Re: Basque onddo

"fungus > onddo" was the explicandum, not the explicans (and You never
take into consideration what I've implicitly suggested in order to
offer a spin off, *fungeus...). For the rest, as I've already too many
times written, what You keep on assembling doesn't explain long <
longus and [fuŋk] < fungus. You are mixing everything together and
never even trying to avoid contradictions. Please write once for all a
Sound Law by which You can explain long < longus and [fuŋk] < fungus
alongside Your obsessive palatalization of velar in non-palatal
contexts

2012/11/1, stlatos <sean@...>:

>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> The purpose of describing peyndra , etc., is to show that N > y , L > y ,
> k > y all occur, only 1 can be ascribed to k > x, so that simple x > y
> doesn't work; better all K>KY in 1 env.
>
>
> That Ng > NYg happened in Sp (as an intermediate before NYg > Ng), or even
> in some extinct l., is most easily seen by fungus > onddo. In Sp, the 2
> outcomes of Ng before a front V (gingi:va > enzia OSp; ringi: > -ere >
> reñir) show the same alt. as tegno/tengo (but these not before a front V);
> most likely from NYge > NYgYe ( > NYGY opt.). Sim., ungula > uña shows dif.
> from amplus > ancho, etc., all most easily accounted for by N>NY first
> (shown by the outcomes of Nn, among others, as well as onddo).
>
>
>
>