Re: Basque onddo

 

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy

bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@ wrote:
>
> > "fungus > onddo" was the explicandum, not the explicans
>

Basque onddo /onJo/ comes from "Cantabrian" Romance *Fongo (where /F/is
a bilabial voiceless fricative) > Spanish hongo.

> 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.
>

I must insist that palatalization in onddo has *nothing* to do with the
Romance one from [nn] or [nj], but it's related to some types of
expressive palatalization. For example, Spanish rechoncho (from *choncho
with contamination from redondo 'round'), Galician zoncho 'chubby' come
from a palatalized form *conco ~ *tSontSo related to Spanish tonto,
zonzo 'dumb, stupid'.

By a similar process, a velar stop /k, g/ can become a palatal /c, J/,
and eventually depalatalized as /t, d/. But /dj/ > /gj/ is also
possible, as in txindil > txingil 'lentil' or sugandilla > sura(i)ngilla
'lizard'.

 

*Bhr.:

 

 We have had a sufficient number of discussions to realize that we adhere to different epistemological frames, and this is reaffirmed by the present case, where I was asking for a Sound Law, whil You look completely satisfied with an explanation like " it's related to some types of expressive palatalization"...