Re: Portuguese farpa "barb" < *bHardHa?

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

>
> So what regular sound law occurred for m>f-N in:
>
>
> formi:ca L; bórma:x \ búrma:x \ múrma:x Dor G; maoiri:- Av; vamrá-s , valmí:- S;
>

>
mi:luus L; mérmnos G;
>

These IE show dis. of m-m > m-w , etc., but there's also assim. m-w > m-m (sim. to p-kW > kW-kW \ p-p) :

Ma[:]mercus O; Ma:rcus L; < *Ma:wortikos

showing the irreg. nature more clearly, that the dir. could differ, and that the irreg. change w>m in Latin could have one environment where regular in a related lang., etc.

If anyone believes that the origin is unclear enough that m-m could be older, it still makes the same point about optionality in similar changes (m-m > m-w or > f-m , etc.).

>
> prope (adv) propius (com) proximus (sup) = near L;
>
> propinquus (adj) = near L;
>
>
> The "Lat. <prope> from *pro-kWe" was made long ago to explain -x- and -qu-, not by me, and though I don't agree with all parts of it, it's impossible to say < p-p with no irreg. or assim. There's nothing silly about what I wrote, or what anyone else has said about assim. in prope (from what you wrote I don't even think you knew or remembered about proximus , propinquus ).
>
>
> Since propinquus is obv. contaminated by analogy w an older *propi, an older *pronkWos < *prokWnos < *prokWinos is likely (like *perkWinos > *perkWnos > *kWerkWnos > quernus ( < quercus < * ).

More likely *perkWnos < *perkWinos < *perkWwinos or *perkWnos < *perkWunos depending on the reg. form (if any) of the adj.-affix added to *perkWu- at whatever time it was formed. The principle of short V-del. remains.