Re: swallow vs. nighingale, Common Romance

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz Jagodzinski"
<grzegorj2000@...> wrote:

> > Romance is just another name for the Latin at the later age of the
> > Roman Empire. Is just a generic term not another language or

dialect

> > And is a known term.
>
> That something is known does not mean that it is correct. Strictly

speaking:

> there is no need to introduce and use such a term.

I didn't introduce it: it exists.. make a search on Google...
If exists, you could suspect that there was a need..

> So please stop protesting against *passiarum because you are wrong

in this

> point. Both reconstructions are strictly equivalent, i.e. probable

in the

> same degree.

in *bassia:re we have 2 Forms in 2 different languages: abaissier and
bajar Could you see the difference? 2 Forms ...

> "Phantom" is definitely too inadequate word. The same I could say

that you

> deduction is a complete nonsense. First, show the difference in

both

> reconstructions - show which elements are less certain in the

Spanish

> reconstruction than those in the French one.

"Phantom" is because we have a single word here that in addition
didn't follow the Proto-Spanish phonetic rules...not because is
Spanish or French: in *bassia:re we have 2 Forms in 2 different
languages: abaissier and bajar
But by the way, I support *passiare too, please read my posting
carefully , but as I said ss>ssi is not a Proto-Spanish evolution in
it...

> > We need to start first with 'the rules': by saying that there
> > isn't an ss > ssj Rule in Proto-Spanish (at least I 'couldn't
> > identified' one)
>
> In fact, we are NOT saying about rules at all here. I have already

said that

> the change may be called at most "a weak rule" or a tendency, as

only some

> words developped due to it.

Please do not use such theories as "weak rules" this remember me
other of your formulations like "anyhow related"...

> Shortly speaking, I cound not postulate the rule ss > ssj in Neo-

grammarian

> sense. But:
> 1. I can postulate the rule [ssj] > j [x] (like in russeum > rojo).
> 2. I cannot postulate the rule ss > j, as I know that ss > s, not

j, like in

> grossum > grueso.

Is exactly what I told you...already.
Latin ss > Spanish s
Latin ssy > Spanish j
By the way, what happens with your "gemination-rule"?
Could you see that you have changed your mind, 'meanwhile'?
Or you need thta I quote you?

> [To 1: e merged with i and yielded [j] before a vowel as early as

late

> Latin, so russeum IS an example for [ssj]]

I will say : rosseus/rosseus with o not with u => see Romanian ros,u

> > And if it doesn't exists: *passiare (like *bassiare) is not a
> > Proto-Spanish internal construction (generated by the Proto-

Spanish

> > internal evolution (->by the Proto-Spanish phonetic rules))
>
> You are wrong: [ssj] > [x] is such a Spanish phonetic rule, basing

NOT ONLY

> on *bassia:re.

I said the same thing ssj > j and ss > s. Seems that you are mixing
the plans...

> Of course not, you tried to make it yet more tangled trying to

prove that

> *bassia:re is a good reconstruction while *passiare is a bad
> reconstruction.

I said that *passiare is Ok too: because, It's me that I show you
that can be linked with bassia:re.

Please read my postings carefully first, BUT the ssi inside it is not
originated in Proto-Spanish

> The logic shows that you are wrong in this point - both

reconstructions are

> plausible in exactly the same degree.
>
> > We will not advance by continuing to say that this is:
> > "anyhow related to the palatalization of other geminates "?
>
> Sorry but if you cannot see similarity, or parallel development, it

is only

> your problem. I can see it.

Regarding your:"anyhow related to the palatalization of other
geminates "?

This is wrong for sure regarding Latin ss in Spanish ===> Latin ss is
s in Spanish (see hueso) ==> so NO palatisation of ss in Spanish

Please do not to insist anymore here m...

If you need a full resume of the palatisations rules of geminates in
Spanish I can post them too...

> It is you who need 'only to give' the basis for that <j> COULD

develop from

> <ss> regularly (or point yet another solution). You will have a

problem

> because of *passa:re (reconstructed on the basis of the attested

form:

> passus, a form of pangere) which yielded pasar in Spanish while

passar in

> Portuguese etc. But you will not able to find any argumentation,

and you

> will be obliged to accept that it must have been [ssj] in Proto-

Spanish word



But it's me not you that I said first this: that -ssi- entered in
Proto-Spanish already as -ssi- in this word....remains to find the
external source.

On your side you have tried to derived the ssi from ss

> for pájaro, and the development was at least partially regular

here, or that

> [ssj] never existed - but then the development was fully irregular

(why?).

>
> Grzegorz J.
>

Gregorz, can you understand that Latin ss > Spanish s and that we
need to find the origin of ssi in pájaro elsewhere?

I will stop this thread on my side here, because I cannot add other
arguments to what I have already said...


Marius