From: Etherman23
Message: 66816
Date: 2010-10-26
>If the solution is that there was an initial dl cluster then how come that cluster is not reflected in Old Latin, which allows other initial clusters?
>
>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Etherman23" <etherman23@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- 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
> >
>
> No problem. I solved that a long time ago, at least two of them.
> Cf. the thread starting in
> http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/10861