Re: Six, -ts- > -ks-

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:41:57 +0000, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>

wrote:

> >> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:12:29 +0000, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Here's the interesting part: it turns out that Basque -tz-
> >> >corresponds to Aquitanian <-x->, presumably -ks-
> >>
> >> Certainly not /ks/.
> >
> >And how do you know that?
>
> It's obvious.

Erh, if you say so?

> >> Trask: "The unsystematic fluctuation among <s>, <ss>, <x> and

<xs>

> >> strongly suggests that Aq. had more contrating sibilants than

could be

> >> accomodated in the Roman alphabet [] It appears that the

otherwise

> >> unneeded <x> was pressed into service to deal with some of the

Aq.

> >> sibilants, but that no consistent system of transcription was

achieved"

> >
> >Yes, but why <x>?
>
> Isn't it obvious?

I assume it's obvious to someone with Iberian connections, with
Portuguese, Old Spanish, Basque, Old French, Catalan all agreeing to
use <x> for /s^/, but to me it seems that for <x> to be used that
way, it must once have stood for what it stood for in Latin,
namely /ks/.

And let's not forget that the Aquitanian glosses are _before_ that
Western Romance tradition of using <x> for /s^/, so you can't invoke
the latter as proof.

>What other letter in the Latin alphabet would you choose?

What's wrong with <z>?

Torsten