Re: swallow vs. nighingale, Common Romance

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz Jagodzinski"
<grzegorj2000@...> wrote:

>
> ---- Original Message ----
> From: alexandru_mg3
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] swallow vs. nighingale, PASSer
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
> >>
> >> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz Jagodzinski"
> >> <grzegorj2000@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Professor Witold Man'czak, a famous Polish Romanceist, in his
> >> "Fonética and morfología histórica del Español", wrote (p. 33):
> >>>
> >>> <<
> >>> § 85. Desarrollo regular: ssi, sse entre voc. > j > [s^] > [x]:
> >>>
> >>> *bassia:re > bajar, russeum > rojo
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> Btw. single -si- yielded -s- in Spanish, not -j-, like in

ba:sio:

> >>
> >> beso.
> >>>
> >>> In other words, -j- in pájaro is regular if we accepted the
> >> intermediate form *passiarum
> >>
> >> This just leaves the Portuguese and Romanian forms irregular.
> >
> > I fully agree: this *passiarum seems 'ad-hoc' at the first
> > glance...when I saw it I have said : 'what stupidity'...
> >
> > However, next it makes me think that we have Latin bassus from
> > where the attested Old French abaissier with -ssi- is originated :
> > Latin bassus > (a) Dialectal Romance (ad) *bassia:re < Old French
> > abaissier
> >
> > Next the Spanish bajar < (a) Dialectal Romance *bassia:re < Latin
> > bassus could be Ok too, isn't it ?...
> >
> > And once we accept this ss>ssi in *bassi-a:re based on the Old
> > French abaissier, and we think next that this *bassi-a:re can be

well

> > the source of Spanish bajar too, next we are not far away to

accept

> > this *passiare too ; but of course not as a Common Romance word

(in

> > Romanian the word is /pas&re/, so no trace of /ssi/), only as a

later

> > (Romance?) Dialectal form
> >
> > However Latin ss > Proto-Spanish ssi (even only for some
> > contexts) is not a Romance to Spanish transformation either...
> >
> > So finally, it seems that ss > ssi is the influence of another
> > idiom (*bassia:re, *passiare) situated at the French-Spanish

border

> > that has transformed Latin ss in ssi
> >
> > Any hint here?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Marius
>
> Only one notice (as I have written about Spanish "weak rule" ss >

ssi

> analogous to ll > [lj] and nn > [nj] in another post). Namely, what

makes

> you believe that there ever was a language you call Romance?
>
> My answer is simple: there was not such a language at all, and all

Romance

> languages come from Latin.

Romance is just another name for the Latin at the later age of the
Roman Empire. Is just a generic term not another language or dialect
And is a known term.

On the other hand, the unity of Latin Language all across the Roman
Empire was demonstrated: there weren't Latin Dialects across the
Empire ...please take Rosetti's books or any other Latin reference
book to be clarified about this ...

Of course, at that time, at 200-300 AC or later, neither the Dacians
from Potaissa didn't speak correctly the Latin nor the Basques or the
Celt_Iberians from Castilia ...

But if I speak today a bad English, this doesn't mean that there are
two English dialects 'in zone'


Third, we need to take care with some of so-called 'Latin
reconstructed forms': because we are talking here about LATIN -> a
fully attested language with hundred of preserved books

On the other hand, reconstructed forms like *bassia:re, are fully
acceptable: *bassia:re 'is based' on the attested OFrench abaissier

"Sainte iglise dreit lui abaissier [il] ne lerra, Ne à laie [laïque]
justice les clers ne livrera
[ Th. le mart. 27 ]
Auteur inconnu"

...with -ssi-, and 'is sustained' next by Spanish bajar

> Naturally, such forms as *bassia:re, *passiare etc. existed only in

some

> parts of the Empire (or: of the Romance territory after the fall of

Rome:

> Marcus showed this parts correctly).

As I said: *bassiare existence, is almost sure, due to the attested
OF abaissier...And I was the first here, that I defended the possible
existence of *passiare too, linking it to *bassiare....

and you can trust me, that without having this link to *bassiare,
*passiare would has been remained a phantom...

(of course, this link exists because is there, not because was
indicated by me :))

> It is quite possible that the Basques
> played some role in it, I do not know it. All I can suppose is that

this

> particular change is anyhow related to the palatalization of other

geminates

> in Proto-Spanish (and Proto-Catalan, to be exact).

First of all, it doesn't matter if it was a Basque Influence or
not...

We need to start first with 'the rules': by saying that there
isn't an ss > ssj Rule in Proto-Spanish (at least I 'couldn't
identified' one)

If you know one, please postulate it here...
If you couldn't postulate one, please say that it doesn't exist
(at least for instance)

And if it doesn't exists: *passiare (like *bassiare) is not a
Proto-Spanish internal construction (generated by the Proto-Spanish
internal evolution (->by the Proto-Spanish phonetic rules))

In case of *bassia:re is almost sure that this was first a Common
<'French-Spanish' Romance> word; but its formation is hard to be
identified till the source of ss>ssj is missing

I hope this clarify now the situation.

We will not advance by continuing to say that this is:
"anyhow related to the palatalization of other geminates "?

You need 'only to give' a clear ss > ssj example in Proto-Spanish
or Proto-Catalan (etc...) from an attested Latin ss-word ...or to try
find elsewhere the origin of ss>ssj formation (as I did).

Marius