From: Rick McCallister
Message: 50463
Date: 2007-10-28
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz=== message truncated ===
> 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
>