*gwh in Gmc.

[Douglas G Kilday]

David L. White (25 Jan 2001) wrote:

>[DGK]
>> I still think *pempwe is a better fit for Early PIE. Otherwise the Germanic
>> forms require an ad-hoc assimilation of *p__kw__ to *p__p__ mirroring the
>> Italo-Celtic assimilation to *kw__kw__. But if this happened, why wasn't
>> *perkw- affected (Lat. quercus, OE fyrh, OHG forha)? We don't have
>> *firf-trees.

>[DLW]
>What about Greek /pente/ and Sanskrit /panca/, which do indeed seem to contain
>the respective reflexes of PIE /que/ (more or less) meaning 'and'?

[DGK]
I'm sorry I didn't clarify the context. This sub-thread dealt with possible
labiolabials *pw, (*bw), *bhw becoming labials in Germanic and labiovelars
in other non-Anatolian IE. There was no question about referring Greek,
Sanskrit, Latin, etc. forms to anything but *penkwe.

[DLW]

>As for the non-existence of "firf" trees, all I can suggest is that numbers
>are sometimes subject to processes (mostly analogical) that do not affect
>ordinary words.  In this case, the "sing-song" rhythm of counting may have
>encouraged something not unlike reduplication (or internal alliteration).
>(/ini, mini, maini, mo/).

[DGK]
This seems to be the preferred explanation of Gmc. "five". Several
respondents have made clear that Hittite and Gothic reflexes require *-kwe
'and', excluding *-pwe at any constructible stage of PIE. This leaves two
possibilities:

(1) Early PIE *penkwe, formed with *-kwe, which underwent anomalous
assimilation to *pempe, *femfe (or the like) due to the rhythm of the
counting ritual in Proto-Germanic *only*, leaving perfectly regular reflexes
in other branches of IE.

(2) Early PIE *pempwe, not formed with *-kwe, which became *pempe in
Proto-Germanic, *penkwe in other PIE, following regular sound-changes.

By "Early PIE" I mean after the Indo-Hittite fission but before the
Indo-Germanic, which would have had to precede the other IE fissions for the
labiolabial hypothesis to be valid. Although (1) is favored by respondents,
(2) requires less special pleading. I must admit that funny things happen
with numerals; I have never seen a plausible explanation of the voicing in
Greek <hebdomos>, <ogdoos>. On the other hand the labiolabial hypothesis
seeks to explain the behavior of other Germanic labials corresponding to PIE
labiovelars without waving the magic wand of "assimilation to a labial near
a labial" which works only some of the time (and again *only* in Gmc.).
Either we seek reasonably comprehensive sound-laws, or we must hire
Rumpelstiltskin to manage our Proto-Germanic phonology.