Re: Latin -bs : just written or phonetic?

Evidently, Latin was like German and Russian and pronounced all final syllables unvoiced. It is a bit odd, that they would respell rex but not ubs. I'm guessing 2 rules are clashing --with rex the rule of economy of writing, with urbs the rule of maintaining the etymological link

From: Joao S. Lopes <josimo70@...>
To: "cybalist@yahoogroups.com" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Latin -bs : just written or phonetic?

I simply don't understand why Latin did not standardize -ps instead of -bs, like -x and -s, or Greek -ps

JS Lopes

De: Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...>
Para: "cybalist@yahoogroups.com" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Enviadas: Sexta-feira, 22 de Julho de 2011 15:16
Assunto: Re: [tied] Latin -bs : just written or phonetic?

Well, depends on who done learned you Latin. They learned me Latin in Texas so ... Actually, I've been told that it was pronounced unvoiced, as is rex < *regs, so <urbs> = /urps/.

From: Joao S. Lopes <josimo70@...>
To: Cybalist <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 8:31 AM
Subject: [tied] Latin -bs : just written or phonetic?

What can be said about Latin nouns with bs-endings, like urbs, orbs, caelebs? The Nominative suffix -bs was just a written form of an older *-ps, influenced by oblique cases, or represent a <bz> spelling? PIE have consonantal stems ending in labials?

JS Lopes