--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>
> You haven't yet formulated the appropriate sound laws; You are only
> assembling examples and counterexamples (remember long and Lombard
> fonch)
>
I've given sound laws; I don't need to assemble them into a certain order when some parts are uncertain just to have something you think is necessary.
If your rule requires change of K > y with no K > KY first, then why is * loksika > * lokska > * lokksa >
loccia \ locca It; loche \ loque = loach/ slug OFr;
which appears to req. * lokkya \ lokka , which would mean (most simply) change of s>y , against all other ev. If, instead, ks > kYs (all) and kks > kYkYs (opt., perhaps due to the commonly dif. treatment of gemin. in the same position as single C), then KKs > KK, there's no problem.
The above opt. needn't look strange, since a similar one is needed for mucho / muy no matter what the middle stages were. In fact, if your rule requires change of L > y with no L > LY first, parallel to above, you have no way to explain vulturem > buitre Sp; abutre Por; since your Lt > yt ( > ty > ch opt.) wouldn't be able to show why y disappeared in abutre, which can be expl. by LYt ( > yt opt.) > lYt > lYtY > tYtY or sim. (parallel to my kYt > tYtY ( > ch before V also), which also can't change > ch before C (pectina:re > peinar)).
> 2012/11/2, stlatos <sean@...>:
> >
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Please: this isn't a discussion about /ks/.
> >
> >
> > If ks > ys, kt > yt, Lt > yt, and Nn > yn all occur, why wouldn't the ev.
> > be for a change in K, not x ?
> >