Re: THEORY: Evolution of infixes/ablaut?

At 05:03 PM 3/22/2000 +0000, yl-ruil wrote:
>John Cowan wrote:
>
> > yl-ruil wrote:
> >
> > > After a quick consultation with my Etymological Dictionary, it seems eke
> > > (vb) and eke (adj) are unconnected. The adj is from OE éc "also",
>cognate to
> > > German auch "of uncertain origin" and the vb is from éacan "grow", which
>is
> > > cognate to Latin augere.
> >
> > Well, so speaks the voice of authority, but I wonder why auch and augere
> > can't be cognates: no sound-shift seems to prevent it.
>
>I'm not sure, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
It seems to me that German auch would be from PIE *auk, whereas Latin
augere would be from *aug; unless perhaps the ch in <auch> comes from the
affricate shift in German, but I've never heard of /k/ undergoing that
shift in the standard dialect (/p/ > /pf/; /t/ > /ts/; but not /k/ > /kx/).