From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 70381
Date: 2012-11-01
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>