> Is "the plebeian language" the "other
> source" for Latin?
We know that it is for certain words, but we also know that it was not for
other words (where the "plebeian" variety could not be the source, but the
"rustic" variety is found in Oscan or Umbrian).
The change of au to o was delayed later in posh Roman Latin than in other
versions of Latin, and the earliest change was in Umbrian (Oscan keeps au).
This means where we have -o- for expected -au- it could well be a "plebeian"
form, or an Umbrian form. It is usually found in agricultural terms, such
as plostrum for plaustrum, so here we might guess at a "rustic" non-Roman
form of Latin. On the other hand, Claudius Pulcher gave up his patrician
status to become a tribune of the plebs, and changed his name to Clodius as
a political statement. There, he is reflecting the plebeian pronunciation
current in Rome in his day. Vulgar Latin, however, didn't always win the
battle : Rumanian, Rhaetish, Provencal and Portuguese all show examples
of -au- surviving in the dialect that was their source.
Peter