Re: p <-> kw

From: "Christophe Grandsire" <christophe.grandsire@...>
> En réponse à Robert B Wilson <han_solo55@...>:
> > how do we know it wasn't "bo:us" in PIE?
>
> *b is nearly absent in PIE (As far as I know, only 1 reconstructed root
> contains *b. It could be a borrowing from another language. It's one of the
> reasons the glottalic theory of PIE has been proposed, since if voiced
> consonants are interpreted as ejectives, then the absence of the labial
> articulation is normal), and we know the outcome of *gwo:us in other IE
> languages that make it sure that it was *gw rather than *b.
An alternate theory is that *b merged with or became *w in pre-PIE times.  This
theory makes me feel more comfortable with roots starting with *wr- and *wl-
(without a matching *yl- and *yr- !)


Incidentally, is there any reason that IE *kw etc. *couldnt* have been
phonetically double-articulated [kp] ?   Then, among other things (like the
existence of *p outcomes, but never *w outcomes, except possibly in Gmc...),
maybe you could explain the weird Gk <hippos> from *ekwos as an assimilation of
*ek-pos (with a k p cluster, not a single sound)... </foolish speculation>

    *Muke!
--
http://www.frath.net/