*gwh in Gmc.

[Leo A. Connolly]

Someone wrote:

>> we would expect /m/ before /p/. But the Gmc. languages have mostly the
>> reflexes of /n/, which is possible before labiovelars like /kw/ (probably
>> being realised as (ng)), but not before true labials. Later occurences of
>> /m/ in Gmc. languages can be easily explained as assimilations.

Thomas McFadden wrote:

> Although I favor the assumption of *penkwe over *pempe, i don't think
> this an be used as an argument in its favor.  German is the only place
> where I can find -n- in Gmc. words for five, ON. having fimm, Goth. with
> fimf and OE OFris OS with fi:f (unless I'm missing something).  And in
> fact OHG has fimf next to finf and funf, and I think the fimf might be the
> older.  The change to -n- in HGer. would be an instance of a common
> dissimilation of m to n before f (or at least of a constraint that n is
> the only nasal allowed before f).  Consider Kunft, which is derived from
> some pre-form of kommen.

German has in such words a labiodental nasal, which before a labiodental
fricative is not surprising.  (Take a good look at the nasal in English
_infant_ for another example.)  But there's no obviously right way to write
this sound in either language.  German has gone back and forth about the
spelling, but I don't think the choice of <m> or <n> at one period or another
can tell us anything about the PIE protoform.

Leo Connolly