At 2:30:40 PM on Friday, December 28, 2007, fournet.arnaud
wrote:
> From: Brian M. Scott
[>> Arnaud:]
>>> From: Grzegorz Jagodzinski>> A.F (old)
[>>>> Arnaud:]
>>>>> Look at French from LAtin, and you will know that
>>>>> phonetic changes do not care what the structure of the
>>>>> words is.
>>>> 5) oie, oiseau, poe^le - all irregular (*a expected on
>>>> the place of o, cf.. the protoforms: *avicam, *avicellum,
>>>> patellam), we do not always know why they are such,
>>> oie from auca not avica
Of course <auca> itself *is* from <avica(m)>.
>>> auca > old French (before XII century) oue
>>> then remade as oie because of the word oiseau.
>> According to M.K. Pope, OFr <oue> and <oie> are doublets
>> from different dialects. From <auca> /AukA/ the normal
>> sequence was /AukA/ > /auGa/ > /O&/ > /u&/ <oue> (here /&/
>> is schwa). In the southeastern, south-central, and
>> southwestern regions, however, /G/ was palatalized to /j/
>> between */au/ and */a/, whence <poie> /pOi&/ from <pauca>
>> and <oie> /Oi&/ from <auca>.
>> This is actually better for your point.
> I think French sources are better than M. K Pope,
> whoever he is.
She: Mildred K. Pope. Her massive _From Latin to Modern
French with Especial Consideration of Anglo-Norman_ is
getting a bit old now, but it's a standard reference. And
no, I don't think that French sources are necessarily
better; why on earth should they be? (Though if you care
about such things, I'll point out that her credentials
include 'Docteur de l'Université de Paris' and 'Docteur,
honoris causa, de l'Université de Bordeaux'.) *Newer*
authorities might be better, but that's a different matter.
In this case it's by no means impossible that both
influences contributed.
> http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/oie
>>>> A very good example of irregular change which depended on
>>>> the structure is -e:ba:s > old French -eies (-b- lost due
>>>> to frequence) > -oies > Modern French -ais (ei > ai
>>>> irregular). In words with another structure e: > oi > ai
>>>> cannot be observed at all.
>> Pope follows Grandgent in suggesting that loss of /B/ was
>> dissimilatory in verbs with labial radicals (e.g.,
>> <habebam>, <debebam>) and was then extended by analogy to
>> other verbs: /-eBA(s)/ > /-eA(s)/ > /-ei&(s)/.
>>> I think your -eies- and -oies- stand for -eis/t- and
>>> -ois/t-. I doubt these morphemes can have an extra -e-
>>> before -s-.
>> Some of the earliest OFr texts have forms like <doceiet>
>> and <sostendreiet>, where <-eiet> is to be interpreted as
>> /-ei&þ/. Pope explains the replacement of /-ei&þ/ by
>> /-eit/ (<deveit>, <aveit>, etc.) as being due to the
>> similarity of the terminations <-eie>, <-eies>, <-eiet>
>> to the sequence of forms in the present subjunctive of
>> <estre> -- <seie>, <seies>, <seit>.
>> The rest is regular: /ei/ > /Oi/ > /wE/ > /E/. The last
>> step goes back to the late 13th century in the uneducated
>> speech of Paris and surrounding regions and may have been
>> reinforced by the influence of western varieties, in
>> which /ei/ > /E/ quite early. Pope adds that in the 16th
>> century the pronunciation became more popular in the
>> higher levels of Parisian society because it was taken up
>> by the court on account of its resemblance to the Italian
>> pronunciation, which was then in fashion. [...]
> the change /we/ > /e/ is not regular.
It is regular in the sense that it is a widespread variant
of the more usual /wE/ > /wa/, not something unique to a few
words, and moreover one that seems to have been regular in
some varieties. I quote (with minor typographical
modifications to accommodate the medium in which we're
communicating):
§ 522. [wE] > [E]. In the later thirteenth century there
appeared in uneducated speech in Paris and adjacent
regions to the east and southeast a tendency to slur the
labial semi-vowel [w], more particularly in the
terminations of the imperfect indicative and conditional
and after [r] and [l].
Attesting Graphies. -- _Hebrew Elegy_ of 1288 (Champagne),
_etet_ iv, _tenret_ vii, _avet_ ix, etc.; _Parisian
Documents_, cited Rydberg, _Kr. Jb._ V (1), 224: 1284
_cres_ for _crois_, 1287 _cres, kers, crere_; _Rôle de
Taille_, _Danais_, _Englais_, _Galais_, _baudraier_,
_pastaier_, etc. (Michaëlsson, pp. 46, 120, 90, 130);
Boileaue, MS. xiii^2, _crestre_, _claie_, _sait_ (for
_soit_).
Palgrave makes no mention of this pronunciation but it is
implied in his spellings: _claye_, _craye_, _lampraye_,
_arraye_, _le cressant_, _feble_ and _foible_, _frais_ and
_frez_, _soye_ and _see_, _taye_ (_thêca_ 629) _rais_ and
_retz_, _aulnay_, _chesnaye_, etc. (cf. Beaulieux, p.
296).
§ 523. The extension of this pronunciation was probably
facilitated by the influence of the western dialect, in
which the diphthong [ei] had been early levelled to [E]
(§ 230); its vogue in the sixteenth century among the
higher ranks of Parisian society was increased by the
influence of the court, where it was taken up on account
of its resemblance to the then fashionable Italian
pronunciation (§§ 56, 57). By the end of the century, in
spite of the strenuous opposition offered by many of the
grammarians, the simplified sound was established in the
terminations of the imperfect and conditional and in the
adjectival ending _-ois_ (_anglois_, francois_) and some
other words. Fluctuations, however, continued throughout
the seventeenth century and the pronunciation finally
established was largely the outcome not so much of
phonetic conditions as of the long drawn out conflict
between the simplifying popular tendency and the
conservatism of the grammarians. It is probable that the
desire to distinguish homonyms played a part in the final
distribution of the sounds [wE] and [E] (cf. § 147;
Brunot, H.L.F. II, 255-257; Dauzat, _Rev. Ph. Fr._ xxxv,
128-137).
This is followed by extensive quotations from 16th century
sources attesting the pronunciation, including the following
from H. Estienne:
Quant a _Francois_, _Anglois_ ... il y a longtemps que
plusieurs[*] ont confessé n'avoir pas la langue bien
faicte pour les prononcer; et ... ont esté fort ioyeux
d'estre quittes pour dire ... en parlant ... _Frances_ ...
Et ie scay bien qu'entre vous courtisans trouvez tous ces
mots de trop meilleure grace, pour ce qu'ils sont plus
mignards et quil ne faut pas que les dames ouvrant tant la
bouche. (Th. I, 376.)
[*] Pope notes that the reference here is to 'Italiens'.
The [wa] pronunciation actually had a similar origin:
§ 525. [wE] > [wa]. -- In Late Middle French the modern
lowered pronunciation [wa] made its appearance in vulgar
speech, at first before [r]. This broad pronunciation,
however, found no favour with the educated classes or the
grammarians (Palsgrave excepted), in either the sixteenth
or seventeenth century, and was not fully accepted until
the upheaval of the Revolution had destroyed the old
tradition (cf. Nyrop, I, § 160).
This is again followed by considerable contemporary
evidence.
> /we/ changes to /wa/ on a regular basis.
Yes, I know. It also changes to /E/ on a regular basis in
some contexts.
> I do not understand your point about Italian
Pope's point, actually.
[...]
> Could you please explain how Italian paradigm can account
> for the irregular development /we/ > /e/ in French ??
The Italian paradigm has nothing to do with the matter; as
you can see from the quotation above, she's actually saying
that it was the fashionable Italian pronunciation of French
that encouraged the court to adopt what had previously been
a lower-class pronunciation. That pronunciation had
apparently already established itself as regular in some
varieties.
Brian