Re: [tied] Sounds Rough (was: -kt-)

From: alex
Message: 27408
Date: 2003-11-18

Richard Wordingham wrote:
> Of the Oxford Etymological Dictionary's 4 words "ruff" -
> A. The fish.
> B. The article of neckwear.
> C. Trumping etc. at cards.
> D. The bird (male sandpiper to be precise).
>
> it says:
> (A) is 'probably' derived from "rough".
> (B) 'possibly' derives from "rough".
> (C) derives from Old French _roffle_, _roufle_
> (D) is a transferred use of (B).
>
> Richard.

OK, OK. So there are some posiblities , one of them should be probable x
> f;
On another hand we have regular p > f
The probably x > f is to find in English
The regularry p > f is to find in Germanic, Greek, some other langues.
Question:
was this probable example an example to show me there is _indeed_ an x >
f ?( even if with the status of "probable")
If yes, then which is the relevance of a such singular change ( we
assume indeed x > f) comparative with the regulars changes of p > f?
Would one try to postulate that because of a singular "probable yes
probable not change" in English is to explain the regular p > f and the
regular ct > pt or ct > ft or pt > ft in other languages?
I postulated that because of p > f which is regular, is very probable
that pt > ft too ( because in other casse the ct > t in the same
language - and here we have been speaking about Albanian).
So , the specialist in phonology will argue now that no, there is no pt
> ft but ct which a) ct > xt > t and b) ct > xt > ft and c) from this
"ft" we have an "pt"?
If yes, I guess is high time I get a break since I hear my caffe-machine
is making noise...

Alex