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

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 10:19:29 +0100, you wrote:

>
>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 "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
>
>
>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.

I don't really understand your problem and am not sure what sort of
enlightenment you are seeking. All sorts of sound changes occur in the
history of languages — we can only note the facts. There is little
point in deeming them OK or otherwise.

An account of the vicissitudes of Latin medial vowels, which were
post-tonic in early Latin, can be found in any standard source, e.g.
Sihler. It would be otiose to rehearse them on this list, where most
people must be familiar with them. Briefly, short medial vowels went
to /e/, which could then be affected by other changes, e.g. before
/l/. Surviving /e/ in open syllables mostly went to /i/. In some
instances the original vowels were subsequently restored by
recomposition.

Weakening/neutralisation of unstressed vowels — which is at the root
of the changes which seem to trouble you — is extremely common and
examples can be found in countless languages. It is notoriously
characteristic of English, where the outcome is most often schwa, but
in some situations /I/ (particularly in UK varieties) or /I-/
(particularly in American), occasionally /U/.

Kim Bastin