Re: potto

--- 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?

>

If you mean the shift is a condicioned one, then the answer is no.
There're other examples of p-/b- > l- such as pedania > ledania, banca >
lanka.

> 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 did metathesis take place? You first said all
these were << pesebre, so did you first think it was p-r- > pr-0- met.?

>

Since the Latin form has pr-, lizifru could actually derive from a
methatesized form *pisipru akin to Spanish pesebre < *pesepre <
*presepe.