From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 34992
Date: 2004-11-07
> Kim Bastin wrote:apparently
> >>
> >> this regular change wont explain "salto" in this case. BTW, I
> >> verifyied all the latin roots where whe have an *sVl-;
> >> there is none whith a such change where if V= a, the change ischange
> >> "o,u". And I would say that is regular to do not have a such
> >> in the vowel which is in the very root. Are you sure insulsusis not
> >> a late Latin term after the Germanic influence on thislanguage? I
> >> cannot help but I just think at German "sülze" now:-)reference to
> >
> > I am not sure how much of the above I understand, but:
> >
> > _insulsus_ is attested at least from Plautus onwards (as
> > a dictionary will show) and is a phonologically impeccablederivative
> > of salsus. The appeal to Germanic influence is totallygratuitous.
> >being very
> > 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
> appropriate and a such change is OK. The change of "a" to "u" orto "a" to
> "i" are changes which bother me within the Latin root. I amlooking 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? Onwhich way is
> to obtain an "u/i" from "a"? This is what I wonder about.We've already told most of the story, albeit over two posts. To
> résilio: (Change 3)re+salto: > résalto: (Change 1)
> resílio: (Classical accent)
> réselto: (Change 2)Richard.
> résolto: (Change 4)
> résulto: (Change 5)
> resúlto: (Classical accent)