Re: Six, -ts- > -ks-

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

>>>>>> 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-. [in OF !]
>>>>>> If not, your allegations are only wishful thinking speculations
>>>>>> having nothing to do with scientifical approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> RUKI
>>>>
>>>> What has that ancient rule to do with OF, a different language
>>>> separated by origin and some millenia?!
>>>
>> > us > us^
>>
>> So, according to your logical skills, a phenomenon produced in
>> slightly different conditions, some millenia before OF and in other
>> linguistic groups (that is the shift of PIE alveolar /s/ to palatal
>> /s^/ in Slavic) is to account as proof that in OF there should have
>> been an intermediate stage /s^/ between /s/ and /h/ denoted by <x>?
>> Is that your point?!
>
> I said "the usual path". That means /us/ > /us^/, /s^/ > /h/ > zero
> are common changes.

No. "_the_ usual path" means you assign as factual that in most
cases of /s/ > ... > 0 the "..." should be replaced by "/s^/ > /h/",
and the other cases (which should be accordingly labeled "unusual")
are to be considered rather exceptional. Which is false. There is
no such a thing as "the usual path". There are several different
paths, depending on the system of the involved language. There is
no real case, AFAIK, in which one has the "complete sequence" you
assume (/s/ > /s^/ [because of preceeding /u/] > /h/ > 0) holds. So
there

> I never claimed this happened always, every time, as you imply,
> so I don't have to deliver any 'proof' for that, contrary to what
> you imply.

OK, therefore we agree that the RUKI rule you mentioned accounts for
0.0d0 relevance with respect to OF.

> Therefore, if /us/ > /us^/ by the RUKI rule, they might happen some
> other time, some other place.

Right. Everything can happen, eved (say) Danish being not Germanic
but Romance language: it happens that somewhere in Europe people got
Romanized so it might have occured also there bt telepathic influence.

> I proposed that /us/ > /us^/ might have happened in OF. You say it
> didn't happen. Therefore the burden of proof is on you, not me.

That's funny: _you_ are proposing something without any factual
argument and it's up to the others to prove you're wrong?! No sir,
in science it's all on the contrary: one has to construct theories
based on facts not on "might be"'s; so if one proposes a new idea
it's up to him to come up with supporting facts, otherwise it's
not science but unsupported speculation. I did not propose any
theory, I'm still waiting for your ghostly arguments supporting
_your_ revolutionary theory on OF phonology-spelling relationship
(which is incidentally well documented, nothing pointing towards
your interpretation but to commonly accepted evolution).

Regards,
Marius Iacomi