Re: Bear (Was: HORSA vs. EXWA)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" wrote:

>
> > I think you put the cart (the IE protoform) before the horse (the IE
> > words), so to speak.
>
> Does -rkt- survive well in Celtic[?] If not, -rtk- > -rkt- > -rt-
> looks a pretty reasonable progression.
>
> > I don't see any reason why it should not. AFAIK, -kt- > Celtic -xt-.
>
> The first /k/ in English _Arctic_ isn't particularly stable. More to

the point, Pokorny has -rkt- > -rt- for Old Irish phonology. At
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/4406 , it's claimed
that -rkt- > -rt- is Common Celtic.

>

But you can't use the word 'bear' as an evidence of such a development,
as this involves *circularity* (that is, a self-explaining or
tautological proposition)!

> > Not only that, but /s/ is also *unexpected* here (assuming it's the
> > reflex of *k'), because Latin is a "centum" language. Hence the
> > hypothesis of borrowing from another IE language is plausible.
>
> For Latin, there's strong evidence for t > ts before stops - nor is
> this restricted to Latin. The extreme example is -tt- > -ss-, though
> -st- is also an outcome.
>
> > I don't quite follow you.
>
> See http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/19106 . Latin

/s/ would be the conditioned reflex of PIE *t.

>

IMHO Latin /s/ is the reflex of a former affricate *ts vel. sim, not
**t. My own position is that the affricate in the word 'bear' is
*original* and not the development of a "thorny cluster". I've reached
to that conclusion thanks to external comparison (something which would
look unacceptable to the eyes of many IE-ists). Each theory has its own
limitations and their proponents should be aware of them.