From: stlatos
Message: 70436
Date: 2012-11-10
>You are an incompetent fool. There's no reason to limit myself to Spanish when closely related l. can reveal the optionality I suggest.
> At 2:11:56 PM on Wednesday, November 7, 2012, stlatos 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.
>
> And yet your (O)Sp. examples are consistent with this.
>
> Never mind; I was mildly curious about what you'd say, but I
> don't consider you much more capable of serious discussion
> than I do Tavi. A large fund of lexical data is no
> substitute for understanding of what to do with those data.
>