Richard Wordingham wrote:
> I think the change ct > pt has to be discussed in the context of the
> cluster. The discussion ought also to deal with x > ps and gn >
> mn. I propose we move the discussion of this group of changes to
> the phonet group, as it could be quite a lengthy discussion.
> Richard.
it seems that for "cs" >ps" should work the via "ki/pi". This won't work
for "gn" >"mn" ; I don't even think here we have to do with the
so-called "labialisation" even if here (in Rom.) "m" is an labial sound.
I simply stil don't have any viable examples for "g" > "m" even via "g"
> "b" .
We just constate that the "gn" changed in "mn" but _how_, this what I
cannot explain by now. One thing is sure. For a such change as "ct" >
pt", "x" > ps" and "gn" > "mn" one needs that theses clusters ( I see
them as reduced cluster where between g&n, c&t, c&s must have been an
another sound) should be in the same sylablle because when they do not
belong to the same syllable then the change is not possible.
Which should be the phonet group then?
Alex