From: stlatos
Message: 70390
Date: 2012-11-01
>Since N>NY occurred in some env., seeing a possible bit of ev. for N>NY in another can be explained in the same way and ALSO explain the nature or extent of a change that might have been obscured by assimilation in some env.
> "fungus > onddo" was the explicandum, not the explicans
> (and You neverI already said that NYg > Ng, assuming that all Romance N > NY everywhere (which I explicitly said couldn't be proven and wasn't needed; the dif. in Sp uL>uy and L>w in Fr, for example, shows two changes that needed be Proto-Romance, but one or both of which show tendencies w dif. extents in dif. dia.).
> 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 [fuÅk] < 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 [fuÅk] < fungus
> alongside Your obsessive palatalization of velar in non-palatal
> contexts
>