Re: [tied] "u" versus "a"

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 18:18:09 +0100, you wrote:

>
>Kim Bastin wrote:
>>
>> There's no problem at all with u from a here. Compare _salsus_ "salty;
>> witty" vs. _insulsus_ "unsalted; boring". It's the outcome of a series
>> of regular sound change beginning with a > e in post-initial closed
>> syllables (cf. _factum_ vs. _infectum_), followed by changes triggered
>> by l pingue, as Richard implies in his post.
>>
>> Kim Bastin
>
>
>this regular change wont explain "salto" in this case. BTW, I verifyied all
>the latin roots where whe have an *sVl-; apparently there is none whith a
>such change where if V= a, the change is "o,u". And I would say that is
>regular to do not have a such change in the vowel which is in the very root.
>Are you sure insulsus is not a late Latin term after the Germanic influence
>on this language? I cannot help but I just think at German "sülze" now:-)

I am not sure how much of the above I understand, but:

_insulsus_ is attested at least from Plautus onwards (as reference to
a dictionary will show) and is a phonologically impeccable derivative
of salsus. The appeal to Germanic influence is totally gratuitous.

Other examples of exactly the same series of changes are:

resultum (resilio, cf. salio)

adultus (adolesco, cf. alo)

Kim Bastin