Re: [tied] Re: Derivation Rules from Old Slavic to Romanian

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 14:01:33 +0100, alex <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>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".

Not.

>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" .

Latin <gn> was pronounced /Nn/. The change from /N/ to /m/ is comparable
to the change from /k/ to /p/ in the clusters /ks/, /kt/.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...