Re: potto

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" wrote:

>
> So in Gip., lizifru \ trisipu came from s'thing like:
>
> *
> praesaepium
> prE:sE:pyU
> pE:sE:pryU
> pFesepBu
> pFesipBu
> pFisipBu
> pBisipBu
> BisipBu
> risipru
> lisipru
> lisipru lrisipu
> lisipru trisipu
>
> > *prisipu > trisipu is trivial.
> > trisipu > *drisipu > lizifru
> >
> > There's no need for *risipru or *lrisipu.
>
> There are many possible rec.; the details aren't important.
>

I disagree. Real languages aren't Scrabble games.

> I just want to know how you can suggest Gip. lizifru \ trisipu < pr-

or p-r- without needing l/t-alt. and then deny its existence a week
later.

>

Technically speaking, I never said there was a "l/t" alternation nor l-

> t- like you proposed, but *only* d- > l-. Surely you misinterpreted

"pesebre > lizifru (G), trisipu (G)" as implying these fenomena. In my
model, these words belong to two different linguistic varieties within
the Paleo-Basque magma. One of these varieties was more "conservative"
and so kept the voiceless plosives and got an apical sibilant, while the
other lenied them and got a laminal sibilant.