Re: [tied] Re: Six, -ts- > -ks-

Marius--

I don't think this aspect of Old French historical phonology is especially
obscure or controversial. Old French dialects were not unified in terms
of phonemic/phonetic distribution, and the modern outcomes are
continuous with older features. See M.K. Pope, _From Latin to Modern
French_, p. 489:

[in a list of features of northern Old French dialects] "Retention of
intervocalic z', intervocalic and final s' into Early Old French and
subsequent shift to z^ and s^ and later x, without development of
preceding palatal glide...."

Pope cites the spelling <lazsier> in the Eulalia sequence and
<moixon>, <tixerant> in the Lorraine Psalter (14th century).

I'm sure this matter is also discussed in Gossen's _Grammaire de
l'ancien picard_, but I don't have it at hand. For a display of modern
reflexes of <*laxare> with [s^] and [x] see the entry in Wartburg,
_FEW_.

Jim Rader

> --- 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
> N�mes, Couronnement de Louis, Foug�res - Livre des mani�res, Beroul -
> Roman de Tristran, etc.). Other Medieval occurences of <x> in French:
> Roman d'Alexandre (13th century, in Poitevin -- with phonetical value
> [ks]), Chr�tien 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 p�rilleux - Picardie, end 13th c. or
> <seneschax> for modern <s�n�chaux> - 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
>