Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Pequeno (was Re: Pilovese in the Romance Language Family)

From:R A Brown <ray@...>
Date:Wednesday, April 9, 2008, 10:11
Scotto Hlad wrote:
> Well the reason I went with that rendering for "pichinh" is that I wasn't > able to find a basis to move "kk" to "qu"
Does that refer to spelling or to pronunciation? If spelling, then that is _not_ what I was commenting upon. What I was referring to is that Pilovese "pichinh" [pik."inj], with its bas [pik] seems to me closer to Italian _piccolo_ /'pikkolo/, than it does to the French/Occitan/Catalan _petit_ or to the Iberian forms which begin with /pek/. It was just an observation, that's all, *it was _not_ meant as a criticism*. It is immaterial whether spelled /pik'inj/ as _piquinh_ or as _pichinh_. The point is that the base is /pik/.
> In Pilovese "c" before an "e" or > an "i" softens to /ts/ rather than /s/ or /tS/ in order to preserve the > hard sound I put an "h" after it. (The same rule applied to "g")
As in Italian and Romanian - yes, I was aware of that.
> I'm not > sure if this qualifies as palatalization or not.
It does not. Palatalization refers to _pronunciation_ which may or may not be shown in the spelling. If Pilovese had *picinh /pitsinj/, then that would been as a result of earlier palatalization.
> The "nh" is like "nh" inPortuguese or Occitan.
I know.
> I could have rendered it as piquinh as well so to my > under-educated eye it does not seem to be close to "piccolino" but to > pequeno.
That's not what I meant - see above. I emphasize that: (a) I was referring solely to the pronunciation - the spelling is not relevant in that context. (b) I was making what I thought was an objective observation. There was _no_ critical intent in what I wrote. However, in view of Italian _piccino_ /pitSSino/, I did wonder why Pilovese had not behaved in a similar way, i.e. why Pilovese had kept /k/ before the suffix _inh_, that's all. It was not meant as criticism. I was just wondering why. [snip]
> Perhaps you could show me in a comparative way how Sardinian is unaffected > by palatalization?
What I mean is that whereas in all other Romance languages a Latin /k/ before a front vowel became either /tS/ or /ts/ (the latter later simplifying to /s/ or /T/ in many areas), the main Sardinian dialect preserved the original sound so that, e.g. 100 is /kentu/. But you remark above - "In Pilovese "c" before an "e" or an "i" softens to /ts/ rather than /s/ or /tS/" - shows that Sardinian is not relevant to the discussion. You have stated clearly that VL /k/ before a front vowel becomes /ts/, as it did in Old French and in early Iberian Romance. I just wondered why _pichinh_ is an exception, that's all. But I will not know your answer for a while. I'm going off-list today as I shall be away in Egypt for a couple of weeks.
> > -----Original Message----- > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu] On > Behalf Of R A Brown > Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 6:59 AM > To: CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu > Subject: Re: Pequeno (was Re: Pilovese in the Romance Language Family) > > <snip> > > Possibly - tho that would presumably put Pilovese closer to Italian > 'piccolino' - there must, presumably, be some reason for Pilovese keeping > /k/ before a front vowel (Or is it, like Sardininan, unaffected by > palatalization of the rest of the Romancelangs?)
-- Ray ================================== http://www.carolandray.plus.com ================================== Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora. [William of Ockham]

Reply

Scotto Hlad <scott.hlad@...>