Re: Latin barba in disaccord with Grimm's Law?

>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I gave examples enough to show that an
> > individual
> > > >> >form may have either o or a (fo-/faveo:); with
> > the
> > > >> >sporadic nature of the changes this is no
> > > >> >counterexample. Also see 100.c for
> > > >> counterarguments
> > > >> >to your derivation and n.>an, etc.
> >
> > I don't like sporadics.
>
> Some changes start in a few words and spread, either
> to all words or stop at some point. There's no way to
> get around this with the information from historical
> times. Why shouldn't a few exist in reconstructions?
>
> There are also times when a change is optional, and
> forms with the older and a newer sound coexist.
> Usually the new ousts the old at some point.
>
> These aren't very common in standard
> reconstructions, why should a few cases (and this one
> with written evidence) be troubling?
>

Well, let me be more specific: If you want to claim sporadic change,
that is if some phonetic context I would like there to be an
explanation of why that is so.

> > The existence of both foveo:
> > "warm" and
> > faveo: "cherish" in Latin, plus Ernout-Meillet's
> > remark that words
> > with /a/ are 'mots populaires' makes me think there
> > must be at least
> > one independent source (substrate? adstrate?
> > sociolect?) for Latin
> > words with /a/.
>
> Well, from Latin to Vulgar Latin doesn't need much
> of an explanation.

But that remark does.


Torsten