Re: beyond langauges

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
> To: "fournet.arnaud" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 5:17 AM
> Subject: Re[2]: [tied] Re: beyond langauges
>
>
> > At 8:21:00 AM on Friday, May 2, 2008, fournet.arnaud wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> There is no indication vetulus ever was **veklus in
> >> pre-French Romance.
> >
> > This is a well-known Late Latin development: when unstressed
> > penultimate vowels were lost between /t/ and /l/, the
> > resulting /tl/ was replaced by /kl/. Note 'vetulus non
> > veclus and 'vitulus non viclus' (Appendix Probi).
> >
> > Brian
> >
> ============
>
> I can see no traces in Old French of that.
> I'm not denying the existence of this process in Late LAtin,
> I'm stating that it does not show in Old French
> but maybe you have a word that proves it.
> How do you prove this change happened
> on the basic of Old French alone ?
>
> Arnaud

How do you then explain the palatalization of *l in vieille etc.?
And OFr. vielz < vetulus presupposes a palatalized *-lj- (< *-kl-),
in order to get <z> /ts/, not simple <s> /s/.

There are admittedly some words that seem to follow a different path,
with -tul- > -Dl- > -ll-.

Anders