<!doctype html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">Dear Ian,</span>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">I would not claim that ”</span><span style="font-weight: 400;">the common term for ’tongue’ has unexpectedly acquired /l/, either via irregular sound change” in Latin. This statement suggests an ad hoc consonantal change /d/ > /l/, which is not exact because in Latin we also have, for example, </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">dacrima</span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;"> > </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">lacrima</span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;"> and doublets such as </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">odor</span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;"> / </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">olor</span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;"> (see, for example, Leonard 1980). Also note that alternative explanation for </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">dingua > lingua</span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;"> is that the </span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">l- </span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;">of <em>lingua</em> has be adopted from the verb</span><em><span style="font-weight: 400;"> lingō</span></em><span style="font-weight: 400;"> ‘to lick’ (with /l/ from PIE *l).</span>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">All the best,</span>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">Raoul</span>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">References</span>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">Leonard, Clifford S. (1980). The role of */l/ in rhotacism. In Herbert J. Izzo (ed.), Italic and Romance linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram. Amsterdam: Benjamins.</span>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</body>
</html>