From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 45159
Date: 2006-06-28
>Yes, with the addition I inserted above ("also nb > m, and
>> >> 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?