Re: [tied] Basque onddo
- At 6:07:12 PM on Wednesday, October 31, 2012, stlatos wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "Brian M. Scott"Why not? It's analogous to the middle step of the other
> <bm.brian@...> wrote:
>> At 8:59:53 PM on Tuesday, October 30, 2012, stlatos wrote:
>>> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
>>> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
>>>> Does the sequence /kt/ > /tʃ/ due to /kt/ > /xt/ > /çt/
>>>> > /jt/ > /tj/ (suggested by areal dialectology) really
>>>> imply palatalization of anteconsonantal *velar* /n/?
>>> The oddity of KC in Romance is easily seen in Rum. kt >
>>> pt , ks > ps (octo: > opt , coxa > coapsA);
>> A sequence /kt/ > /xt/ > /φt/ > /pt/ (and similarly for
>> /ks/ is plausible and not especially odd.
> Then why Nn > mn ?
sequences, and the first and last steps can't apply.
- ---In email@example.com, <octavianoaf24@...> wrote :
>From a statistical point of view, *sreu-m- can be found in Balto-Slavic, Albanian, Greek, Celtic and Germanic, while *reuH-m- is only found in Germanic. This would imply the former etymology is preferrable, although the loss of *s- should be still accounted for.>I meant "a purely statistical" and "seems preferrable".