Re: Vulgar Latin

Nik Taylor wrote:

> Tom Wier wrote:
> > (Although I'll grant
> > it does seem funny on an intuitive level that words so similar as 'amico'
> > and 'amica' did not undergo the same analogical leveling.)
>
> Actually, in Italian, it's a general property of the endings -i and -e,
> if -i is added to a word with -c, there's the phonetic change to /tS/,
> but not with -e, so any word ending in -co becomes -ci (/tSi/) in the
> plural, while -ca becomes -che (/ke/)
But what does that *mean*? The resident expert on these matters in
this group, Ray, said that one theory was that analogy had leveled out
the irregularity in one instance, but not in the other. I was merely
commenting that analogy does not have to be, and indeed usually
is not, a regular phenomenon (in the sense of "without exception").

(You can't just say there's a general property of the ending that makes
it act the way it does, because it doesn't lead to a very insightful
understanding of the behavior we see in the data.  This is like Aristotle's
comment that things fall because they have a natural tendency to do
so -- the question is why do they do so?)

Assuming though there is such a phenomenon, the question immediately
jumps up:  why didn't _amica_ palatalize when in the plural, /amike/ -->
/amitSe/?   I think Ray made this point, but it deserves repeating.  I don't
know what the answer is, but I think the theory Ray quoted could work
with the little addendum I've made above, albeit in a weaker form.

===========================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
AIM: Deuterotom ICQ: 4315704
<http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
===========================================