1) The case of pignora doesn't add anything to the question, becasue I
had already conceded, for the sake of the argment, that velar nasal
<gn> may undergo palatalisation. The problem is /ng/, where /g/ is
different from /n/ for what matters.
2) Let proxius be an analogical change; what has it to do with our
question? It just complicates things for You...
3) What does it mean that "Italian shows no traces of /p/"? Do You
really mean that the outcome of a sound change preserve a trace of its
input? Many Laws of Yours would fall down immediately. What then?
"Italian" is too vague, Tuscan has /pj/ and appropiare, while Sicily,
Italy South of Tuscany, Liguria, and Southern Piedmont have regular
palatalization, therefore saccia < sapiat and the like
2012/11/1, stlatos <
sean@...>:
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
>
> Because, if I remember correctly, proxius is attested in written sources
> as an analogical change
>
> AND
>
>> since sache < sapeam, hache <
>> Germanic *hapja and so on prove that /pj/ > /ʃ/ is, to say the least,
>> a more regular evolution.
>
>
> It. shows no ev. of py in:
>
> * approxia:re > approcciare It; aprochier OFr;
>
>
>
>