>You must have sources of information I don't have access to.
> --- In email@example.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > > > *dh- > *þ- > *f- is commonly accepted for Italic,
> > > > and many of its
> > > > speakers were grown-ups. I can't remember if it's
> > > > Kuhn or Vennemann
> > > > who posits an Italic-like *dh > þ, d > *d, *t > *t
> > > > for some dialect on
> > > > the Rhine, from where it might have been picked up.
> Sean Whalen:
> > > I don't know exactly what you're implying.
> > > In Germanic th>f is not regular, therefore the
> > > alternation in this root needs some specific
> > > explanation.
> > These languages appear as substrates in Germanic, therefore they
> > don't have to be analyzed as Germanic.
> So? We're not looking at a loan from one of these languages.
> You seem to be suggesting that a substrate was undergoing þ > f asI am.
> the speakers were Germanicised, and that the change took this word
> with it.
> You might as well accept it as a failed sound change within GermanicSame thing. Someone failed, and they are members of a group. Sometime
> (or anticipation of English Cockney, if you prefer),or ME parrok > paddock; by some coincidence both are Nordwestblock
> and compare it > to Modern English _pottage_ > _porridge_
> or rustic Latin ae > e:.Roman history started with two groups, patricians and plebeians,