Re: [tied] *gHwer- 666 the beast

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

>
> On 2007-09-24 22:02, fournet.arnaud wrote:
> > Interesting question !
> >
> > My own guess :
> > it is known that Attic had [ü] for [u]
> > so that
> > we can posit that :
> > ghwer > gh-ü-er > palatalized gyh-ü-er > tyh-ü-er
> > ü is lost > tyh-er- > palatalization is lost > ther
>
> But the same happens to inherited labiovelars: *kWe > te, etc.,
> where the labialisation doesn't alternate with *u. It seems that
> the labial component of the consonant was palatalised before front
> vowels and *kW became *kY (with an off-glide phonetically similar
> to what French has in <cuir>), further palatalisation producing
> *ts' > t. It's interesting to note that in Albanian, too, *kW and *g
> (H)W have undergone palatalisation before front vowels, merging
> with the reflexes of PIE *k^w and *g^(H)w
> and ending up Modern Albanian s, z, whereas "plain" *k and *g(H)
> have remained stops. The impression one gets is that some kind of
> common areal tendency affected both archaic Greek and Proto-
> Albanian.>
> Piotr

your idea seems right to me. The only difference here I see, is the
point "ts" where I think Greek did not went that far. As testimony,
it can be again Rumanian who shows the alterancy of "ke" with "te"
via "c^". See for instance in Timoc Valley, they say "fecele"
for "fetele" where "ce"="c^e".
Taking as basis the phonologic treatment we see in Rumanian, I guess,
one cann consider "kWe" > "ke" > "c^" and this "c^" was rendered
as "te". If this is right, then the labiovelar appears to have
developed as regular velars in palatal medium, that is, the labial
element went lost.As for the "ts", this should be a later stage as
archaic Greek and this appears to be common to ProtoAlabanian and
ProtoRumanain. Later, Alabanian lost the "t" in the "ts" cluster and
it remained the actual "s" while Rumanian has stil the "ts".

Alex