Re: New Brithenig words, part Deux.

As I explained in my mail "I'm here again", I got unwillingly unsubscribed
to Conlang last Wednesday and have only now got re-connected to the list.
So this reply is a bit late, but.....

At 2:47 pm -0700 29/5/01, jesse stephen bangs wrote:
>Raymond Brown sikayal:
>
>> I know.  The evidence is pretty conclusive that the nom. & acc, plural of
>> 1st decl. feminines were both -as in the Vulgar Latin period.  The Rumanian
>> and Italian plural -e developed from -as --> -*aj --> -e; likewise the 3rd
>> decl. plural developed -es --> -*ej --> -i.
>>
>> But it is also clear that the 2nd dec. mascs. retained two separate plural
>> cases in Vulgar Latin, i.e. -i (nom.) and -os (acc).  The Rumanian &
>> Italian -i could result from -os --> -*oj --> -i, and certainly in part
>> does so.  But the nominative was alive enough to cause palatalization in
>> common words, cf. Italian:
>> amica ~ amiche <-- VL amica ~ amicas
>> amico ~ amici /a'mitSi/ <-- amico ~ amici
>
>Hmmm.  What, then is the explanation for the corresponding Romanian forms?
>Romanian has /ami'c@ ~ ami'tSe/ for the singular and plural feminine forms
>of this adjective, showing palatalization.  Did palatalization persist as
>an active feature in Romanian,
Yes.

We find similar palatalization in 2nd pers. singular of verbs, where the
development of -es and -is --> -*ej and -*ij --> i (in Italian but, like
the plural -i, just a sign of palatalization in Romanian).  As in Italian,
Romanian -i of the former Latin 2nd, 3rd & 4th conjugations has replaced
the expected -e of the 1st conj.  Before this ending, which is clearly a
secondary development in Italian & Romanian Romance, consonants are
palatalized in romanian, so not only, e.g. does /k/ become /tS/ but /sk/
becomes /St'/, /g/ --> /dZ/ etc.

Palatalization in Romanian is certainly different from other Romance langs,
cf. zece /zetSe/ <-- dece(m) /deke/.  It is clear that it got a
considerable boost from its Slav neighbors; indeed, alone among
Romancelangs, 'soft' and 'hard' (i.e. palatalized & unpalatalized)
consonants form two parallel systems cf. /lup/ "wolf" ~ /lup'/ "wolves.

I am not by any means an expert on Romanian palatalization which, as I've
said above, is clearly affected by habits in neighboring, especially
Slavic, languages and continued well beyond the Vulgar Latin period.

>Romanian also has the pair /om ~ oameni/ for "man/men", which is obviously
>from Latin HOMO~HOMINES.
As does Italian: uomo ~ uomini

So what?

Latin _homines_ was the same for nom. & acc. so that proves nothing.  In
Italian _uomo_ is unusual; most Latin imparisyllabic nouns show forms
derived from the accusative/oblique form, e.g.
LATIN                 ITALIAN
leo ~ leones        leone ~ leoni
ordo ~ ordines      ordine ~ ordini
cardo ~ cardines    cardine ~ cardini [hinge]
cantio ~ cantiones  canzone ~ canzoni

I had understood that Romanian /om ~ oameni/ was as anomalous in that
language, as /uomo ~ uomini/ is in Italian.

Nominative singulars did occasionly survive in Iberia also.  I suppose the
most notable example is Spanish _Dios_, Portuguese _Deus_.  But such
examples stand out as exceptions (I suspect the 'nominative of address',
which replace the old vocative, had something to do with these odd
survivals); in western Romance the surviving form of most nouns is derived
from the Vulgar Latin 'oblique' forms.  I had understood that Romanian was
not an exception in this respect, but I may be mistaken.

But to return to where we started, all the information I have is that the
nominative plural -ae did not survive in Vulgar Latin, but that 1st dec.
feminines used -as for both nominative & oblique (similarly, we find in
Greek that feminine nom. pl. in -ai did not survive and got replaced by
-es).  Certainly Gallic Romance knows only those forms - and this is what
is relevant for proto-Brithenig surely:
      Sing.    Plural.
Nom.  porte     portes
Obl.  porte     portes

But the 2nd masc., as I have shown, preserved distinct nom. & acc. plural
forms in Old French; indeed, it even got extended to 3rd masculines, e.g.
"man"
      Sing.    Plural.
Nom.  (h)om    (h)ome
Obl.  (h)ome   (h)omes

Interestingly, both singular cases still survive in modern French, tho they
have become separate words, thus:
on <-- (h)om
homme <-- (h)ome

Ray.


=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================