reversal of merger

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
"Larry Trask" <larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk> wrote:
 
>Miguel Carrasquer writes:
>
>[on the Basque case]
>
>> I like it too, but I like it slightly better reformulated as
>> follows.  What do you think?
>
>> (1) The devoiced /j/ genuinely did merge completely with the
>> inherited <x> in Gipuzkoan.
>
>> (2) When the backing of <x> was introduced, *all* instances were
>> affected in principle, but those instances of <x> bearing expressive
>> value were re-palatalized back to /S/.  However, <gajo> and
>> <gizarajo>, in spite of their etymology, did not undergo
>> "re-palatalization" because speakers no longer perceived their <x>
>> as having expressive value.
>
>Both scenarios are possible, and I know of no way of deciding between
>them, in the absence of any textual evidence.  If we had some early
>Gipuzkoan texts in which <x> were used in place of modern <j>, that
>would probably settle things in favor of Miguel's scenario, but we
>have no such texts.
 
Actually, the way I meant it, there would be no way of deciding
between the two at all on the, ahem, "surface" [underlying /x/ is
immediately palatalized back to /S/].  That's why I referred to it as
a "reformulation".
 
Come to think of it, one way to decide would be if there are cases
where <j> (e.g. in a borrowed item) aquires affective palatalization
to <x>.  I'm not aware of any.
 
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv at wxs.nl
Amsterdam