Re: The oddness of Gaelic words in p-

At 4:53:48 AM on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:

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

>> At 5:58:12 PM on Monday, June 2, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:

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

>>>> At 3:37:11 PM on Monday, June 2, 2008, tgpedersen wrote:

>> [...]

>>>>> And *-ka: is? If that's the general rule, how come
>>>>> there are so few geminates in Latin (apart from in
>>>>> preverb + verb combinations)?

>>>> How common is *TK in any other context?

>>> If that *-ka: thing had been a real suffix, very common.

>> Depends entirely on what it is, obviously. As I recall,
>> Beekes somewhere mentions that a *-k- suffix of some kind is
>> found in a number of Latin thematic verbs.

> Déjà vu. That's a verbal suffix, not a nominal one. And
> the unattested (in Latin) verbal stem *ped- "fall" is
> obviously non-thematic, so the presence with this verb
> would be a one-off.

The verbal stem isn't *ped-, so that's beside the point.
It's a first declension verb, so the -a:- is most likely
contracted from *-a:-ye/o-.

> Otherwise, with a general -TK- > -TT- rule, there would
> have been plenty of geminated Latin verbs. There isn't.

Since there is such a rule, your reasoning must be
incorrect.

[...]

> BTW, when would *-k- -> -x- have happened in the Welsh and
> Breton words?

It isn't *-k- > -x-.

Brian