*gwh in Gmc.: Retraction

[Douglas G Kilday]

On 19 Dec 2000, Rich Alderson wrote:

> On 18 Dec 2000, Douglas G Kilday wrote:

>> On the other hand I would remove "wolf"; Lat. <lupus> argues against a
>> labialized stop. Gk. <lukos> probably results from taboo-substitution by an
>> epithet 'bright-eyed', 'shining-eyed' or the like. I would refer "wolf" to
>> PIE *wlpos. Making all attested forms into taboo-variants, as Mr.  Watkins
>> does, is an unnecessary shell-game.

>Since Latin frequently borrowed vocabulary from p-Italic sources (cf. _bo:s_ <
>*g{^w}o:ws), _lupus_ is irrelevant in an argument against a labiovelar here.
>The /k/ in Greek _lukos_ is regulrly derived from *k{^w} ("labiovelars >
>velars next to pre-Greek *u"), and the velars in the Slavic and Indic cognates
>*require* a labiovelar.

>Thus, your *wlpos poses more questions than it solves, in contradistinction to
>the standard *wlk{^w}os.

[DK] (opening mouth, removing foot)

Agreed. I need to do a better job of checking cognates. Lat. <lupus> is best
explained as a p-Italic loan, Gk. <lukos> requires no special theory, and
*wlpos is unacceptable as a PIE reconstruction. It is usable only as an
intermediate Proto-Germanic form after separation from PIE, assuming *pw ->
*p -> *f in PGmc.

Lat. <nefrendes> 'kidneys' also has p-Italic phonology. I should have quoted
the Lanuvian form <nebrundines> in my comparisons.

Doug Kilday