From: tgpedersen
Message: 14426
Date: 2002-08-21
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:08:21 -0000, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>wrote:
>dialects.
> >A nice chance to push my shibboleth theory
> >1) General confusion between nom. and acc. pl. in provincial
> >2) East Rome (incl. Italy) opts for generalizing the nom: -i, -e(perhaps also
> >3) West Rome therefore opts for generalizing the acc. -s
>
> But there is no "West Rome" here. French, Provençal and Rhaetic
> Northern Italian dialects) retained both the nom.pl. (OFr. mur) andacc. pl.
> (OFr. murs).True, I disregarded the Old French
>On the other hand, Sardinian and Spanish-Portuguese have no traceYou might have seen it already, but here is my idea of
> of the nom. pl., but I very much doubt this is due to some
>conscious effort to
> not sound Italic.
>i
> >4) because of this -i/-s shibboleth East Rome further generalizes -
> >for -s everywhere (eg 2 sg)any
> >
> >Or we might argue Greek and Germanic influence, respectively. In
> >case a development -s -> -i is not phonetically plausible.polysyllables,
>
> Why not? There's nothing implausible about -s > -h > -0 (in
> after unaccented vowel), but -s > -h > -ç > -y in monosyllables,after an
> accented vowel. The 2sg. -i in Italian and Romanian is in any casenot simply
> the result of a soundlaw -s > -y (we would expect 2sg. -ai, -ei inthe a- and
> e:-stems, instead of -i), except in monosyllables (dai < das, stai< stas).
>Do you have any direct evidence for examples of a development -h > -
> =======================Torsten
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...