> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:28:01 +0000, tgpedersenYou misunderstand me. I understood your remark to mean that Latin
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >But I
> >> >think life would be easier for Vennemann's reconstruction
> >*kamuntz if
> >> >it were *kamunks.
> >> Well, it isn't. Basque -tz is merely the word-final variant
> >> of -s. I see no real difficulty in imagining that this
> >> fortis final -S (-ss, -ts) wound up in Latin as -x in words
> >> such as camox (I don't think the word was borrowed directly
> >> from Basque anyway).
> >Out of curiosity: which path do you think it took, and was there
> >a /k/ involved on the way?
> -ss > -ts. E.g. Lat. fortis -> Bq. bortitz, Lat. corpus ->
> Bq. gorputz, perphaps Lat. cippus > Bq. giputz (as in