From: Anders R. Joergensen
>How do you then explain the palatalization of *l in vieille etc.?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
> To: "fournet.arnaud" <email@example.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 5:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: beyond langauges
> > At 8:21:00 AM on Friday, May 2, 2008, fournet.arnaud wrote:
> > [...]
> >> There is no indication vetulus ever was **veklus in
> >> pre-French Romance.
> > This is a well-known Late Latin development: when unstressed
> > penultimate vowels were lost between /t/ and /l/, the
> > resulting /tl/ was replaced by /kl/. Note 'vetulus non
> > veclus and 'vitulus non viclus' (Appendix Probi).
> > Brian
> I can see no traces in Old French of that.
> I'm not denying the existence of this process in Late LAtin,
> I'm stating that it does not show in Old French
> but maybe you have a word that proves it.
> How do you prove this change happened
> on the basic of Old French alone ?