Re: fortis , f- >>

When You write that Latin had no /v/, a Reader unaware of Your
peculiar writing style would think "sure, PIE */w/ was still [w] in
Classical Latin", but if You write /v/ for the outcome of PIE */bh/,
then You are mixing up two notations for two different phonemes.
Please choose just one and make it explicit, because that Latin had no
voiced BILABIAL fricatives is by no means commonplace as You would let
it appear. You can be sure that I'll keep on reading my copy of
Sihler's book with no less pleasure as I read Your alw. surpr. and
illuminat. msgs

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

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> You can read Sihler if you want more. I've said enough.
>
>
>
>