Re: fortis , f- >>

Positing /v/ (voiced labio-dental fricative) is an
over-simplification: one can at most posit */β/ (voiced BI-labial
fricative) for Proto-Italic or Proto-Sabellian OR, on the base of
<Saunitai>, maybe a local voicing of Oscan-Umbrian /φ/ (voiceless
bilabial fricative), otherwise regularly voiceless ([φ] or [f]). Long
/o:/ can be ascribed to a Latial (= Non-Roman Latin) dialect; how do
You explain ru:fus then (with /f/ but /u:/)? Anyway, what's important
is that Roman Latin DID have /β/, as */dh/ > /b/ near /u/ or /r/
proves.Other instances of Latin /f/ for the Oscan-Umbrian outcome of
*/bh/ and */dh/ directly reflect Oscan-Umbrian /f/, as the enchoric
evidence clearly shows

2012/12/9, stlatos <sean@...>:

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> Where's "Oscan-Umbrian /v/"?
>
>
> Borrowed words like ro:bus with eu > ou > o: instead of u: (as in native
> L. words) indicate Oscan-Umbrian, like L., voiced internal bh > ph > f > v ,
> but, unlike L., no v > b . In borrowing a word with -v-, which didn't
> exist at that stage in L., it was replaced by either b or f, both one
> feature away, creating doublets like ro:bus : ru:fus (if f > v only occurred
> in 1 O-U language (with ou > o:), it still would be hard to tell all the
> details, but that's not important). All that matters is it's analogous to
> v- > f- \ b- or f- > bortitz \ portitz , not to a two-stage borrowing (in
> which the rest of, say, bortitz \ portitz, would likely be dif.).
>
>
>>
>> 2012/12/8, stlatos <sean@...>:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
>> > <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> For instance (Oscan-Umbrian loanwords)?
>> >>
>> >> 2012/12/8, stlatos <sean@>:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> A doublet like <bortitz>/<portitz> from Lat. <fortis> in this view
>> >> >> requires no intermediate language, merely an earlier and later
>> >> >> stage
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> borrowing the same word.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't think 2 stages of borrowing are needed. If Bq. had no f,
>> >> > then
>> >> > either f > p or f > v ( > b later) would be equally good
>> >> > substitutions.
>> >> > This is sim. to how L. borrowed Osc-U. words with -v- as either -b-
>> >> > or
>> >> > -f-
>> >> > (before w > v in L.).
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Sihler mentioned ro:bus : ru:fus, *londH- > lumbi: = loins (and some
>> > related words). He compared it to opt. OE borrowings of v (vannus >
>> > fann,
>> > v- > berbena, etc.). Either shows the reality of what I proposed.
>> >
>
>
>
>