Re: Basque onddo

Do You have a counterexample (APART the vexed etymology we are
discussing)? Ir yes, please show me it, if no, I'm afraid Your
objection is too weak. /ks/ > /ss/ covers a much wider area than /kt/

> /jt/, so a distinction between /ksj/ and /ks/ + /sj/ is by no way

proven by the one between /ktj/ and /kt/ + /tj/

2012/11/7, stlatos <sean@...>:

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> First /ks/ > /ss/ (cf. essayer), then /ssy/ > <iss> (missionare >
>> moissoner).
>> Approcher is REGULARLY from appropiare, I can't understand Your need
>> of a different explanation
>
>
> If, as you said, kty was dif. than the sum of kt > it then ity > , etc.,
> there's no reason to simply assume the above.
>
>
>>
>> 2012/11/5, stlatos <sean@...>:
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
>> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> By the way, *approxia:re would yield *approisser in French and
>> >> *approsciare
>> >> in Tuscan; so *appropiare is compelling
>> >
>> >
>> > What other words show ksy ? You said that kty was dif. than kt, so
>> > why
>> > would I assume I had to have *approisser? I assume that py > py / pyy
>> > in
>> > most It., as most Cy, as in proppio , cappio .
>> >
>> >
>> >> 2012/11/1 stlatos <sean@>
>> >>
>> >> approxia:re
>> >> approksya:re
>> >> approkYsya:re
>> >> approkYsYya:re
>> >> approkYxYya:re
>> >> approkYkYya:re
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > approcciare It; aprochier OFr; >> approach E;
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>