Re: Basque onddo

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

>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@> wrote:
> >
> > At 6:26:41 PM on Sunday, November 4, 2012, stlatos wrote:
> >
> > > The above opt. needn't look strange, since a similar one
> > > is needed for mucho / muy no matter what the middle stages
> > > were.
> >
> > Nothing optional is needed here.
>
>
> Wrong. There's Por. muito, abutre, cutelo vs (O)Sp muyt, buitre, cuchiello, with no reg. apparent in either (or between).
>
>
> One is the regular outcome
> > of (U)LT- when the T remains syllable-initial; the other is
> > the regular outcome when the T becomes final, as in MULT(U)
> > > muyt, later muy.

Also, there's no reason to suppose that met. of yt > ty > ch ever occurred, since that type of thinking would make an equivalent rule for ks:

maxilla = jaw L; mexilla OSp;

fra:xinus = ash L; freisno OSp;

with pal. before V, not C. However, in freixo Por; the i remains in its precons. pos., while still pal. s > sY > s^ . This req. ks > kYs > kYsY > ysY (or sim.), as I said.