Re: Pequeno (was Re: Pilovese in the Romance Language Family)
|From:||Scotto Hlad <scott.hlad@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, April 10, 2008, 4:23|
Yikes. One of the worst things about email is that one cannot see a person's
face when they are communicating. I'm very sorry you mistook the tone of my
email, Ray. My phrase "under educated eye" is an admission that I don't
know any where near what I would like to know of linguistics and I look to
those more knowledgeable on this list to be my cyber-mentors. My tongue was
firmly planted deeply in my cheek for which we have no emoticon. My email
was in no way meant to be a response to an attack. I did not perceive your
response as a flame. Please read on to my comments below:
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu] On
Behalf Of R A Brown
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 3:13 AM
Subject: Re: Pequeno (was Re: Pilovese in the Romance Language Family)
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.
==> Totally related to spelling. Often times I find it troublesome to
separate spelling and pronounciation in my mind as they are so closely
linked. I'm never sure whether palatalization appears in spelling. Below you
have advised that sometimes it does and sometime it doesn't.
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
===> It was not taken as such.
It is immaterial whether spelled /pik'inj/ as _piquinh_ or as _pichinh_.
The point is that the base is /pik/.
===>From the prior discussion about this root, I elected to use the root
"pikk+innu" which of course may or may not exist. IIRC it was suggested that
this was the root all the way around for both piccolo and pequeno. I felt
that the pronounciation should be more akin to spanish and portuguese while
preserving the "long" i that i presumed the root to have. Had I presumed a
"short" I, then the rendering would definintely would have moved to /E/ or
/e/. On futher reflection, I suppose that the double "kk" may also indicate
a short I. What do you think?
> 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.
==> Thank you for explaining this to me. This is the kind of thing that I
was looking to learn from your response.
> 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.
===>It was an objective observation and I took it as such. I never read
anything else into it.
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.
===> In my mind, I see the letters "c" and "k" as two distinct entities with
the same sound. My sound and spelling changes indicate that "kk" -> to "k"
which to me is always a hard sound. In my mind I therefore needed it to stay
hard before the suffix "inh" Had it been presented to me as "cc" it would
then in my mind gone to "c" which would have required the soft "c" sound
/ts/ which was what you were expecting. In the end it is just the sound /k/
that is the subject and perhaps should have me rethinking my rendering as a
"c" this picinh [pi."tsinj]
> 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/.
===> What I was asking for was what you gave me in this response. Thank you.
It is tough for me as I have no knowledge of Sardinian at all and what I
thought might have helped me was an example XXXX in Portuguese = XXyX in
Sardinian. I'm also not 100% certain that I entirely understand "front" v.
"rear" vowels and their subsquent effect on those other sounds around them.
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.
==>I also find it fascinating that my choice of /ts/ actually has some
historical connection as I wasn't aware of that.
Well we now know each other's answers. I really wish that there had been no
misunderstanding as I certainly was not responding in any kind of negative
way. I was genuinely looking to learn. I am truly grateful for your answers
to me, Ray, as you have taught me a few things. I sincerely hope that you
feel no animosity towards me: I certainly feel nothing of the type toward
you. I wish you well on your trip to Egypt as I would surely like to make
such an excursion at some future time.
> -----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)
> 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?)
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]