From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 21377
Date: 2003-04-29
----- Original Message -----
From: "alex_lycos" <altamix@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: vulgar Latin ?
> Piotr, do you speak about diminutival suffix "-el" here? The Germanic diminutival "-el", the diminutival "-el" in Romanian, the diminutival "-ello" in Italian and so on is the one with the latin "-elus" which made too diminutives.And in the examples of current living languages we have this "-el" but not the Latin "-ul". And in Latin was too the "-el" so do I have to understand in Latin "-ul" and "-el" have been two separate suffixes for making diminutival forms wherefrom teh current Romance preserved for diminutival just the "-el" one?
This unstressed /u/ was syncopated in Proto-Romance; for example, Fr. -eille comes from -icla < -icula, and Fr. oeil, Sp. ojo etc. < oclum < oculum. Lat. -ell- came from various sources, usually through assimilation, e.g. <castellum> from <castrum>, cf. also catulus, catellus 'puppy'. Lat. /u/ between a stop and /l/ was often epenthetic, as also in nomina instrumenti (*-tlom > -clum > -culum).
Piotr