Re: [tied] Re: root *pVs- for cat

At 3:29:01 PM on Thursday, July 5, 2007, tgpedersen wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

>> At 7:13:42 PM on Monday, July 2, 2007, tgpedersen wrote:

[...]

>>> In other words, words with no certain PIE > Celtic
>>> pedigree. The reason I ask is that alternation p-/b- is
>>> one of the criteria Kuhn uses to identify NWBlock words,

>> The borrowings are obviously irrelevant to the NWB issue.
>> If I'm reading him right, MacBain suggests that <bòilich> is
>> a derivative of <bó> 'cow'; if this is true, <bòilich> is
>> also irrelevant.

> I'm not impressed with the semantics.

>> In any case, to the extent that it's a Sc.Gael.
>> phenomenon, I think that Rick is probably right about the
>> cause: SG /b d g/ are realized as unaspirated [p t k],
>> and SG /p t k/ are realized as aspirated voiceless stops
>> initially and as pre-aspirated voiceless stops medially
>> and finally.

> If you want to ignore the NWBlock 'issue' (other people
> call it a language), that is the way to go.

The issue in question was whether some such language had
anything to do with this <p> ~ <b> alternation. In the case
of the borrowings it obviously doesn't. Of the words that I
mentioned, at most two are relevant, and quite possibly only
one; observing that this is the case does not require
ignoring anything.

Note also that if in fact it really is primarily a ScGael
phenomenon, then the odds are very much against its having
anything to do with NWB influence except in some tiny
fraction of cases: not only should it appear already in EIr,
but s what appears to be a better explanation is available.

[...]

Brian