Re[2]: [tied] Existence of PIE

At 12:48:24 PM on Tuesday, January 29, 2008, tgpedersen 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.)

> The really simplest solution is that -VbV- > -VBV-,

Of course. Hence the late confusion between <v> and <b>:
*both* went to /B/ here.

> 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?

I have no idea what you mean by 'two separate processes'.

> Bear in mind that that /w-/ from American native names
> (written hu-) have no problem coexisting in Spanish with
> B/v.

So? Different time, different place, different language(s).

Brian