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

Kim Bastin wrote:

>>
>> 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 "s�lze" 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

Kim, the change of "o" to "u" doesn't make me head aches they being very
appropriate and a such change is OK. The change of "a" to "u" or to "a" to
"i" are changes which bother me within the Latin root. I am looking for the
fonological change here, about the possibility of getting an "u" from an "a"
or an "i" from an "a". Which was the phonological path used? On which way is
to obtain an "u/i" from "a"? This is what I wonder about.

Alex