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

From: tgpedersen
Message: 45146
Date: 2006-06-27

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Sean Whalen <stlatos@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Since o>a/_w I'd call it dissimilation. If you want
> a reason why this and not o>u, a>o/_w, etc., I can't
> help you. Why it's sporadic? I don't know that
> either.

I know you don't. I'm more curious than that.


> > > > 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.
>
> Languages change over time. If the rich and
> educated correct their writing by looking at the
> language of the past there's nothing unusual if the
> common people make inscriptions and develop languages
> showing different (later) sound changes.

Of course. In what way is this commonplace relevant to the question
of why Latin has both faveo: and foveo:?


Torsten