Reconstruction talk:Proto-Celtic/tangʷāss

Why *t- and not *d-? 31.162.87.234 00:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * That's completely mysterious. I don't even know an attempt at an explanation – save the (questionable) one mentioned in this entry, influence from Germanic (that said, for whatever unclear reason, the continuations of Proto-Indo-European *dn̥ǵʰwéh₂-/*dn̥ǵʰuh₂- are problematic in almost all branches).
 * By the way, the Cisalpine Gaulish inscription of Oderzo, padros pompeteguaios kaialoiso, has a word – apparently to be read as pompetenguaios – which seems to mean 'he who speaks five languages' and implies an unextended Proto-Celtic *tangʷā (which I already speculated privately could plausibly be found in Continental Celtic, so it's nice to see my suspicion confirmed, although it's a quite obvious prediction for a morphologically more conservative form – now we'd only need to find a trace of a *dangʷā in Celtic, and the Celtic word for tongue at least would have become less mysterious). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)