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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" wrote:

> 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?

Nothing. Final -s in "some" Portuguese is pronounced /s^/ with
other preceeding vowels than /u/.

>>> 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).

Nope. You should substantiate your claim and that "usual" word.

>> 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.

Which was noted by noone. The spelling <cheva(u)x> did not stand for
/c^evaus^/, it is simply that /us/ was rendered by <x>: "... équivaut
en effet dans l'orthographe au groupe final -us indiquant le pluriel
de certains noms: au lieu de chevaux, issu de caballus, on écrivait
souvent chevax [...]", you might have noticed that also from other
examples I gave. This rendering was a simple graphical way to write
faster. Restoring the "u" became a necessity once the diphthong
reduced to /o/: /s^evo(s)/ [and that was 200 years later than 13th
century when the graphy <ch> shifted its' pronounciation from /c^/
to /s^/, providing thus a good graphical rendering for any /s^/
which might have appeared], the <au> was there to stand for [o],
but final x remained just as a graphical mark of the plural with no
real etymological background.

>> 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^/.

Of course not. But were the <x> pronounced [s^], the regular
voicing of it would have yielded [z^], not [z]. So your theory has
to include also an explanation for this.
The simplest explanation is that your theory does not hold.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi