From: stlatos
Message: 70550
Date: 2012-12-10
>I meant both that no w > v yet and bh > ph > f > v > b / V_V already. That's all that mattered at whatever stage in which L had no v and O-U did (or B; it works the same). I don't care if bh ever became B, or it was 1 then the other, etc. As far as I remember, Sihler just said "v or B" for whatever it was when he addressed it, since he knew attempting that level of exactness for an uncertain
> 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 noI don't understand. I've only written about -v- (until you asked about it).
> voiced BILABIAL fricatives is by no means commonplace as You would let
> it appear.
> Sihler's book with no less pleasure as I read Your alw. surpr. and
> illuminat. msgs
>
> 2012/12/9, stlatos <sean@...>:
> >
> > You can read Sihler if you want more. I've said enough.
> >