--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>
> Prochain, proche and approcher aren't in contrast with the whole
> picture, because they rather proceed from *propea:nus, *propeus and
> *adpropea:re.
That makes no sense and is against all ev. In VL propius > proxius by analogy w proximus (sup.-to-comp.-influence) couldn't be clearer.
> Apart from Gaulish names, all the rest is made of 1)
> /kt/ and /ks/ with /k/ > /x/ > /ç/ before dental obstruent (a partial
> assimilation), 2) /Vs/ + sonorant > long vowel + sonorant (fricative >
> approximant > vowel lengthening), also an assimilation, and 3) <gn>
> [Ån] > [ɳ:], the only proper palatalisation;
There's Sp multum > mucho \ muy that shows something like:
*
mULtUm
mULtU
mULYtU
muLYtU
muLYtU muLYtYU
muLYtU mutYtYU
muytU mutYtYU
etc.
So, in Sp, all K show an env. in which K > +Y, 2 of which can't be due to > x > y alone. Therefore, there is no need to exclude k > kY since it doesn't save the need for KY (when/if k>x or kY>xY there isn't important to this).
The (in some dia. it's opt. or obl.) assim. KYt > tYtY is needed due to the diff. between kt / ks and kty / ksy (which isn't explained if your k>x>y +met. were the full story):
*
addi:rectia:re
addi:rektya:re
addi:rekYtya:re
addi:rekYtYya:re
addi:retYtYya:re
adereçar OSp; (same as tty in *mattya:na > maçana, dif. kt > fecho)
A similar change in:
*
approxia:re
approksya:re
approkYsya:re
approkYsYya:re
approkYxYya:re
approkYkYya:re
approcciare It; aprochier OFr; >> approach E;
The need for and likelihood of KY not x is also seen in the 1s of verbs in -eo / -io in which n-yo > -GYo > -go opt. (as in tegno OIt; tengo It;). That ny > NGY > NNY / NG > here (not plain G > y) is seen by comparing minuere > menguar , in which a similar change of nw > nGW > NGW > NgW > Ngw is easily seen.
Since one opt. path includes ny > NGY > NNY > NYNY > nYnY > ññ , the similarity to gn (Nn > NYn > NYnY > NYnY > ññ) and the similarity of these opt. outcomes (tegno ; tengo) to those w kt can't be ignored.
Also, placeo > plego shows that (the start of, at least) this group of changes preceded ky > kYy > cYy , etc., making a simple and late kt > xt > yt much less tenable.