27. When there was in the next syllable a final ī, V. L. ẹ was changed
in Provençal to i: _ecc’ĭllī_ ＞ cilh, _ecc’ĭstī_ ＞ cist, _fēcī_ ＞ fis,
✱_prēsī_ ＞ pris, ✱_vēnuī_ ＞ vinc, _vigĭntī_ ✱_vĭntī_ ＞ vint.
1. In the nominative plural of masculine nouns and adjectives
this change was regularly prevented by the analogy of the
singular and the accusative plural: _mĭssī_ ＞ _mes_, _plēnī_ ＞
_plen_. We find, however, _cabil_ ＜ _capĭllī_.
2. _Dec_ for ✱_dic_ ＜ _dēbuī_ seems to have been attracted
by the _dec_ ＜ _dēbuit_ of the third person. _Venguest_ for
_venguist_ ＜ ✱_venuĭstī_ is due both to the influence of the
plural forms _venguem_, _venguetz_ and to the analogy of the
weak preterits, such as _cantest_, _vendest_.
ę
28. Cl. L. ĕ, æ ＞ V. L. ę ＞ Pr. ę: _infĕrnum_ ＞ enfęrn, _fĕrrum_ ＞ fęr,
_pĕdem_ ＞ pę; _cælum_ ＞ cęl, _quærit_ ＞ quęr.
1. Such forms as _glisia_, _lire_, _pire_, _pis_, _profit_
are French. _Profich_ may be a cross between _profieg_ and
_profit_, or it may be due to the analogy of _dich_.
2. _Cossint_, _mint_, _sint_, used by Arnaut Daniel, are
perhaps faulty rhymes.
3. _Auzil_ ＜ _avicĕllī_, in the _Boeci_, may be due to the
analogy of such plural forms as _cabil_ ＜ _capĭllī_, _il_ ＜
_ĭllī_, etc. _Briu_, sometimes used for _breu_ ＜ _brĕvem_,
is evidently connected with _abrivar_, ‘hasten,’ the origin
of which is uncertain. _Elig_ shows the influence either
of _eligir_ (beside _elegir_) or of _dig_. _Ginh_ = _genh_
＜ _ingĕnium_ evidently follows _ginhos_ ＜ _ingeniōsus_ and
its derivatives. _Isme_ (_esme_) is a post-verbal noun from
✱_ismar_ (cf. _azismamen_), a dialect form of _esmar_ ＜
_æstimare_. _Quis_ ＜ ✱_quæsi_, _tinc_ ＜ _tĕnui_ are due to the
analogy of _pris_ ＜ ✱_prēsī_, _vinc_ ＜ ✱_vēnuī_.
4. Beside nęula ＜ _nĕbula_, we find _nebla_, _neble_,
presumably from the same source, and also _nible_, _niól_,
_nióla_, _niúl_, _niúla_, _nivól_. According to Nigra,
_Archivio glottologico italiano_, XV, 494, _nūbes_ ＞ _nūbĭlus_
＞ ✱_nĭbŭlus_ (and ✱_nĭbūlus_?), whence might be derived
✱_níŭlus_ ✱_niúlus_, which would account for _niól-a_,
_niúl-a_, and perhaps for a ✱_nívol_ ＞ _nivól_. _Nible_ might
be regarded as a cross between _neble_ and _niul_. Cf. § 38, 3.
5. In ẹs ＜ _ĕst_ the ẹ probably comes from such combinations
as mẹ’s, quẹ’s, understood as m’ẹs, qu’ẹs. Espẹlh ＜
_spĕculum_ shows the influence of cossẹlh, solẹlh. Estẹla
presupposes a Latin ✱_stēla_ or ✱_stēlla_ for stĕlla: cf. the
Fr. and It.
6. _Plais_, ‘hedge’ seems to be a cross between _plĕxus_ and
_paxillus_, ‘fence.’ _Vianda_ (＜ _vivenda_?) is probably French.
7. _Volon_ ＜ _volentem_ shows the influence of the ending
_-ŭndus_.
8. _Greuga_ ＜ _con-gregar_ has been influenced by _greu_ ＜
✱_grĕvem_ = _gravem_ influenced by _lĕvem_. Cf. _grey_ ＜
_grĕgem_.
29. Before a nasal, in most of the dialects of Limousin, Languedoc, and
Gascony, ę became ẹ: _bĕne_ ＞ bẹn, _dicĕntem_ ＞ dizẹn, _tĕmpus_ ＞
tẹms, _tĕnet_ ＞ tẹn, _vĕniam_ ＞ vẹnha, _vĕntum_ ＞ vẹnt.
30. Early in the history of Provençal, before u, i, or one of the
palatal consonants l´, r´, s´, z´, y, tš, dž, an ę broke into ię,
except in a few dialects of the west and north: _dĕus_ ＞ dięus,
_mĕum_ ＞ mięu; _amāvi_ ＞ ✱_amai_ ＞ amęi amięi,[16] ✱_fĕria_ ＞ fięira,
✱_ec(c)lĕsia_? (Cf. _Zs._, XXV, 344) ＞ glięiza, _lĕctum_ ＞ lięit,
_pĕjus_ ＞ pięis; _vĕtŭlum_ _vĕclum_ ＞ vięlh, _ministĕrium_ ＞ mestięr,
✱_ec(c)lĕsia_? ＞ glięza, _mĕdia_ ＞ mięia, _lĕctum_ ＞ lięg. There seems
to be also, at least in some dialects, a tendency to break the ę before
a g or a k: _lĕgunt_ ＞ lięgon; ✱_sĕquit_ ＞ sęc sięc, subjunctive
sięgas (sęga), but infinitive sęgre ＜ ✱_sĕquere_.[17]
The breaking was probably due to a premature lifting of the tongue
under the influence of a following high vowel or a palatal (or velar)
consonant.[18] Before u it occurred everywhere except in the extreme
west; before palatals the ę apparently remained intact both in the
extreme west and in Quercy, Rouergue, Auvergne, and Dauphiné. At first,
no doubt, the diphthong was less marked than it became in the 12th and
13th centuries. It is not indicated in our oldest text, the _Boeci_
(_breu_, _deu_, _eu_, _mei_, _meler_, _vel_)[19], and it frequently
remains unexpressed even in the writings of the literary period.
It is to be noted that ę does not break before u ＜ l nor before i ＜ ð:
_bĕllus_ ＞ bęls ＞ bęus, _pĕtra_ ＞ ✱pęðra ＞ pęira, _Pĕtrum_ ＞ ✱Pęðre ＞
Pęire, _rĕtro_ ＞ ✱ręðre ＞ ręire[20]. The breaking must, therefore, have
occurred before these developments of l and ð, both of which apparently
antedate the _Boeci_: cf. _euz_ = _els_, v. 139; _eu_ = _el_, v. 155;
_Teiric_ ＜ ✱_Teðric_ ＜ _Theodorīcum_, v. 44, etc. On the other hand,
there is no diphthong before ts, dz, s, z coming from Latin c´, cy,
pty, tty, ty: _dĕcem_ ＞ dętz, _pĕttia_ (or _pĕcia_) ＞ pęssa, _nĕptia_
＞ nęssa, ✱_prĕtiat_ ＞ pręza, _prĕtium_ ＞ prętz[21]. The breaking,
therefore, took place after these consonants had ceased to be palatal.
We may ascribe it with some confidence to the period between the
seventh and tenth centuries.
1. A number of cases of ię before r are doubtless to be
explained by analogy. _Hĕri_ ＞ ęr; _autre_ + _er_ ＞ autręr,
which, through the influence of adjectives in -ęr -ięr, became
autrięr: hence the form ięr. _Fĕrio_, _mĕreo_ ＞ fięr, mięr;
hence, by analogy, the first person forms profięr, quięr, then
the third person forms fięr, mięr, profięr, quięr, sięrf (but
sęrvon, sęrva), and the subjunctives ofięira, sofię(i)ra.
2. Ięsc (= _ĕxeo_), ięscon, ięsca receive their diphthong
either from earlier forms with s´ or from ięis ＜ _ĕxit_.
ị
31. Cl. L. ī ＞ V. L. ị: _amīcum_ ＞ amịc, _fīnem_ ＞ fịn, _trīstem_ ＞
trịst.
1. Frẹg, frẹit are from V. L. ✱_frĭgdum_ = _frīgĭdum_, the ĭ
being perhaps due to the analogy of _rĭgĭdum_.
32. In the 13th century or earlier the group iu, in most dialects,
became ieu: _captīvum_ ＞ caitiu caitieu, _æstīvum_ ＞ estiu estieu,
_revīvĕre_ ＞ reviure revieure, _sī vās_ ＞ sius sieus.
ọ
33. Cl. L. ō, ŭ ＞ V. L. ọ ＞ Pr. ọ, which developed into ụ probably
during the literary period: _dolōrem_ ＞ dolọr, _spōnsa_ ＞ espọsa,
_flōrem_ ＞ flọr; _bŭcca_ ＞ bọca, _gŭla_ ＞ gọla.
1. An irregular ǫ, which is found in some words, goes back
to Vulgar Latin: cǫbra = _re-cŭperat_, cǫsta (also ọ) =
_cōnstat_, nǫra = _nŭra_, ǫu = _ōvum_, plǫia = _plŭvia_,
redǫbla = ✱_redŭplat_, sǫbra = _sŭperat_, suefre = _sŭffero_.
V. L. ✱_cŏperat_ may be regarded as a fusion of _cŭperat_
and ✱_cŏperit_ (§ 40, 1; cf. _Rom._ XXXI, 9); ✱_cŏstat_ is
unexplained; ✱_nŏra_ shows the influence of _sŏror_ and
_sŏcĕra_; the _ŏ_ of ✱_ŏvum_ has been explained as due to
differentiation from the following _v_; ✱_plŏia_ is to be
connected with the popular _plŏvĕre_ (cf. Meyer-Lübke,
_Einf._, § 142); ✱_sŏperat_ follows the analogy of ✱_cŏperat_;
✱_sŏffero_ evidently follows _ŏffero_. Redǫbla (also ọ) is
not accounted for. If trǫba has anything to do with _tŭrbat_,
it was perhaps influenced by _prŏbat_ (cf. _Zs._, XXVIII, 50).
Engǫissa ＜ V. L. ✱_angŏstia_ = _angŭstia_. See A. Thomas,
_Nouveaux essais de philologie française_, 1904, 339.
2. Some words have ü: iüs (also iọs) ＜ _deōrsum_ shows the
influence of süs ＜ _sūrsum_; lür (usually lọr) ＜ _illōrum_
(cf. _lur_ in the dialects of Navarre and Aragon) comes through
an ✱_illūrum_ due to the analogy of _illūi_ = _illi_; melhüra
(ọ), peiüra (ọ) perhaps follow aüra ＜ ✱_a(u)gūrat_; rancüra
is a mixture of _rancōrem_ and _cūra_; üis is from V. L.
_ūstium_ = _ōstium_ (cf. _Zs._, XXV, 355); üpa ＜ _ŭpŭpa_ is due
to onomatopœia.
3. The adverbs _ar_, _ara_, _er_, _era_, _eras_, meaning ‘now,’
are hardly to be connected with _hōra_. Meyer-Lübke takes
_era_, etc., from a Latin ✱_era_ corresponding to Greek άρα;
_ara_, _ar_ may come directly from άρα, άρ: cf. _Gr._, III,
552, note.
4. _Tonleu_, ‘tariff,’ from τελώνιον, shows double metathesis.
For _adoutz_, ‘fount,’ see A. Thomas, _Essais de philologie
française_, 1897, 205.
34. Before tš, dž (and it, id), before n´, and before final i, an ọ
becomes ü in various dialects: _cōgĭtat_ ＞ cüia cüida, ✱_stŭdiat_ ＞
estüia, _fŭgit_ ＞ füg, _refŭgium_ ＞ refüg; _jŭngĕre_ ＞ iünher, _ŭngĕre_
＞ ünher, _pŭgnum_ ＞ pünh; _dŭī_ ＞ düi, _sŭm_ ＞ sọ + i ＞ süi. The ü
before tš, dž apparently occurs everywhere except in Dauphiné; before
n´ it is to be found in nearly all the dialects of the north and west;
before final i it seems to be limited to Bordeaux, Auvergne, and a part
of Languedoc.
ǫ
35. Cl. L. ŏ ＞ V. L. ǫ ＞ Pr. ǫ: _cŏr_ ＞ cǫr, _cŏrpus_ ＞ cǫrs, _mŏrtem_
＞ mǫrt, _ŏpĕra_ ＞ ǫbra, _rŏta_ ＞ rǫda.
1. For demọra (also ǫ) ＜ ✱demŏrat, see Meyer-Lübke, _Gram._,
I, 204, § 220. For prọa (also prǫa, prueva) ＜ _prŏbat_, see
_Rom._, XXXI, 10, footnote 3.
36. Before a nasal, in most of the dialects of Limousin, Languedoc,
and Gascony, ǫ became ọ: _bŏnum_ ＞ bọn, _fŏntem_ ＞ fọnt, _pŏntem_
＞ pọnt. Cf. E. Levy in _Mélanges de philologie romane dédiés à Carl
Wahlund_, 1896, p. 207.
1. If the nasal was n´, the vowel remained open in most or all
of these dialects: _cŏgnĭta_ ＞ _coinda_ _cuenda_ _cuenhda_,
_lŏnge_ ＞ _lonh_ _luenh_, _sŏmnium_ ＞ _sonh_ _suenh_.
37. Early in the history of Provençal, before u, a labial consonant, a
g or a k, an i, or one of the palatal consonants l´, n´, r´, s´, z´, y,
tš, dž, an ǫ broke, in most dialects, into a diphthong which developed
into ue, üo, üe, or ü[22]: _bŏvem_ ＞ bǫu büọu büeu, ✱_ŏvum_ ＞ ǫu üou
üeu, _nŏvus_ ＞ nǫus nüous nüeus; ✱_cŏpero_ ＞ cǫbri cüebre[23], _nŏva_
＞ nǫva nüeva, _ŏpus_ ＞ ǫps üops, _prŏbat_ ＞ prǫa prüeva, ✱_trŏpo_? ＞
trǫp trüeb; _cŏquus_ ＞ cǫcs cüocs cüex, _fŏcum_ ＞ fǫc füoc füec füc,
_crŏcus_ ＞ grǫcs grüocs grüecs, _jŏcum_ ＞ iǫc iüoc iüec iüc, _lŏcus_
＞ lǫcs lüocs lüecs, _lŏcat_ ＞ lüoga, _pŏtui_ ＞ püec, _sŏc(ĕ)rum_
＞ (sǫzer) sǫgre süegre (fem. süegra); ✱_ingrŏssiat_ ＞ engrǫissa
engrüeissa, ✱_angŏstia_ ＞ engǫissa engüeissa, _nŏctem_ ＞ nǫit nüoit
nüeit, _ŏcto_ ＞ ǫit üeit, _pŏstea_ ＞ pǫissas püeissas, _prŏximus_ ＞
prǫymes prüeymes; _fŏlia_ ＞ fǫlha füolha füelha fülha, _ŏcŭlus_ _ŏclus_
＞ ǫlhs üolhs üelhs ülhs, _lŏnge_ ＞ lǫnh lüenh, _sŏmnium_ ＞ sǫnh süenh,
_cŏrium_ ＞ cǫr cüer, _pŏstea_ ＞ pües, _prŏximum_ ＞ prǫsme prüesme,
✱_plŏia_ ＞ plǫia plüeia plüia, ✱_inŏdiat_ ＞ enǫia enüeia enüia,
✱_pŏdiat_ ＞ pǫia püeia püia, _nŏctem_ ＞ nüoch nüech nüh, _ŏcto_ ＞ üeg.
The breaking was probably due to a premature lifting of the tongue
under the influence of a following high vowel or a palatal or
velar consonant, or to a premature partial closure of the lips
in anticipation of a following labial. Before i or a palatal the
diphthong was at the start presumably üo; before u or a labial or velar
consonant, uo: from these two types, the first of which influenced the
second, came the later developments. Ü is a reduction of üo or üe; it
apparently does not occur before u.
The dialect conditions are mixed, the development in each region
depending somewhat on the following sound. In the southwest, ǫ and ue
seem to prevail; in the northwest, ü; in the west, in Limousin, and in
Auvergne, üe; in Languedoc, üo; in the east and south, üe, üo, ǫ.
The date of breaking is discussed in § 30.
1. In some words where a diphthong would be expected, none
is found, although it may have existed: mǫu ＜ _mŏvet_, nǫu ＜
_nŏvem_, plǫu ＜ ✱_plŏvit_; trǫp ＜ _þrop_; brǫcs ＜ ✱_brŏccus_,
iǫgon ＜ _jŏcunt_, lǫgui ＜ _lŏco_. The form püoc or püec ＜
_pŏtui_ is regularly reserved for the first person, _pŏtuit_
being represented by pǫc.
2. A few cases of irregular breaking are easily explained:
püosc püesc (= _pŏssum_) and püosca püesca (= _pŏssim_) owe
their diphthong either to earlier forms with s´ or to the
analogy of püec; sǫfre süefre süfre (= _sŭffert_) are from
✱_sŏfferit_, formed upon ✱_ŏfferit_ = _ŏffert_ (cf. § 33, 1);
vüelc (= _vŏlui_) follows the analogy of vüelh (＜ ✱_vŏleo_ =
_vŏlo_) and of püec.
ụ
38. Cl. L. ū ＞ V. L. ụ ＞ Pr. ü: ✱_habūtus_ ＞ avütz, _jūstum_ ＞ iüst,
_mūrum_ ＞ mür, _mūtus_ ＞ mütz, _nūdus_ ＞ nütz, _plūs_ ＞ plüs.
The date of the change of ụ into ü is not known; there is no ü in
Catalan, and there may have been none in early Gascon. It seems likely
that the Celts, when they adopted Latin, pronounced ū a little further
forward in the mouth than did the Romans; that their ụ continued to
advance gradually toward the front of the mouth until it became ü; and
that this ü spread to the parts of France that were not originally
Celtic.[24] In the literary period the sound was probably ü in most or
all of the Provençal dialects.
1. Pr. ọnze represents a V. L. ✱_ŭndĕcim_, which in Gaul and
Spain replaced _ūndĕcim_. Lọita lücha, trọcha trücha probably
go back to Latin double forms, ✱_lŭcta lūcta_, ✱_trŭcta trūcta_.
2. Nǫssas ＜ ✱_nŏptias_ = _nūptias_, by analogy of ✱_nŏvius_,
‘bridegroom,’ from _nŏvus_.
3. Before u, Pr. ü apparently became i: _nūbem_ ＞ ✱nüu ＞ niu,
_pūlĭcem_ ＞ ✱püuze ＞ piuze. See §§ 63, (4); 74, (2).
au
39. Cl. L. au ＞ V. L. au ＞ Pr. au: _aurum_ ＞ aur, _gaudium_ ＞ gaug,
_paucum_ ＞ pauc, _thesaurus_ ＞ tesaurs.
1. _Bloi_ ＜ _blauþr_, _ioi_, _ioia_, _ioios_, _lotia_ ＜
✱_laubja_, _noiza_, _onta_ ＜ _hauniþa_, _or_, _sor_, _tesor_,
etc., are French or Poitevin; _ioi_ is a good Poitevin form.
_Iai_, ‘joy,’ seems to be a fusion of _ioi_ and Pr. _iai_ =
_gai_.