From: tgpedersen
Message: 54488
Date: 2008-03-02
>What do you base that on?
>
> etc etc. Note: There aren't any -b- forms in his material from
> > Poland and Germany. They all have -p-. Which means the first
> > Germanic sound shift, the Grimm shift, wherever it took place, it
> > wasn't here (are you listening, George?)
> >
> > ****GK: Since I'm not much of a linguist, I don't
> > understand your point. If the Grimm shift means a
> > substitution of "p" for "b", how does the presence of
> > "p" and the absence of "b" argue against its having occurred?****
> >
>
> I left out one premise, the one Kuhn also uses: PIE *b was very
> rare, almost non-existent. Therefore words in Germanic and toponyms
> in its present area with /p/ almost certainly don't have a direct
> PIE pedigree, but must have some other source, IE or non-IE.
>
> Further, the word seems to belong to a *wip-, *wimp-, *wik-, *wik-
> family of appellatives (non-toponyms), and that characterizes
> it/them as belonging to a substrate language in NWEurope,
> Schrijver's 'language of geminates' (check archives).
>
> This is non-standard stuff (yet), so it will have to stand on the
> strength of the argument alone.
>
> Torsten
>
> =============
>
> This language of geminates is basically
> a variety of Celtic.
> So
> What is the next point ?
>
> Arnaud
>
> ===============
>