From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 70412
Date: 2012-11-05
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"Is this supposed to be responsive to either of my comments?
> <bm.brian@...> wrote:
>> At 6:07:12 PM on Wednesday, October 31, 2012, stlatos
>> wrote:
>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
>>> <bm.brian@> wrote:
>>>> At 8:59:53 PM on Tuesday, October 30, 2012, stlatos
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
>>>>> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
>>>>>> Does the sequence /kt/ > /tʃ/ due to /kt/ > /xt/ >
>>>>>> /çt/ > /jt/ > /tj/ (suggested by areal dialectology)
>>>>>> really imply palatalization of anteconsonantal
>>>>>> *velar* /n/?
>>>>> The oddity of KC in Romance is easily seen in Rum. kt
>>>>> > pt , ks > ps (octo: > opt , coxa > coapsA);
>>>> A sequence /kt/ > /xt/ > /φt/ > /pt/ (and similarly for
>>>> /ks/ is plausible and not especially odd.
>>> Then why Nn > mn ?
>> Why not? It's analogous to the middle step of the other
>> sequences, and the first and last steps can't apply.
> If K>P anyway, no k>x is needed in place of k>p.