[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Peter Collier skrev:
--- 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?
Great minds, you know!
Shouldn't PATER > Paßer/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 $)
Wouldn't _wasser_ be a counterexample to that?
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.
Secondly it was long, and thus not subject to voicing, and thirdly Verners law surely was no longer in operation at the time of the _saltus Teutoburgiensis_ incident, as shown by early Latin and Romance loans in Germanic. You might even get a minimal pair _P(f)aßer--P(f)asser_ with /a:/ vs. /a/.
Pete.