Re: The oddness of Gaelic words in p-

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

>
> 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.

Why mention Sanskr. padyate as an example of the stem *ped- to which
the *-ka: suffix should be added. It was your own point.

> It's a first declension verb, so the -a:- is most likely
> contracted from *-a:-ye/o-.

What? That's new to me.


[corrected:]

> > Otherwise, with a general -TK- > -KK- rule, there would
> > have been plenty of geminated Latin verbs. There isn't.
>
> Since there is such a rule, your reasoning must be incorrect.

"It's just a flesh wound. Come back and fight, coward"?

> [...]
>
> > BTW, when would *-k- -> -x- have happened in the Welsh and
> > Breton words?
>
> It isn't *-k- > -x-.
>

Where does the -ch- come from in the Welsh and Breton words?


Torsten