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

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

> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:31:27 +0000, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
>
> >1) Portuguese has /-us^/ for the spelling <-os>.
>
> Which Portuguese? Not Galician/Northern Portuguese or Brazilian

Portuguese

> (except Carioca).

Let me clarify: some Portuguese. Happy now?

>And how is a modern (post 17th c.) Portuguese
> development relevant to medieval spelling?
>

And you have ironclad evidence that it didn't occur before that?
Lately I've come across many passages in linguistic literature in
which the author claims that the late appearance of some feature is
caused by its having to work its way up from the subjugated popular
deep. What am I to make of that?

> >2) The usual "path of disappearance" for /s/ is > /s^/ > /h/ >

zero.

>
> I don't think so.

I do. Nyah, nyah, nyah (that oughta take care of _that_ argument).

> >3) Both <pouchin> and <cushion> involve /s/ after /u/.
>
> No. All these words involve /s/ after /i/.
>
> >I think it would be strange for French final /s/'s to disappear
> >abruptly.
>
> It didn't. It disappeared first before a voiced consonant (by way

of s > z

> > D > 0), then (11th. c) before voiceless consonants (by way

of /h/),

> finally (13th. c.) in final position,

Daintily steppping over the /s^/-puddle.

>except in liaison, where it survives
> until today (as /z/, of course, not as /z^/).

Oh! The final blow. But I don't think /s/ > /s^/ would force /z/

> /z^/.

Torsten