Re: fortis , f- >>

That PIE */bh/ had a bilabial feature is no idiocy, so if You mean
by /v/ anything else than a bilabial - for instance labiodental [v] as
You write (at variance with the use in Indo-European studies) - please
give us the evidence. Same holds for Your formulation "/v/ > /f/",
which anyway even with bilabial fricative is a matter of contention,
the other possibiliry being */bh/ > */ph/ > voicelesse bilabial
fricative > /f/. This outcome is the evidence in Oscan-Umbrian. If You
read every Oscan and Umbrian <f> as [v], please give us some evidence

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

>
>
> --- 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.).
>> >
>
>
>