Re: Basque onddo

And then there's mucho < multus, also regional and other Ibero-Romance muncho and Portuguese muito /mw˜itu/.

So, what happened here. Did Spanish get muy from Medieval Astur-Galaico, leaving mucho as the natural development?

From: Brian M. Scott <bm.brian@...>
To: stlatos <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 5:58 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Basque onddo

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.