Proto-Germ. *fixWlam even if true.
> *f. I have myself changed my mind about it before,
> so take my
> arguments as those of the devil's advocate, rather
> than a staunch adherent.
I understand. When I first began my reconstruction
I hoped I could find regular rules to explain all the
KW>P changes. However, nothing worked well enough and
I couldn't come to any conclusion but KW>P being
sporadic, varying with position and the type of KW,
and possibly ending prematurely in some languages due
to kW>k(w), etc.
____________________________________________________________________________________Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow