Re: swallow vs. nighingale, Common Romance

From: Grzegorz Jagodzinski
Message: 50461
Date: 2007-10-28

----- Original Message -----
From: alexandru_mg3
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] swallow vs. nighingale, Common Romance


> 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.

That something is known does not mean that it is correct. Strictly speaking:
there is no need to introduce and use such a 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 ...

You mean the unity of the literary Latin. There surely existed local
variations but educated people used one, unified, standard language. It was
still (classical) Latin, not "Romance".

> 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 ...

Of course. It is what I termed "local variations".

> 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

Nobody says "no" to this, I hope.

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

We reconstruct the form *bassia:re on the base of our knowledge about
phonetic changes between Latin and OFrench. Namely, we know that
1) a > ai before [ss] + [j] (among others),
2) -a:- (tonique in open syllable after palatals) > -ie-, cf. amitié <
ami:cita:tem, OFrench chief < caput (now chef), veillier < vigila:re (now
veiller)

We also know that French aiss can have developped from Latin ax, like in
aisselle < axillam, and we should at least suppose that also aiss < Latin
asc + front vowel, which is attested indirectly by connaissait <
co:gno:sce:bat (with irregular change oi > ai due to frequence) and directly
by OFrench aisse < Latin ascia (modern aisseau). But FOR SOME REASONS we
accept that here aiss < ass and not < ax or < asc.

Now let's have the ATTESTED form pájaro in Spanish. We know that j < ssi,
and -o < -um. We know about other sources of <j>, like -cul- (auriculam >
oreja), -x- (axem > eje), -li- (+V, like in mulierem > mujer) but FOR SOME
REASON we choose j < ssi, not < x, not < cul, and not [lj].

Basing on this knowledge we have the same right to reconstruct *passiarum as
*bassia:re.

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

I leave apart what reason makes us reconstruct just *ssi in both examples. I
only show you that the procedure is EXACTLY THE SAME and based on data of
THE SAME importance.

So please stop protesting against *passiarum because you are wrong in this
point. Both reconstructions are strictly equivalent, i.e. probable in the
same degree.

> As I said: *bassiare existence, is almost sure, due to the attested
> OF abaissier...

And the same about *passiarum, due to the attested Spanish pájaro.

> 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...

"Phantom" is definitely too inadequate word. The same I could say that you
deduction is a complete nonsense. First, show the difference in both
reconstructions - show which elements are less certain in the Spanish
reconstruction than those in the French one.

Naturally, *passiare (not *passiarum) MAY be called less certain - because
of the ending, not of [ssj]. But it is a guessed stage between the ATTESTED
passerem and the (hopefully) RECONSTRUCTED *passiarum in its later stage
*passiaro.

> 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)

In fact, we are NOT saying about rules at all here. I have already said that
the change may be called at most "a weak rule" or a tendency, as only some
words developped due to it. But, there is a possibility to formulate a
"strong" rule for Spanish:

sse > ssja posttonic non-final.

In the history of the Spanish language that was the tendency: Latin e, i > e
> a (posttonic non-final).
(In Spanish, as in most or even all Romance languages, the difference
between the original short e and the original short i in most nonstressed
syllables is not preserved.)
It never became a strict rule but can be seen in some words:

cuévano < cophinum
pámpano < pampinum
muérdago < mordicum

This tendency explains at least -a- in pájaro.

> If you know one, please postulate it here...

Shortly speaking, I cound not postulate the rule ss > ssj in Neo-grammarian
sense. But:

1. I can postulate the rule [ssj] > j [x] (like in russeum > rojo).
2. I cannot postulate the rule ss > j, as I know that ss > s, not j, like in
grossum > grueso.

[To 1: e merged with i and yielded [j] before a vowel as early as late
Latin, so russeum IS an example for [ssj]]

> 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))

You are wrong: [ssj] > [x] is such a Spanish phonetic rule, basing NOT ONLY
on *bassia:re. Which is more, [ss] > [x] is not such a rule.

> I hope this clarify now the situation.

Of course not, you tried to make it yet more tangled trying to prove that
*bassia:re is a good reconstruction while *passiare is a bad reconstruction.
The logic shows that you are wrong in this point - both reconstructions are
plausible in exactly the same degree.

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

Sorry but if you cannot see similarity, or parallel development, it is only
your problem. I can see it.

Btw. I cannot understand why the Portuguese form should be irregular if
Spanish form was regular. But the sse > ssia rule, if ever existed of
course, worked only in Spanish. The Portuguese form passaro is "almost"
regular - except -a- of course (but... in Portuguese sse > ssa posttonic
nonfinal may be regular, why not), and the ending. Anyway <ss> is regular
(btw. it is [s] in modern Portuguese).

*Bassia:re has of course nothing to do with this all as -a:- is stressed
here.

> You need 'only to give' a clear ss > ssj example in Proto-Spanish

No, I need nothing more because:
1. I have never said that the (good, strong, unexceptional) rule ss > ssj
ever existed.
2. I have shown that [ssj] > [x] was a phonetic rule and that [ss] > [x] was
not.

In addition, my reconstruction *passiar- (don't let's talk about the ending
because it was changed on morphological basis) is exactly as plausible as
*bassia:re which I showed above.

It is you who need 'only to give' the basis for that <j> COULD develop from
<ss> regularly (or point yet another solution). You will have a problem
because of *passa:re (reconstructed on the basis of the attested form:
passus, a form of pangere) which yielded pasar in Spanish while passar in
Portuguese etc. But you will not able to find any argumentation, and you
will be obliged to accept that it must have been [ssj] in Proto-Spanish word
for pájaro, and the development was at least partially regular here, or that
[ssj] never existed - but then the development was fully irregular (why?).

Grzegorz J.



___________________________________________________________
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html