From: fournet.arnaud
Message: 58302
Date: 2008-05-03
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anders R. Joergensen" <ollga_loudec@...>
> > 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/.
=====
Vielz with z was different form tel with tels.
so there were two -l-
What is the relevance of that in proving that vielz < supposedly *veklu-s
Next :
Northern French has :
traval = travail
pal = paille
viel = vieille
There is no palatalization here.
And I don't understand the one-way-round trip :
dental > velar > palatalized
What about remaining at the same place :
vetulu> velyu can do it.
dental > palatalized.
Old French is about more palatal and front consonants,
not about more velar consonants.
MAybe vetulu > veklu explains Italian well,
I cannot see how this story fits in Old French landscape.
Arnaud
============
>
>There are admittedly some words that seem to follow a different path,
>with -tul- > -Dl- > -ll-.
>Anders
==========
For example ?
Arnaud
=========