Re: Basque onddo

I had written that this isn't a discussione about /ks/ (at least
just about approxiare), You insist, but I confirm - I AGREE (do You
concede that someone can agree with You?) on /ks/ AND /kt/, a
palatalization has taken place there, both in Umbrian and in Gaulish
and then in (Western) Vulgar Latin too. OK? Anything else about that?
Otherwise please let's stop.
What You DON'T write - and by now I suspect You can't - is a sound
law by which both [fuŋk] and [funtʃ] (occurring in one and the same
variety) can be explained. Nothing more, nothing less.

2012/11/5, stlatos <sean@...>:

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> You haven't yet formulated the appropriate sound laws; You are only
>> assembling examples and counterexamples (remember long and Lombard
>> fonch)
>>
>
>
> I've given sound laws; I don't need to assemble them into a certain order
> when some parts are uncertain just to have something you think is
> necessary.
>
>
> If your rule requires change of K > y with no K > KY first, then why is *
> loksika > * lokska > * lokksa >
>
> loccia \ locca It; loche \ loque = loach/ slug OFr;
>
> which appears to req. * lokkya \ lokka , which would mean (most simply)
> change of s>y , against all other ev. If, instead, ks > kYs (all) and kks >
> kYkYs (opt., perhaps due to the commonly dif. treatment of gemin. in the
> same position as single C), then KKs > KK, there's no problem.
>
>
> The above opt. needn't look strange, since a similar one is needed for
> mucho / muy no matter what the middle stages were. In fact, if your rule
> requires change of L > y with no L > LY first, parallel to above, you have
> no way to explain vulturem > buitre Sp; abutre Por; since your Lt > yt ( >
> ty > ch opt.) wouldn't be able to show why y disappeared in abutre, which
> can be expl. by LYt ( > yt opt.) > lYt > lYtY > tYtY or sim. (parallel to my
> kYt > tYtY ( > ch before V also), which also can't change > ch before C
> (pectina:re > peinar)).
>
>
>> 2012/11/2, stlatos <sean@...>:
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
>> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Please: this isn't a discussion about /ks/.
>> >
>> >
>> > If ks > ys, kt > yt, Lt > yt, and Nn > yn all occur, why wouldn't the
>> > ev.
>> > be for a change in K, not x ?
>> >
>
>
>