Re: Basque onddo

Please: this isn't a discussion about /ks/. I think we agree on both
its input and output (although camox isn't an appropriate case for
compromise, because I follow my teacher Hubschmid in reconstructing
many different antecedents) and often also in its development, but, I
repeat, it cannot throw light on velar /n/ when this latter's outcome
differs according to its phonotactic context

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

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@...> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> --- 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).
>>
>
> Also, in:
>
> camox = chamois L; chamois Fr; camoscio\camozzo It; gamuza Sp; camuça Pu; >>
> gamz OHG; Gams NHG;
>
> with sim. ~ * gamudza >> * gamutsa > gamz
>
> it seems that only something like:
>
> ks
> kYs
> kYsY
> kYsY tYsY
> xYsY tYsY
> xYsY ysY tYsY
> sYsY ysY tYsY
>
> can account for it all (depending on dif. between dia.).
>
>
>
>