Re: Six, -ts- > -ks-

From: m_iacomi
Message: 31023
Date: 2004-02-13

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Rader" wrote:

> Actually, some northern and eastern dialects of Old French
> did develop [s^] from [ks]. Anglo-French and Middle English
> appropriated some of these forms--hence <cushion> in Mod.
> English as against French <coussin>, <coissin>, from <*coxi:nus>,
> and doublets like <lease> and <leash>. I think a few French
> manuscripts may have spelled [s^] with <x>, but I'd have to
> check; it certainly wasn't the dominant spelling.

Are you sure that it's not a late phenomenon involving not
[ks] > [s^] but only a subdialectal [s] > [s^]?! Which French
words suggest that spelling feature?! Old French attested (12th
century) is "cussin". Surely it wasn't a dominant feature since
the phoneme [s^] was missing from Old French system around 12th
century (cf. A. Varvaro), <ch> was still read [c^].
OTOH, in several 13th century texts one has <Dex> or <Diex>
for <Dieu>, modern spelling appearing also in those texts (Charroi
de Nîmes, Couronnement de Louis, Fougères - Livre des manières,
Beroul - Roman de Tristran, etc.). Other Medieval occurences of <x>
in French: Roman d'Alexandre (13th century, in Poitevin -- with
phonetical value [ks]), Chrétien de Troyes - Le chevalier de la
charette (Champenois): <An son lit trueve Kex dormant> ("Keu").
Consistently, for final modern -x like in <voix> one finds in
OF -z (<voiz>), but also -x (<loiax> for modern <loyaux>, <fax>
for modern <faux> - L'atre périlleux - Picardie, end 13th c. or
<seneschax> for modern <sénéchaux> - Raoul de Cambrai, note the
graphic rendering of [s^] with "sch").

>> No of course not. -us was not pronounced -us^, either in France or
>> Spain, and there were no endings in -us in Spain, unlike in France
>> (-ls > -us), so the Spanish, not French, use of <x> to stand for
>> /s^/ can only be explained by the fact that Latin /ks/ developed
>> to /js^/ in Spain (coxa, cuixa), and not in France, where it
>> developed to /js/ (cuisse, cueissa).

I would rather agree with this, until contrary proof.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi