I can't understand why You insist in a reconstruction like proche <
proxius which, on one side, is at variance with all the rest of Your
argumentation (and as such has been presented by Yourself, so that my
objection would be in Your favour), and on the other side suffers from
counterxamples like Bresse < Brixia, where the outcome of /ksj/ is
clearly /s:/. Your appreciation "That makes no sense and is against
all ev." is then particularly unhappy, since sache < sapeam, hache <
Germanic *hapja and so on prove that /pj/ > /ʃ/ is, to say the least,
a more regular evolution.
I of course know the difference between the outcomes of /kt/ and
/kty/, but what has that to do with /ng/, with no palatal trigger?
Your claim that velar nasal yields palatal nasal in a non-palatal
environment is falisified precisely by tengo (and vengo), where even
Your explanation "n-yo > -GYo > -go opt." would show at most a palatal
to velar change and not vice versa.
Every speculation about "ny > NGY > NNY / NG" as a parallel case to
"nw > nGW > NGW > NgW > Ngw" is therefore useless, because it simply
reinforces the difference between palatal and non-palatal context.
So let's agree that the only argument of Yours is the similarity
between "ny > NGY > NNY > NYNY > nYnY > ññ" and "gn (Nn > NYn > NYnY >
NYnY > ññ)", where I fail to see the reason of the alleged velar nasal
in "NGY" (what You write "GY" is probably the outcome [ʤ], which
evidently causes no velarization of the preceding nasal; that [ʤ] is
also a frequent outcome of /gj/ isn't of course a safe base to
postulate that every [ʤ] has gone through /gj/, especially when [ʤ]
continues a palatal [j], as it's here the case).
Now, even if we concede that velar [ŋ] has been palatalized in the
sequence [ŋn], the best You can say is that velar nasal is palatalized
before [n] (notoriously not before /m/); since velar nasal isn't
palatalized before /g/ (cf. longus > long), any reference to other
velars is pointless, because Your Law has constraints even with
reference to the velar nasal.
So, let's finally come back to our starting point: fungus. Its
outcomes systematically show persistent sequence of velar nasal +
velar plosive; Romansh (Upper Engadine) fun(s)ch [fun(t)ʃ] (also func
[fuŋk]), as shown by its vocalism, isn't a local development (the
'indigenous' type is buli(e)u, bulai); it's attested in the
neighbouring Alpine dialects of Lombard (Ticinese) as funsc, fung
[fun(t)ʃ] in opposition to funch [fuŋk] (Lombard <ch> = /k/, Romansh
<ch> = /tʃ/). It's evident that [fun(t)ʃ] and [fuŋk] can't continue
the same antecedent, so one is forced to admit that [fuŋk] is from
fungus and [fun(t)ʃ] from its plural fungi (the plural form is
factually [fun(t)ʃ]) or from *fungeus.
This is the end of the story
Regrettably, you have erased - maybe considering it scarcely
pertaining to the point - my argument on <gn> n] > [ɳ:]; I paste it
again: "note that étain, as opposed to Provençal estanh, Catalan
estany, Castilian estaño, Portuguese estanho, simply shows (after
diphthongization of the vowel preceding palatal nasal, as in montaigne
< *montanea) regular depalatalisation of final palatal [ɳ] as in loin
< longe, whose contrast with long < longus definitely excludes
palatalization of velar nasals"
2012/11/1, stlatos <
sean@...>:
>
> --- 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>
>> [ŋn] > [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.
>
>
>
>