Re: [tied] Germanic KW

On 2007-05-27 22:22, Sean Whalen wrote:

> 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.

I basically agree. To tell the truth, I prefer the *leikW- analysis of
'leave' myself.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/10217

> But *gWhe/ormo+ > warm seems certain, especially
> since *gWh>gW>w in other positions, also.

One funny thing about PGmc. labiovelars is that they tend to lose their
labiality next to root-internal apophonic *o, as in *gWolbHo- > *kalBa-,
*dHogWHo- > *ðaGa- or *kWol(h1)so- > *xalsa-. That doesn't seem to work
with *warma-, so perhaps it reflects *gWHermo- (as in Gk., Arm. and
Alb.) with a coloured vowel. Unfortunately, there are too few secure
examples to see what really happened to initial *gWH and velar + *w
combinations in Germanic. I like derivations like *g^Hwer- > *Ber-an- on
some days but hate them on others.

> *pn,kWttis > *funxWstiz > fist

A well-taken point. Of course it's still possible that xW was
delabialised after *u even if a nasal intervened, especially as nasals
were vocalised very early in this position.

> 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.

... which is probably the majority opinion. Thanks for the nice discussion.

Piotr