Re: nu alltr e gw alltr?

[John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>]

Andrew Fferreir yscrifef:

> I am reluctant to state that a(b)
> survived in Brithenig, the only place in greater Romania that it did
> survive is in Italian 'da', otherwise it becomes obscured with a(d) and
> replaced with other prepositions. 

Ah, but in B. there is a clear separation between "a(d)" and "a(b)"
based on the different mutation: spirant (reflecting gemination)
vs. null or at most soft (reflecting no gemination).  The other
Romance languages didn't have this advantage.

> >   "parḷ chiaro" comes out as
> > [par lok kja ro].
> > 
> Interesting feature.  I wonder how it would work in Brithenig.

It corresponds to spirant mutation, I think.  Also, final stress
is exceptional in It., not typical.

> As for alchyn + nasal mutation marking the indefinite plural I think it is
> more likely to remain + spirant mutation.  More information when at hand.

Okay, you are probably right; < ALICUIU/ALICUIA, so the n is intrusive.

BTW, in Italian nasals are assimilated to following consonants, so
"con Paolo" = [kompaulo] whereas "con Carlo" = [koNkarlo].  Is this
true in B. nasal mutation as well, where the "n" still remains, as
in the prep. "in"?

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.