On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:33:50 -0000, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<
gpiotr@...> wrote:
>Thanks, Miguel. It's funny that such a common word in a thoroughly
>investigated branch should be somewhat enigmatic. According to Pope,
><donque(s)> was created on the model of <onque(s)>, and <donc> itself
>was phonetically recreated during the 17th century (in Middle French
>the <c> was reportedly mute).
I thought Coromines (Diccionari etimològic i complementari de la
llengua catalana) didn't mention that hypothesis at all, but upon
closer inspection, I see that he does, albeit in a footnote and in
very negative terms ("De tota manera cal rebutjar del tot l'afirmació
de Wartburg, FEW III, 179b6f. que <dunque> i fr. <donque(s)> es deguin
a un encreuament o contaminació de UNQUAM 'mai' com a absurda
semànticament i gratuïta en tots sentits" ["In any case, Wartburg's
assertion, FEW III, 179b6f, that <dunque> and fr. <donque(s)> are due
to a cross or contamination of UNQUAM '(n)ever' has to be completely
rejected as semantically absurd and gratuitous in every sense"].
In another footnote, Coromines suggests that Dutch <toen> "then" might
reflect a borrowing from Latin DUM "while" (> *"then") [my Dutch
etymological dictionary explains it as a sandhi by-form of *<doen>,
Middle Dutch <doe>, ultimately from pronominal *to-].
Some Italian dialects have forms derived from TUNC (<tunc>, <tonca>),
while Castilian has of course <entonces> "then" < *IN-TUNC(E) +
adverbial -s (cf. the -s in Cat. <doncs>, OFr. <donques>).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...