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

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

>>>>> 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.
>
> What can I say? Where are the examples of direct /s/ > /h/?

Since your reply seems odd, let's take another look at your phrase:
{the usual "path of disappearance" for /s/} is {[/s/] > /s^/ > /h/ >
zero}. So you are claiming that:
1. there is an "usual" path of disappearance for /s/;
2. that usual path of dissapearance is /s/ > /s^/ > /h/ > zero;

When Miguel & I replied, we contested of course 1 (that is: there is
no "usual" path of disappearance for /s/, Miguel provided some
examples
showing up there are several different paths) and 2 (that is: common
"paths of disappearance" do not include your /s/ > /s^/ > /h/ > zero
alleged stuff in the case of French).
Your claim is that with our answers we advocated only for {/s/ > /h/
without intermediate /s^/}. That is false. As Miguel showed, /s/...
"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". So there are three "paths". So there
is no "usual" path (as for your claimed 1). Then, /s/ > /h/ > 0 occurs
before voiceless consonants. So it cannot be for final -s, like the
one in "chevals/chevaus" since there is no further consonant. There
is no OF text hinting for /s/ preceded by voiceless consonant being
pronounced /s^/, and there is no OF text denoting /s/ in that position
by <x>. So there is no reason for your claim. So you are the one who
should bring on some proof (e.g. strange related spellings) pointing
to that intermediate stage /h/, and to generalization of your claimed
"path of disappearance" also to final -s preceded by -u-. If not, your
allegations are only wishful thinking speculations having nothing to
do with scientifical approach.

>> 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.
>
> Whoever this guy is he explains <chevax> as a corruption of

<chevaux>,

> the spelling he is used to seeing. That has nothing to do with
> historical linguistics.

The guy wrote somehow in haste, nevertheless his text can be simply
interpreted if you take into account he is writing for modern French
people reading him: instead of [modern spelling] "chevaux" one was
[once upon a time] often writing "chevax", in which <x> stands for
final <-us>, as the first part of the phrase clearly states. But it's
easier to claim that since you have some doubts in understanding its
second part, the whole is worthless, isn't it?!

>> 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.
>
> I have no doubt this is the standard theory, but where is the
> evidence?

In OF texts with subsequent spellings. They are more likely to be
found
in the librairies.

>>>> 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 sandhi was generalised to [z].

... "generalized"?! where from?

> The next simplest [...]
>
>> that your theory does not hold.

It's next to none.

Regards,
Marius Iacomi