--- In conlang@y..., Oskar Gudlaugsson <hr_oskar@H...> wrote:
> Hi all :) (finally back from voyaging through China, and other
mischiefs),
>
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:37:50 -0500, Justin Mansfield <jdm314@A...>
wrote:
>
> > Note also the spurious [k]s in Medieval Latin, where words like
> ><nihl> and <mihi> ended up as <nichil> and <michei>. Since
intervocalic
> ><h> may well have represented [?] in Classical times, this could be a
> >case of /?/ > [k[... but in fact it's just as likely this was an
attempt
> >at pronouncing [h]. This case is also special because it involved
> >non-native speakers trying to pronounce a dead language.
>
> I have a countertheory: the orthographic forms <nichil> and <michei>
> represent Greek influence; I gather Greeks have long tended to equate
[h]
> with their native /x/, whose Greek script character ("chi") is
rendered by
> Latin <ch>. This would also be supported by the <ei> in <michei> -
> orthographic <ei> has long represented /i/ in Greek script (since
Koine, I
> think; Attic Greek <ei> was /e:/, supposedly). So <nichil> and
<michei>
> could be an error originating among native Greek users of Latin - IMHO
:)
True, this orthography would be perfect for medieval Greek, though
by the time chi was actually being pronounced [x] I don't think Greek
speakers were having much influence on Latin. (<ei> > [i:] was
definitely early enough though, as it was always transliterated by <i>
in loandwords into Latin).
I think the spellings in question are too late and too widespread
for this to be the origin of that phenomenon. Note also that the <ch> is
traditionally pronounced [k] in those words (as universally in Medieval
Latin)
IVSTINVS
>
> Regards,
> Óskar