From: Torsten
Message: 66809
Date: 2010-10-25
>No problem. I solved that a long time ago, at least two of them.
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > > I would have to be a phonological hippie to buy into the notion
> > > of "optional soundlaws". No rocket science is required to see
> > > that any word in any language could be derived from any word in
> > > the same or any other language, merely by tailoring the
> > > "optional soundlaws" to achieve the desired result. Philology
> > > would collapse into anarchy.
> >
> > While acknowledging an optional sound law is an admission of
> > defeat, and any explanation that depends on one is thereby
> > weakened, they do appear to be real. Good examples of optional
> > sound laws include:
> >
> > 1) The Modern English 3-way split of the reflex of OE o:, e.g.
> > Modern English _blood_, _good_ and _mood_.
> >
> > 2) Classical Latin /ae/ merging with /e:/ ('rustic') or /e/ in
> > Romance.
>
> Let's not forget the "optional sound law" d > l in Latin found in
> the words:
>
> lacrima < dacruma
> lingua < dingua
> le:vir < *daiwer
>