Re: Negation

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

> At 5:44:55 PM on Saturday, December 6, 2008, Richard
> Wordingham wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet"
> > <fournet.arnaud@> wrote:

> >> The word siècle "century" is regular as regards the vowel
> >> e > iè it's irregular because it should be siègle with g.

> > Shouldn't it be *sieille or *sile if it were regular?

> It actually produced OFr <seule>. To quote Pope:
>
> In early borrowed words /g/ (< /g/ and /k/), if brought in
> contact with /l/ by the fall of unstressed /u/, was opened
> and vocalised to /w/ (cf. sauma < sagma, § 359): O.F.
> reul& < reg(u)la, teul& < te:gula > tiul&, seul& <
> **sEg(u)lU, saeculum.

> Without that, it should probably have been *sieille or the
> like;...

I note the word 'borrowed'. Is Pope saying that these words were
borrowed rather than inherited from Latin?

Actually, I now think my reconstructions are wrong - I had been
assuming a gender switch. Without it, I think we should have *sieu(x)
or *siel.

Richard.