Re: [tied] Re: A loose thought on present n-infix, ablaut

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:49:24 +0000, tgpedersen
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:56:56 +0000, tgpedersen
>> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>>
>> >BTW I can't access my copy of Trask; do you recall whether there is
>> >other evidence (eg. internal) of the Basque *b- > m-, other than
>the
>> >supposed loans from Latin?
>>
>> b..n.. > m..0.. is completely regular.

Also nb > m, and some cases of -unV- > -u~V- > -umV- (cf.
Portuguese uma).

>>Since pre-Basque,
>> ca. 2000 years ago, had no phoneme /m/, all cases of modern
>> Basque words containing /m/ are recent: either through
>> regular phonetic development of /b/, borrowings from
>> Latin/Romance, or newly-created expressive formations.
>
>
>Erh, yes, but what is the evidence that it had no *m? Aquitanian?

Aquitanian too, but mainly internal reconstruction. /m/
plays no role in Basque morphology, it does not occur in
numerals, kinship names, body parts, and is mostly
restricted to vocabulary items denoting small animals,
physical defects or of an expressive / onomatopoeic nature
(Michelena, Fonética Histórica Vasca, p. 275 ff.)

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...