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

> >> 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.)
>

So you're saying that apart from that part of vocbulary, the b..n..
-> m..0.. rule is responsible for all /m/'s in Basque?


Torsten