[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [romconlang] Verner & Paternoster II



--- Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@hidden.email> wrote:


> As for POD I think all you need is a Roman victory
> in
> the _saltus Teutoburgiensis_


Have you been reading my thoughts again?


> Shouldn't PATER > Pa�er/Passer, like
> *water > Wasser?  Obviously 'sparrow'
> would have to be something other than
> PASSER.

According to my references the intervocalic <t> to
<zz> shift didn't occur after short /a/ (no idea
*why*), so I have for example /fra:ter/ > /Tra:ter/ >
/trasser/, but /pater/ > /pa:ter/ (the /a/ > /a:/
ultimately arising from the open $)

Latin PASSER I think might undergo /s/ > /z/ > /r/ - I
can't remember what happens to geminates... scratch
that, it would stay at /s/ because of the stress.


Pete.