Re: [tied] Saint (was: Historical implications...)

At 7:52:06 PM on Sunday, June 15, 2003, Richard Wordingham wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer
> <mcv@...> wrote:

>> The Vulgar Latin form was *santus, not sanctus.

> How does Old French seint, saint (> English saint) derive
> from *santus? I would have expected Old French *sant.

M.K. Pope gives the Late Latin as /saNtU/ (where /N/ is
eng), rather than as /santU/, developing to /sa~int/ and
then /sE~int/. She says that <ncC> (/NkC/) first went to
/NC/, and she gives /a/ > /ai/ > /a~i/ > /E~i/ > /E~/ as the
normal development of tonic /a/ before /N/+cons.

Brian