Re: fortis , f- >>

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:

>
> Positing /v/ (voiced labio-dental fricative) is an
> over-simplification: one can at most posit */â/ (voiced BI-labial
> fricative) for Proto-Italic or Proto-Sabellian

Attempting to be that precise about a dead language would be idiocy.


OR, on the base of

> <Saunitai>, maybe a local voicing of Oscan-Umbrian /ö/ (voiceless
> bilabial fricative), otherwise regularly voiceless ([ö] 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:/)?

A different O-U borrowing, probably from a dif. lang., but not on the basis of f-not-b. I don't know what you dislike about the theory, but you're not giving any ev. that matters.


Anyway, what's important

> is that Roman Latin DID have /â/, 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

That v > f occurred is obvious and not in contention. That v > b also is more difficult to prove, as most of this type are only provable as borrowings if showing -f- not -b-. Your words seem to reflect merely your determination to disbelieve w/o ev.

>
> 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.).
> >