Re[2]: [tied] Existence of PIE

At 10:42:11 AM on Tuesday, January 29, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:

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

>> At 6:12:00 PM on Monday, January 28, 2008, tgpedersen
>> wrote:

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

[...]

>>>> Latin /w/ had already become /B/ by the time the Gmc. word
>>>> was borrowed; Gmc. /w-/ hardened to OFr /gw-/, while LLat.
>>>> /B/ > OFr /v/.

>>> You don't need the detour via /B/ if Germanic /w/ was
>>> borrowed directly.

>> What are you trying to say here? The evidence for
>> development of Lat. /w/ to LLat. /B/ is extremely clear,

> What is it?

For instance, Latin <Nerva> appears in Greek as <Nérbas> and
<Nérouas> in (I think) the 1st century CE. At Pompeii
<veni> appears as <beni> and <valeat> as <baleat>. By the
2nd century CE the reflexes of Classical Latin <v> /w/ and
<b> /b/ were regularly confused in writing, e.g., <vibe> for
<vive>, <iuvente> for <iubente>. The simplest explanation
of this and other similar evidence is that /w/ > /B/. (At
the risk of waving a red flag in front of a bull, I'll note
that it's also the generally accepted view.)

>> and what I said about Gmc. /w-/

> I had no problem understanding what you said.

>> is that it *was* borrowed directly -- as /gw-/.

> Except in Northern France?

And Lorraine, and to some degree in Champagne; very simply,
/w/ was retained in those dialects that had the most contact
with Gmc., especially Frankish.

Brian