Re: Basque onddo

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <bm.brian@...> wrote:

>
> According to Penny, <muyt>, later <muy> is the regular outcome of
> MULT(U) with final T, while <mucho> is the regular outcome when
> the T remains syllable-initial.
>

I'd say that Spanish <mucho> is the regular development of Ibero-Romance
<muito>, with palatalization of -it- as /*c/ > /tS/.

> Edwin B. Williams, From Latin to Portuguese, says that the Portuguese
> apocopated form <mui> from <muito> is the result of Spanish influence
>

If I'm not mistaken, <mui> is seldom used in the modern language, unlike
Galician <moi>.

> and tentatively attributes the <ui> of <muito> (instead of the *muto
> that would be regularly expected) to the influence of the apocopated
> form.
>

That's right. But notice Galician <oi> (corresponding to Portuguese
<ui>) is *never* reduced. However, medieval troubadours, whose native
language was Occitan, used the form <mocho> in their own Galician
idiolect.

> He doesn’t mention <muncho>,
>

Of course he doesn't, because /-it-/ is *never* palatalized in
Galician-Portuguese. AFAIK, this form is usual in Asturian, although it
can also be found in regional Spanish.

> but he does note a popular form
> <munto> from <muito>;
>

Actually showing reduction /u~i~/ > /u~/. Please notice that Portuguese
<n> is a mere *ortographic* device for representing nasality and not an
actual phoneme.

> this seems to have developed by analogy with
> words like bento < BENEDICTU(M) and pente < PECTINE(M), in which the
> /y/ of /yt/ became nasalized, a consonantal /n/ developed, and the
> /y/ fell.
>

Bullshit. There's *no* such "consonantal /n/" in Portuguese <bento> but
a nasal diphtong /e~i~/, which developed into /a~i~/ in the southern
variety spoken in Lisbon.