Etcetera

[Bethany K. Dumas]

>>Two good reasons Bethany.

>1) IF IT DID AND IF IT PRESERVED THE /E/ VOWEL, IT WOULD BE AN OPEN
>SYLLABLE WITH A LAX VOWEL, AN ENGLISH NO-NO.
>
>2) /KS/ IS MORE LIKELY TO REDUCE TO /S/, BUT /TS/ WOULD MORE
>NATURALLY ASSIMILATE BY PALATALIZATION AND YIELD /CH/, A FREQUENT
>PROCESS ACROSS WORD BOUNDARIES IN ENGLISH ("EAT YET" - /I-CHET/) BUT
>APPARENTLY NOT PRODUCTIVE IN CURRENT ENGLISH (E.G., NO  "HITCH AND
>MISSES" FOR "HITS AND MISSES").

Thank you - those are indeed excellent reasons, Dennis.

Bethany