Re[2]: [tied] The w-/n-/m- alternation

At 8:09:07 PM on Wednesday, December 17, 2008, tgpedersen
wrote:

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

[...]

>> I wasn't thinking of lexical borrowing, but rather of
>> contact-induced variation in pronunciation, possibly
>> starting quite early.

> It would come down to the same thing, namely a claim ON
> /o:/ > ODa /wo/, but no ON /o:/ > OSw /wo/, [...]

No. That would be something quite different.

Brian