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

At 3:54:55 AM on Saturday, February 14, 2004, m_iacomi
wrote:

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

>> [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]).

No, you've misunderstood. All of them are phonetic symbols:

Retention of intervocalic [z'], intervocalic and final
[s'] into Early Old French and subsequent shift to [z^] or
[s^] and later [x], without development of preceding
palatal glide, (spelling sometimes <x>), ...

(It's clear when you have the book in front of you: her
phonetic symbols are boldface, for which I've substituted
the usual square brackets, and her spellings are in italics,
for which I've substituted the usual angle brackets.)

Brian