Reconstruction talk:Proto-Celtic/amɸlabros

Reconstruction

Should probably be *amɸlabaros, the final -a- seems very consistent. Anglom (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It's really hard to be sure. Once final syllables were lost, epenthesis of word-final -br to -bar would be expected. Gaulish has two personal names from this root, Labarus and Labrios, so maybe both -bar- and -br- were present in PC. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

-br- to -bar-- wouldn't be expected in Brythonic. Brythonic didn't require epenthesis itself, see *gabros > *gaβr > Welsh gafr, but it did occur in some environments independently in the daughter languages; usually as schwa but schwa was often subject to assimilation. Anglom (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That's true, I forgot about that. Still, the Gaulish really makes it look like both forms were around, and without knowing the ultimate etymology, it's almost impossible to say which is the original form and which the later alternative. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That's okay, it's not a big deal. Thanks for replying. Anglom (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Assimilation

I find it very interesting that after ɸ was lost, the preceding -m-, a conditioned allophone of -n-, remained, and was even lenited later as if it had been between vowels. —CodeCat 22:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that lenition would have happened between a vowel and l anyway, though I can't think of an example off the top of my head. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Even so, the presence of -m- in the descendants reveals the former presence of -ɸ-. —CodeCat 13:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)