Re: potto

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

>
> --- 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.

Then give me the details that are important.

>
> > 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.

You said at one point d was borrowed as l and p was borrowed as l. Thus, pesebre > lizifru or sim. I get that. Now, how do you have lizifru > trisipu without l > t (or *lizipru > *lrizipu > *trizipu etc., or *lizipru > *tizipru > *trizipu etc., or whatever).


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.
>

I don't fully understand your expl., but what I see doesn't make sense with the ev. I have.