Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?

>>>Old English did not palatalize before rounded front vowels.
>>>[kYn] > [kIn]
>>>[kIn] > [tSIn]
>>
>>Is that so?  I thought that the palatalisation completed before the
>>i-affectation that gave rise to [Y], so what we're seeing here was more or
less
>>[kuni] > [kuni] > [kyni] > [kyn]
>>[kini] > [tSini] > [tSini] > [tSin]
>>(no idea if those are protoforms of real words).
>>
>>Alex
>
>In my understanding, the contemporarity can be seen from words standardized
>from dialects that _did_ palatalize before front rounded vowels. (/y Y/ at
>least, I'm not sure about /2/.) A fairly convincing example is "church",
>also demonstrating y > u / _r.
>
>John Vertical
The OED makes precisely the contrapositive inference on "church", claiming
the _y_ form was irregular:

| Church, earlier churche, cherche, is a phonetically-spelt normal
representative of ME.
| chirche (ur = er = ir, e.g. birch, bird, first, chirm, churl, churn,
kernel), the regular repr.
| of OE. circe; the fuller OE. c{imac}rice, cirice gave the early ME.
variant chereche,
| chiriche. (The form cyrice, often erroneously assumed as the original, is
only a later
| variant of cirice (with y from i before r, as in cyrs-, fyren, etc.); c
before original OE. y
| (umlaut of u) could not give modern ch-, but only k-, as in cyrnel,
cyrtel, cýre, kernel,
| kirtle, ME. kire.)

And it goes on for quite awhile, about the form the word had when it was
borrowed.  In any case it seems to have had a prototype like *_kirike_ with
an ordinary palatalising environment before /i/ at first.

Regardless, couldn't it be the ordering of the sound changes that is varying
intradialectally here, with the palatalisation change being [k] > [tS]
before all front vowels in either case?

Alex