[tied] Re: Latin pinso etc.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

> Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > The selective loss of nasals before certain fricatives has
> > precedents. <Snip>

> Excuse me Richard, but what has the loss of nasals in a certain

language

> with the loss of nasals in another language to do?
> <Snip>I doubt if this shows us something more beside
> the fact "it can happen".

That was the point I was making.

> <Snip> there are
> at least two words which are irregular into their derivation from

Latin

> (even if these irregularities are explained due some kind of

generosity

> which bear nice names as analogy, assimilations, disimilations,

etc..).

> I speak here about Alb."gjarpër" / Rom. "Sarpe" and

Alb. "gjashtë" /

> Rom. "Sase" and I am sure if one looks well one will find more such
> examples.

The only irregular things about _$arpe_, _$erpe_ 'snake' (< Latin
<serpens>) are:

1) The nominative rather than the oblique has been generalised.
2) There is a variation in the vowel as in _$apte_, _$epte_ 'seven'
(< Latin <septem>). The vowel variation simply results from two
competing sound changes - /$ea/ > /$a/ and /eaC(C)e/ > /eC(C)e/.
Further details can be found by running these words through
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/richard.wordingham/sounds/prep5d_rom.htm
or examining the embedded sound rules (most easily read simply by
looking at the 'source' of the web page.) Most of the rules are
cross-referenced to the most significant discussion on Cybalist.

I think it is undule harsh to describe the derivation of _$arpe_ /
_$erpe_ from <serpens> as irregular. In particular, there is no
appeal to analogy, dissimilation or assimilation.

Richard.