From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>----- Original Message -----spat(u)la > espalle > épaule, mod(u)lu > molle, moule.
>From: "Anders R. Joergensen" <ollga_loudec@...>
>>How do you then explain the palatalization of *l in vieille etc.?
>>And OFr. vielz < vetulus presupposes a palatalized *-lj- (< *-kl-),
>>in order to get <z> /ts/, not simple <s> /s/.
>Vielz with z was different form tel with tels.
>so there were two -l-
>What is the relevance of that in proving that vielz < supposedly *veklu-s
>Northern French has :
>traval = travail
>pal = paille
>viel = vieille
>There is no palatalization here.
>And I don't understand the one-way-round trip :
>dental > velar > palatalized
>What about remaining at the same place :
>vetulu> velyu can do it.
>dental > palatalized.
>Old French is about more palatal and front consonants,
>not about more velar consonants.
>MAybe vetulu > veklu explains Italian well,
>I cannot see how this story fits in Old French landscape.
>>There are admittedly some words that seem to follow a different path,
>>with -tul- > -Dl- > -ll-.
>For example ?