Re: Latin pinso etc.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

> m_iacomi wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Wordingham wrote:
> >>
> >>> A Classical form <pinsatum> (whose existence I am not sure of)
> >>> would yield Romanian *pisat.
> >>
> >> why should be reduced the "ns" group to "s"
> >
> > Why on earth aren't you able to make a note on some agenda when
> > a topic is cleared out, for not asking the _same_ questions again
> > and again?! The /ns/ > /s/ topic has been already discussed with
> > Latin word for `snake`: it is an ancient feature of Latin, as you
> > could notice even from Rosetti's ILR (about Latin phonetics) if
> > you hate yahoogroups search function.
>
> 1)It bother me when the dictionaries and people assumes things which
> never happen in a certain language.
> Thus if "pisa" is from "pinsare" then they have to say that is from
> "pisare" < "pinsare". In our case, there is bloody to say Latin

pinsare

> > pisa since something like this is simply wrong. Latin "pisare" or
> VulgLatin "pisare" > "pisa" is correct.

The short answer is that the Vulgar Latin froms are less often
attested. A similar things happens in English dictionaries.
Standard English chiefly derives from the Anglian dialect(s), but the
Old English forms cited are West Saxon, being the standard form of
Old English. Some dictionaries will give an Anglian form where it is
known and better explains the Modern English form.

> It remains apparently odd the
> lost of "n" in that position of the word but keeping it in another
> position in Latin and this is why I wonder about because I compare

with

> Rom. where the "ns" is kept, regardless its position.

In what position is Latin -ns- preserved into Romanian? You might
have some examples in highly transparent compounds, e.g. in + s- > în
+ s-, but that would be a result of the compound being reformed. In
the same position, we have Latin _insula_ > Old French _isle_ >
French _île_, English _isle_.

The selective loss of nasals before certain fricatives has
precedents. West Germanic lost nasals before /x/, but while pre-Old
English lost nasals before all voiceless fricatives, German and Dutch
kept them before other fricatives.

> 2) /ns/ > /s/ in "snake" topic? I ahve to re-see it. I honestly do

not

> remember about and I don't recal any /ns/ in "snake"

It was pretty much an aside. A couple of us wondered why a
development path serpens > *serpen > *serpe was being considered when
the path seemed obviously to be serpens > serpe:s > serpe.

Richard.