[1] There should now be added: J. B. Beck, _Die Melodien der
Troubadours_, 1908.
[2] See B. Schädel in _Rom._, XXXVII, 140.
[3] See E. Bourciez, _Les Mots espagnols comparés aux mots gascons_.
[4] See C. Chabaneau, _la Langue et la littérature du Limousin_, in the
_Revue des langues romanes_, XXXV, 379.
[5] See G. Paris, _Origines de la poésie lyrique en France au moyen
âge_.
[6] This h (coming from f) is peculiar to Gascon; the other dialects
have no h.
[7] _G_, _b_, _d_ are sounded k, p, t only at the end of a word or
before a final s.
[8] _G_, _b_, _d_ are sounded k, p, t only at the end of a word or
before a final s.
[9] Rr is generally distinguished from r, but there are a few examples
of their confusion in rhyme.
[10] Ts is usually written _c_ at the beginning of a word, _z_ or _tz_
at the end.
[11] _G_ has the sound of tš only at the end of a word or combined with
final _z_.
[12] Cf. French.
[13] Cf. Spanish.
[14] For some exceptions see _Rom._, XXXII, 591; P. Marchot, _Phon._,
p. 9.
[15] Cf. R. Karch, _Die nordfranzösischen Elemente im
Altprovenzalischen_, 1901.
[16] See § 175, (4).
[17] There is no diphthong in the preterit ending -ęc: cazęc, etc.
[18] This view is a modification of the theory developed by
C. Voretzsch in his admirable treatise, _Zur Geschichte der
Diphthongierung im Altprovenzalischen_, Halle, 1900. That ę is not
affected by an i in the following syllable is shown by such words as
empęri, evangęli, saltęri, which must have been adopted fairly early.
The same thing is true of ǫ: apostǫli, ǫli, etc.
[19] The diphthong of ǫ occurs, however, in this text, v. 203, in _uel_
＜ _ŏculi_.
[20] _Derrier_ (_derer_, _dereer_), beside _dereire_, is manifestly
due to the influence of _primier_. To the influence of the same ending
_-ier_, as in _carr(i)eira_, is to be ascribed the diphthong in
_cad(i)eira_ ＜ _cathĕdra_.
[21] The things just said of ę are true of ǫ: there is no breaking
before u ＜ l (tǫut = tǫlt) nor before ts, dz, s, z (_nŏcet_ ＞ nǫtz,
✱_nŏptias_ ＞ nǫssas).
[22] The conditions are not quite the same as for e: an ę does not
break before a labial (nęps) nor before n´ (vęnha). Breaking before g
and k seems more general for ǫ than for ę.
[23] So the second person forms _cuebres_, _uebres_, _uefres_, and the
third person forms _cuebre_, _uebre_, _uefre_; cf. cǫbron, ǫbri, etc.
[24] For a discussion of the date, see K. Nyrop, _Grammaire historique
de la langue française_ (Copenhagen, 1899-1903), I, § 187.
[25] For the accent, see § 16, 1.
[26] Spelled _drictus_: see Schuchardt, _Vokalismus des Vulgärlateins_,
II, 422.
[27] The period of the fall of the intertonic vowel covers, in part,
the period of the voicing of intervocalic surds (§ 65); sometimes the
vowel fell too soon for the surd to be voiced, sometimes it did not.
The relation of the fall of unstressed vowels to the development of
intervocalic consonants, in French, has been examined by L. Clédat in
the _Revue de philologie française_, in a series of articles beginning
XVII, 122. Cf. P. Marchot, _Phon._, pp. 84-90.
[28] Cf. H. Wendel, _Die Entwicklung der Nachtonvokale aus dem
Lateinischen ins Provenzalische_, 1906.
[29] _Domnus_ may be the older form.
[30] The change of accent, in this verb and others, was due to the
analogy of the first and fourth conjugations (cantęron, sentíron) and
to the influence of the second person plural (dissętz).
[31] The feminine forms _cobéza_, _tebéza_, etc., show a change of
accent.
[32] In most of the modern dialects (but not in Gascony and lower
Languedoc) this a has become o: _rosa_ ＞ _roso_. But in the Limousin
dialects and some others -as ＞ -a: _rosas_ ＞ _rosa_.
[33] The _tg_ in this word is probably due to the influence of _iutiar_
＜ _jūdĭcāre_.
[34] The forms with _r_ may be due to dissimilation or to the influence
of _clergue_.
[35] Alvernia is attested: cf. _Zs._, XXVI, 123. The usual form is
_Arvernicum_.
[36] Compare, in English, the _c_ of _coo_ and the _k_ of _key_.
[37] Compare the old-fashioned pronunciation of words like _card_,
_kind_.
[38] For final _-ci_, _-gi_ in plurals, see § 92, (2).
[39] Before this, _frīgĭdus_ had become frįgdus in Italy and Gaul.
[40] It is natural to suppose that the n, in falling, nasalized the
vowel; but no trace of this nasality remains.
[41] _Fes_, _nut_, which quite supplanted the regular forms, perhaps
show the influence of _res_, _mut_.
[42] By analogy of such double forms, n is sometimes added to a few
words ending in a vowel: _fŭit_ ＞ _fo_ _fon_, _prō_ ＞ _pro_ _pron_.
[43] Cf. § 63, (4).
[44] Also _auvir_, probably a northern local development of _auir_; and
_aurir_, doubtless from _auzir_ in a dialect that confuses r and z. See
R, 2 and S, 2.
[45] Cf. § 63, (3).
[46] The i from ð fuses with the preceding i.
[47] _Trachor_ has been influenced by _trach_, past participle of
_traire_.
[48] Intervocalic c and g have been studied by H. Sabersky, _Zur
provenzalischen Lautlehre_, 1888, pp. 8-19.
[49] _Mica_ _micha_ are from ✱_micca_ = _mīca_ + _cīccum_.
[50] Original Latin g seems more prone to fall than g ＜ c.
[51] For the reduction of _au_ to _a_ see § 41.
[52] _Clerc_ is from ✱_clĕrcum_, which must have existed
contemporaneously with _clĕrĭcum_.
[53] Possibly it comes from N. Greek σράδη: cf. _Romanische
Forschungen_, XV, 880.
[54] See _Zs._, XXXII, 434.
[55] _Magis_ was probably reduced to _mais_ in Vulgar Latin.
[56] _Legir_ may have been reconstructed on the basis of _leg_ ＜
_lĕgit_.
[57] For the groups ending in y, cf. L. J. Juroszek, _Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte der jotazierten Konsonanten in Frankreich_, in _Zs._, XXVII,
550 ff. The groups ending in y and those containing c or g have been
studied by H. Sabersky, _Zur provenzalischen Lautlehre_, 1888.
[58] S is generally written _ss_ between vowels, to distinguish it from
_s_ = _z_.
[59] Most of the words in this category are semi-learned: cf. _fabla_
and _faula_. See § 55, B.
[60] See § 47, (2).
[61] See § 47, (2).
[62] Also _faur_: cf. § 52, (1), 1.
[63] _Sozer_ ＜ _sŏcĕrum_: cf. § 49, (1).
[64] For the vowel of nęr nięr, see § 25, 1, (_e_).
[65] _Enteir_, _neir_ seem to have lost final e under the influence of
numerous adjectives in _-er_ _-ier_ _-ieir_ ＜ _-arium_.
[66] In the modern dialects the d is probably commoner than it was
in the old literary language; it occurs in Bordeaux, Languedoc, and
Provence.
[67] _Ratie_ is perhaps French.
[68] After o, the u disappears.
[69] _Glai_ is due perhaps to the analogy of _ney_ (§ 65, β, 3),
perhaps to such double forms as _fatz fai_ = _facit_.
[70] _Seti_ (pronounced with two syllables) seems to be an improperly
constructed post-verbal noun from _assetiar_. For _metgue_, etc., see §
65, G, (3).
[71] Apparently _maniar_, _escomeniar_ developed in the region where g
became y before a: cf. § 65, G, (1).
[72] The r remained palatal long enough to cause breaking: cf. §§ 30,
37.
[73] These sounds lost their palatal quality too early to cause
breaking: cf. §§ 30, 37. Cf. _Einf._, § 133.
[74] _Palaitz_, however, is used by Marcabru, A. Daniel, and P. Vidal.
_Poizon_ occurs in _Flamenca_ and in modern Limousin (beside _pozon_),
_raizo_ is found in the _Boeci_ and other texts.
[75] Cf. § 49, (3).
[76] _Daun_, etc., are Gascon.
[77] Such forms as _amda_ ＜ _amĭta_, _comde_ _conde_ ＜ _compŭtum_, show
a late fall of the medial vowel.
[78] The _i_ in _ueich_ seems to be merely graphic.
[79] The _i_ in _voig_ seems to be merely graphic.
[80] _Fret_, _freda_ occur also.
[81] The phenomena of dissimilation have been well classified by
M. Grammont in _La dissimilation consonantique dans les langues
indo-européennes et dans les langues romanes_, 1895. For metathesis,
see _Zs._, XXVIII, 1.
[82] Cato uses _fructi_.
[83] The process began in classic Latin: _materies_ _materia_, etc.
[84] See § 89, 1.
[85] See § 47, (3).
[86] See § 16, 1.
[87] See § 52, (1), 1.
[88] Perhaps from a fusion of _plūs_ and _pluriōres_ = _plūres_. Cf. Fr.
[89] These forms existed as early as the 1st century of our era. See
_Zs._, XXVI, 600, 619. _Ejus_, _ei_ may have had some influence.
[90] See § 67, (2).
[91] § 45.
[92] § 74, (2).
[93] Cf. Meyer-Lübke, _Gram._, II, p. 104.
[94] See Suchier in _Grundriss_, I, p. 627.
[95] Cf. A. von Elsner, _Ueber Form und Verwendung des
Personalpronomens im Altprovenzalischen_, 1886.
[96] Cf. Thomas in _Rom._, XII, 334; Meyer-Lübke in _Gram._, II, page
104. For a different explanation, see Ascoli in _Archivio glottologico
italiano_, XV, 314, 396.
[97] For a different explanation of _mia_, see _Gram._, I, pp. 246-248,
also Horning in _Zs._, XXV, 341. Cf. Fr. _moie_.
[98] _Cels_ shows the influence of masculine nouns and adjectives.
[99] _Aquel_ has also _aquilli_. _Cilha_ is evidently a combination of
_cilh_ and _celha_.
[100] _Aquel_ has also _aqueli_.
[101] _Aquel_ has also _aquelz_ and _aquelses_.
[102] See G. Rydberg, _Le développement de_ facere _dans les langues
romanes_, 1893.
[103] See A. Zimmermann in _Zs._, XXV, 735.
[104] See C. C. Rice in _Publications of the Modern Language
Association of America_, XIX, 217.
[105] Cf. § 138.
[106] Cf. § 72, Sw.
[107] According to Raimon Vidal, a 13th century grammarian, _tenir_ is
French.
[108] _Esvanuir_ seems to come from the perfect, _evanuī_.
[109] _Enfolhetir_ shows the influence of _follet_.
[110] For two different explanations of this ending, see A. Thomas,
_Essais de philologie française_, 25, 281; E. Herzog, in _Bausteine zur
romanischen Philologie_, 481.
[111] See K. Sittl in _Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und
Grammatik_, I, 465.
[112] For _ai estat_ we sometimes find _soi agutz_. The confusion
arises perhaps from the use of both _es_ and _a_ in the sense of ‘there
is’: hence _es estat_ = _a agut_; and by a mixture of the two, _es
agut_. Cf. L. Gauchat, _Sone avuto_, in _Scritti vari di filologia_
(dedicated to E. Monaci), 1901, p. 61.
[113] Cf. P. Thielmann, _Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und
Grammatik_, II, 48 and 157.
[114] For the accented vowels in these forms, see §§ 167, 168.
[115] See § 168.
[116] See § 37.
[117] See § 30.
[118] Also, by analogy, _iassér_.
[119] Raimon Vidal says that _crei_, _vei_ are the proper forms for the
1st pers. sg. of the pres. indicative.
[120] According to Raimon Vidal, _trac_ is the only correct form.
[121] _Volemus_ occurs repeatedly in 7th century Latin.
[122] Cf. O. Schmidt, _Ueber die Endungen des Præsens im
Altprovenzalischen_, 1887.
[123] The loss of _-s_ is not confined to the Provençal territory: it
occurs also in western France, Catalonia, and the Engadine.
[124] Cf. the reduction of _habēbam_ to _aβea_: § 153.
[125] _Tenér_ _tenír_ really belongs to the second conjugation.
[126] According to Raimon Vidal, this is the regular ending of the 3d
pers. sg. of the fourth conjugation.
[127] In _nasquec_ the _ui_ ending occurs twice.
[128] Beside parẹc, coming perhaps from a V. L. ✱_parēvit_ ✱_parēvuit_.
[129] All verbs in _-ndĕre_ took the perfect in _-sī_: _ascos_,
_defes_, _pris_, _respos_, etc. _Lĕgĕre_ took ✱_lĕxī_ ＞ _leis_ through
the analogy of the p. p. _lĕctum_. So _fĭngĕre_ took ✱_fĭxī_ ＞ _feis_
through _fĭctum_; _frangĕre_, _pĭngĕre_, _tangĕre_ did likewise
(_frais_, _peis_, _tais_); and in Provençal _cénher_ ＜ _cĭngĕre_,
_esténher_ ＜ _exstĭnguĕre_, _plánher_ ＜ _plangĕre_ followed the example
of these (_ceis_, _esteis_, _plais_): hence all verbs in _-nher_ have
the preterit in _-s_.
[130] See _Zs._, XXVIII, 97.
[131] _Gram._, II, p. 357.
[132] _Tĕnuī_ and _vēnī_ influenced each other.
[133] So _bĭbuit_ ＞ _bec_, _debuit_ ＞ _dec_.
[134] So _cognōvit_ ＞ _conoc_, _mōvit_ ＞ _moc_.
[135] So ✱_cŏcuit_ ＞ _coc_, _jacuit_ ＞ _iac_, ✱_nascuit_ ＞ _nasc_,
✱_pa(s)cuit_ ＞ _pac_, _placuit_ ＞ _plac_, _tacuit_ ＞ _tac_, ✱_tescuit_
＞ _tesc_, ✱_vĭncuit_ ＞ _venc_, ✱_vīscuit_ ＞ _visc_.
[136] So _caluit_ ＞ _calc_, ✱_tŏluit_ ＞ _tolc_, _vŏluit_ ＞ _volc_.
[137] So ✱_vēnuit_ ＞ _venc_.
[138] So _erĭpuit_ ＞ _ereup_, _recĭpuit_ ＞ _receup_.