Re: potto

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" wrote:
>
> In "*prisipu > trisipu > *drisipu > lizifru", what are the stages in
> regard to metathesis? Since dr > lr > l-r is impossible or "highly
> unlikely" to you, why did metathesis take place? You first said all
> these were << pesebre, so did you first think it was p-r- > pr-0-
> met.?
>
> > Since the Latin form has pr-, lizifru could actually derive from a
> > methatesized form *pisipru akin to Spanish pesebre < *pesepre <
> > *presepe.
>
> > I know ONE is methatesized (which depends on when/where borrowed),
> > but that's the only dif. in env.; they're not from 2 kinds of Bq.
>
> > I don't like abbr., you know, but lizifru is structurally (although

not

> > phonetically) identical to Spanish pesebre (metathesized), while

trisipu

> > is akin to Aragonese presepe (non-metathesized). So the latter looks
> > like a rather undigested loanword from Pyrenaic Romance.
>

Which is more conservative than Hispano-Romance. It took me some time,
but finally I've got it straight: *pris´ipu > *pis´ipru >
*Bis´ipru > lisiFru /lizifru/. There's no intermediate dental here,
nor in the other cases where p-/b-/m- > *B- > l-.