Re: Existence of PIE

> >>>> 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.)
>

The really simplest solution is that -VbV- > -VBV-, also across word
boundaries, and that /b/ and /B/ became confused (cf. Spanish), later
to be sorted out.

> >> 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.

So Germanic /w/ was adopted into Northern French, Lorraine and
Champagne as /w/ and into the rest of Western Romance as /gw/ in two
separate processes? Bear in mind that that /w-/ from American native
names (written hu-) have no problem coexisting in Spanish with B/v.


Torsten