From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 33753
Date: 2004-08-10
>> >>e:ius, cu:ius and hu:ius.My Latin grammar says e:ius, etc. It certainly doesn't say
>> >That should be eyyus, cuyyus, huyyus. >
>> I was citing the Classical Latin forms, where Vjj > > V:j.
>
>Nonsense.
>I was also talking of the Classical forms, where Vjj survives, and does not
>undergo the process you mention.
> I refer you to W Sidney Allen "Vox Latina" pp38fI have no intention of doing that. I only claim the right
> "In the interior of a word [the i-consonant] rarely occurred singly
>between vowels. ... With a few exceptions noted below, wherever a single,
>intervocalic i-consonant is written it stands for a _double_ consonant, i.e.
>/yy/ [WSAllen's emphasis]. Thus aio maior .. stand for aiio maiior etc.
>This is quite clear from various types of evidence. [grammarians, reports
>of early spellings, inscriptions, Italian reflexes etc]...
> There are two small classes of apparent exceptions, but both are
>concerned with compounds of which the second element begins with consonantal
>i. In e.g. di:-iudico, tra:-iectus e:-iaculo pro:-iectus de:-iero the first
>syllable has a long vowel, and there is no reason to think the following
>i-consonant is double. In biiugus, qadriiugus, the syllables bi- and ri-
>are light, so that here too the i-consonant must be single."
>
>We must therefore accept eyyus, cuyyus, huyyus, unless you can dispose of WS
>Allen's evidence, and the explicit statements of Roman grammarians.