Re: The oddness of Gaelic words in p-

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:

> Umbrian <pesetom>, which occurs four times in the Iguvine Tables, is
> generally held to be equivalent to Latin <pecca:tum>, though the
> morphological correspondence is not exact. This matter demands
> attention in connection with the origin of L. <pecca:re>.

> In this passage <s> is routinely written for <ç>, denoting the
> sibilant resulting from earlier /k/ before a front vowel (note
> <uaçetom> VIa:37, and in the older alphabet <vaçetum-i> Ib:8).
> Geminates are seldom written as such in the Tables. Von Planta thus
> regarded <pesetom> as written for *peççetom, assuming that inherited -
> kk- corresponding to L. <pecca:re> was entirely assibilated to -çç-.
> The other possibility is that *peçetom never had a geminate, and
> comes from a root *pek-. Either way, if we maintain a connection
> between <pesetom> and <pecca:tum>, we must abandon hope of derivation
> from *ped(i)ka:- 'to stumble', the assumed derivative of *ped-
> 'foot'.

That assumes that the development was the same before front and back
vowels, which has no other evidence, as far as I know. I'd say that
tVkV+front > ççV+front is most likely from the ev. of this word, not
that the word can't be from tVkV+front.

> In Umbrian such a derivative, if inherited without syncope,
> would have yielded *per^ka:-, with /r^/ represented in the newer
> alphabet by <rs> (cf. U. <per^i>, <persi> 'with the foot'). Had
> *pedka:- been current when intervocalic -d- shifted to -r^-, it would
> also have produced *per^ka:- by analogy with forms like <per^i>, as
> we see with the many examples of the prefix <ar^->, <ars-> (L. <ad->)
> in preconsonantal position, e.g. <ar^kani> 'musical accompaniment'
> (acc. sg. from *ad-kaniom). Finally, if *pedka:- had undergone
> devoicing to *petka:-, the dental would have been preserved and
> eventually revoiced, as we see with <totcor> nom. pl. 'those of the
> city', <todceir> abl. pl., <todcom-e> acc. sg., from *teutiko-,
> *toutiko- (Oscan nom. sg. <túvtiks>). None of these alternatives can
> yield *peç(ç)etom or <pesetom>.

There are four main types, you've only covered three:

t V+front k V+front
t V-front k V+front
t V+front k V-front
t V-front k V-front

It's the first that is the likely source of -s- in the one attested
possible example.

>
> Another morphological issue is that all seven passive participles in
> the formula end in -eto(m). Since <uirseto auirseto> can hardly mean
> anything other than 'seen (or) unseen', we must assume that Umbrian
> created a regular second-conjugation participle *wir^e:to- from the
> verb 'to see' corresponding to L. <vide:re>, rather than retaining
> *we:sso- from earlier *weid-to- (L. *vi:ssum, <vi:sum>). In
> <peretom> and <daetom> we apparently have participles of prefixed
> forms of the verb 'to go', L. <i:re>, with normal-grade -ei- (U. -e:-
> ) extended to the participle, unlike L. <-itum>. However <uaseto(m)>
> and <frosetom> (for *frossetom) appear to be participles of
> denominative verbs, based on <uas> 'gap, omission, fault' (from *wak
> (o)s, cf. L. <vaca:re> 'to be empty') and *fro:sso- (from *fraud-to-,
> cf. early L. <fraussus> 'cheated', L. <fraus>, <fraudis> 'deceit,
> fraud'). These verbs should belong to the first conjugation, and the
> participles are expected to end in -atum. Von Planta regarded them
> as unsyncopated participles corresponding to Latin 1st-cj. forms in -
> itum (e.g. <doma:re>, <domitum>)

I don't agree, that must be from *domato- with reg. changes of
V-tone. However, whatever the origin in U., it's only important that
it was definitely -eto- at the time and so that is what caused kk > ss
or tk > ss or similar.