From: Andrew Jarrette
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@>
> > >I'm not sure I understand you. Do you mean that originally the
> > > Note that OE <g> had both velar varieties ([g] initial and after
> > > [N], [G] medially otherwise (which > [x] finally)) and palatal
> > > varieties ([j]; *[J](voiced palatal plosive)>[dZ] after [n]).
> > > The palatal varieties arose from PGmc *g (plosive and fricative)
> > Actually PGmc *g must have been fricative everywhere (except perhaps
> > after *n) because it yields [x] or [G] everywhere but after *n in
> > Dutch.
> How do know that's not a generalization of something like the OE state
> of affairs?
>Yes, I'm well aware of that. Plus Flemish (supposedly) has bilabial
> Berlinerisch has /g/ > /j/
> Dutch /G/ > /x/ is an innovation which goes with /v/ > /f/ and /z/ >
> /s/, which all set it apart from Flemish.