Re: Vulgar Latin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU]On
> Behalf Of Raymond Brown
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 12:03 AM
> To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
> Subject: Re: Vulgar Latin
> At 5:43 pm -0600 10/1/00, raccoon@ELKNET.NET wrote:
> >He also says (this agrees with what I've read also) that
> >the -e in Italian _is_ from Latin -ae, and the unpalatalized
> sound in amiche
> >and other words is the result of analogy.
> Not all scholars agree with that analysis by any means.  Certainly the 3rd
> decl. plural -i in Romanian & Italian would have developed from -es
> (analogy with 2nd decl. is too fantastic). The development of -e from -as
> is quite feasible and as far as I can see the weight of evidence (short of
> having a time machine, one can never state these things with certainty)
> points to -as nom. plural.
Ah, but how does one explain -amo<-amus, ma<magis, piu<plus, etc.? Shouldn't
these have some remnant of the final palatal?

> Besides one still has to account for analogy leveling out 'amica' ~
> 'amiche', while not leveling out 'amico' ~ 'amici'.  The hypothesis (*not*
> mine) I hold to explains these forms without analogy working in one case
> but not the other.
Admittedly, I have no explanation for that.

> Indeed, this is true.  Again, it may well be dialect difference within the
> same language.  Or there may be differences of derivation, e.g. was razòn
> directly derived from Latin or was it borrowed from Old French (or
> Provençal)?  I don't know.
AFAIK, razón came directly from Latin. I haven't seen dialect borrowing
given as a reason for the inconsistency, but it certainly sounds possible.

Eric Christopherson
raccoon@elknet.net