Re: potto

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

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

> > 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).
> >

> Not exactly. We've got *prisipu > trisipu > *drisipu > lizifru. I
> *never* meant p- > l- was a single-step shift like d- > l-.
>

Then why did only one p turn to t? Your other ex. don't have pr-, so the env. isn't the reason?

In "*prisipu > trisipu > *drisipu > lizifru", what are the stages in regard to metathesis? Since dr > lr > l-r is impossible or "highly unlikely" to you, why dis metathesis take place? You first said all these were << pesebre, so did you first think it was p-r- > pr-0- met.?