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?
> >
> If you mean the shift is a condicioned one, then the answer is no.

Then is it random or opt.?

> There're other examples of p-/b- > l- such as pedania > ledania, banca >
> lanka.

Yes, I believe it happened (opt.) by p >> pF or pB (since there were no plain p in Bq.) with B > r > l, or sim. What do you believe?

>
> > 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.
>

I know ONE is methatesized (which depends on when/where borrowed), but that's the only dif. in env.; they're not from 2 kinds of Bq.