Re[2]: [tied] Negation

At 2:12:15 PM on Sunday, December 7, 2008, Richard
Wordingham wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> <BMScott@...> wrote:

[siècle:]

>> It actually produced OFr <seule>. To quote Pope:

>> In early borrowed words /g/ (< /g/ and /k/), if brought
>> in contact with /l/ by the fall of unstressed /u/, was
>> opened and vocalised to /w/ (cf. sauma < sagma, § 359):
>> O.F. reul& < reg(u)la, teul& < te:gula > tiul&, seul& <
>> **sEg(u)lU, saeculum.

[...]

> I note the word 'borrowed'. Is Pope saying that these
> words were borrowed rather than inherited from Latin?

So it would seem. But at a very early point in the history
of OFr. I believe that she sees them as borrowings from the
spoken Latin of the educated.

Brian