Re: Which is simpler: /y/ or /iw/?
|From:||Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, June 4, 2008, 23:07|
Quoting "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Andreas Johansson <andjo@...> wrote:
> >> Ah, so it took a side trip. Well, that explains the existence of a
> >> discrepancy,
> > I don't think it explains anything.
> Sure it does: it pushes the question back on to the Romance speakers.
> No longer is it English borrowing things differently; it's Latin
> changing internally. Poof, no longer my problem. ;-)
> Ray pointed out offlist that "simplicare" did exist in Classical
> Latin, while "simplificare" is not attested; yet clearly the latter
> must have existed in Medieval Latin to give rise to French
> "simplifier". So the mystery is, what happened to the Latin word in
Perhaps, confronted with forms like French _simple_, the medievals felt that the
root was _simpl-_ rather than _simplic-_, and reidentified the now anomalous
_-ic-_ with the _(-i)fic-_ common enough in causatives? (_-ficare_ is related to
_facere_ "make") Just a guess.
Alternatively, the Classical form (which isn't listed in my Latin dictionary and
I therefore suspect might have been rare) was just forgotten and Medieval Latin
invented a new verb for the same meaning using the same root.