[tied] Re: Six, -ts- > -ks-

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Rader" wrote:

> I don't think this aspect of Old French historical phonology is
> especially obscure or controversial. Old French dialects were not
> unified in terms of phonemic/phonetic distribution [...]

Well, one shouldn't stress the obvious.

> [in a list of features of northern Old French dialects] "Retention
> of intervocalic z', intervocalic and final s' into Early Old French
> and subsequent shift to z^ and s^ and later x, without development
> of preceding palatal glide...."
>
> Pope cites the spelling <lazsier> in the Eulalia sequence and
> <moixon>, <tixerant> in the Lorraine Psalter (14th century).

What I do read is "final s' [...] shift to [...] s^ and later x".
Which does not amount as development of Latin "x" [ks] > [s^] to
justify the eventual spelling of /s^/ with "x". The text is not
very coherent: if "s^" can be interpreted only as phoneme, "x"
can be only a further spelling convention for it (I would hardly
believe a phonetical [s^] > [ks]). Anyway, even this text supports
better my claim (and also Miguel's) than yours: it is a certain
"late phenomenon involving not [ks] > [s^] but only a subdialectal
[s] > [s^]" if some conditions are fulfilled (the feature is well
known for anyone having heard "mon p'tit pouchin" :-)). Miguel's
examples point out that not only Latin <x> but other groups as
well produce dialectal [s^].

> I'm sure this matter is also discussed in Gossen's _Grammaire de
> l'ancien picard_, but I don't have it at hand. For a display of
> modern reflexes of <*laxare> with [s^] and [x] see the entry in
> Wartburg, _FEW_.

I'll check it at the library.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi