From: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
Message: 70536
Date: 2012-12-09
> *If* from *h1rudh-eló-s, it would show an Anatolian diachronic
> transformation
>
> 2012/12/9, Joao S. Lopes <josimo70@...>:
>> And how about rutilus? <*h1rudH-ro-?
>>
>> JS Lopes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mensagem original -----
>> De: Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...>
>> Para: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
>> Cc:
>> Enviadas: Domingo, 9 de Dezembro de 2012 7:41
>> Assunto: Re: [tied] 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.
>>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>