On 04/02/2018 12:54, Alex Fink wrote:
> And of course there's no bright line for what counts as a "small 
> secondary development".  In Britainese, the treatment visible in 
> _aug_ < AQUA and, if I recall your choice, _leung_ < LINGUA has this 
> feel to me, just because in a relative sense there are neither many 
> inputs (most Latin */kĘ·/ don't fall into this case) nor outputs
> (most Britainese /aw ew/ don't arise this way).

Yes, we have _aug_ <- _aqua_ (tho nothing is "set in stone" at the
moment, this will probably stay), but as for the drivative from
_lingua_, the type of development you give above is found in Rumantsch,
but for Britainese on my website it says: "The jury is still out about
the Britainese form (leng[we], leung, lueng/ lweng?)."

> Or, I felt this way about a chance we were discussing that proved to
> be irrelevant for Britainese because the necessary environment does
> not arise: this is English and Welsh loss of voiced fricatives in
> posttonic codas, as in E. _hussy_ or, er, I forget the Welsh examples
> (my memory is delivering up _Caerdydd_ which isn't quite the same).

Final /v/ is regularly dropped in colloquial Welsh.  But, as you say,
not relevat to Britainese.