Re: 'dyeus'

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
> > > > My opinion is that the bumpkins used a rustic Sabine Latin
> > > > dialect, and the sacrificial priests used a closely related
> > > > dialect. I see no compelling reason to postulate a "sacred
> > > > sociolect".
> > >
> > > But you just did that yourself? Actually, I never used the word
> > > 'sociolect', but okay, if the sacrificial priests spoke a dialect
> > > closely related to a rustic Sabine Latin as you claim, (which I
> > > did too) then they spoke a 'sacred sociolect'.
> >
> > You spoke of "socio-allophones" which amount to distinctions of
> > "sociolect".
>
> True.
>
> > My position is that the observed distinctions are dialectal, not
> > "sociolectal".
>
> Why can't they be both? Sociolectal in the city, dialectal in the sticks?

No doubt there was such a correlation. I have argued myself that <barba> as opposed to expected Romano-Latin *farba, Sabino-Latin *farfa was a sociolectal hypercorrection. But as etymologists we must concern ourselves with the origin of particular forms. I think <Juppiter> (from the vocative), <Jovs> (syncopated nominative at Praeneste) were originally dialectal, not originating in the city of Rome.

> > We have true Latin <Dia:na>, <fla:men Dia:lis>, and
> > <Die:spiter> beside Sabinizing <Juppiter>. What this indicates is
> > that some of the Roman priesthoods were traditionally Latin while
> > others were traditionally Sabine. If we postulate a Sabinizing
> > "sacred sociolect" for <Juppiter>, we must also have a true Latin
> > "sacred sociolect" for <Die:spiter> et al.,
>
> Why?

Out of fairness, if divine names MUST come from sacred sociolects.

DGK