Re: Genua (was: Bart; was: Ligurian)

2012/6/19, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:

>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy
>> <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
>> >
>> > 2012/6/7, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@>:
>> > >
>> > > [...]
>> > >
>> > > DGK:
>> > > Regarding a non-Celtic innovation, I believe we have one in Genua,
>> > > Lig.
>> > > *Genua:, from *genewa: or *genowa: '(town) on the corner (of the
>> > > Ligurian
>> > > Sea)', PIE *g^enu- 'corner, angle; knee; jaw'. That is, before
>> > > *-wa(:)- a
>> > > SHORT vowel is lost with subsequent vocalization of */w/ to /u/.
>> > > (Gena:va
>> > > has a LONG vowel and a different formation, along with Fundus
>> > > Gena(:)via of
>> > > course.)
>> >
>> > Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
>> >
>> > Be careful please: Latin <Genua> > Tuscan Genova (like Mantua >
>> > Mantova and other instances of -ua < *-owa:) is to be read ['gɛnuwa]
>> > (otherwise it would have yielded Tuscan †Genva, Genoese †Zeva) and
>> > has
>> > non-stressed */o/ > /u/ raising in open syllable before /w/, so the
>> > Ligurian form must have been *Genowa: exatcly what You have written
>> > before (i.e. without) any supposedly Ligurian non-Celtic innovation.
>> > Gena:ua is of course a different formation, a vrddhi one:
>> > *G'enh1/2o:wah2 (*h1 or *h2 according to the etymology: *g'enh1- if
>> > 'Natives' place', *g'enh2- if 'Corner' ('Knee') or 'Mouth' ('Jaw'))

>> DGK:
>> I used to agree with Lig. *Genowa: based on the earliest Greek form, but I
>> no longer find it necessary, and I believe I can answer your other
>> objections in a few days (why Gen. Zena, etc.).

> DGK:
> Tuscan is not Old French, where we do find -v- from atonic prevocalic -u- in
> <anvel> 'annual', <Janvier>, <Jenvier> 'January' (for *Jenu- cf. Tusc.
> <gennaio>, Spanish <Enero>). Instead Latin <cornua>, <carduus> yield Tusc.
> <corna> 'horns of animals', <cardo> 'thistle', so atonic -u- is lost in this
> position.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
This holds true just after two Latin consonants (already Vulgar
Latin: <mortus> = <mortuus>, <quattor> = <quattuor>) or /s/ (Tuscan
<posi> < Latin <posui>), which isn't the case of Genua.
In other positions the treatment of /u/ + vowel is:
i) gemination of preceding voiceless velar (<acqua> < <aqua>, <tacqui>
< <tacui>, <piacqui> < <placui>);
ii) assimilation of /u/ > /w/ to any precedeing non-velar voiceless
obstruent or /n/ (<stetti> < *<stetui> = <steti>; <fottere> <
<futuere>; <tenni> < <tenui>; <manna> < <manua>);
iii) -bu- / -vu- + vowel > -bb- + vowel (<ebbi> < *<hebui>; <conobbi>
< *<conovui> = <cognoui>; <crebbi> < *<crevui> = <creui>), but -vv- if
in turn preceded by /b/ or /p/ (<bevvi> < *bibui>; <piovve> <
*<pluuit>);
iv) /u/ > /w/ > /v/ after /l/ and /r/ (<dolve> < <doluit>, <parvi> < <parui>).
After single voiced obstruent, gemination of this latter takes place
if /u/ is a Vulgar Latin innovation (<caddi> < *<cadui> instead of
<cecidi>; <viddi> < *<uidui> for <uidi> > <vidi>!), otherwise <u> /uw/

> <ov> (<vedova> < <uidua> /widuwa/ < *widhh1ewah2,

just like <Genova> < <Genua> /genuwa/).
Note also Tuscan <Mantova> < Latin <Mantua> as against Urban Mantuan
<Mantva>, Rural Mantuan (South of the Po) <Mantfa>.
I hope You'll be satisfied with this analysis.

> DGK:
> (Tusc. <annuo> 'annual', <arduo> 'arduous', and the like are
> obviously learned borrowings, not inherited.) Tusc. <garòfano>
> 'clove-pink, Dianthus caryophyllus', with ending-substitution (cf. Venetian
> <garòfolo>, Friulian <garòful>) from Greek <karuóphullon>, shows that
> pretonic prevocalic -u- was lost as well as posttonic.
>

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
You have mentioned <gennaio> from <ienuarius>; this, with <febbraio>
< <februarius> and <mannaia> 'axe' < <manuaria>, shows that pretonic
prevocalic -u- wasn't lost, but assimilated to the preceding
consonant.

> DGK:
> Tusc. <Genova>, against the expected *Gena (cf. Genovese <Zena>), must come
> from a different dialect.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:
<Genova> is the only attested Old Tuscan form and is scarcely
attested elsewhere in that area (except in Milanese) and <Zena> is
from <Zenoa> (attested); in Mediaeval Latin, a form <Ianua> (to be
read /'zenoa/) predominates

> DGK:
> English <Genoa> apparently comes from Old
> Provençal (cf. OProv <anoal> '(annual) service for the dead'). Now,
> literary OProv has merged the reflexes of *-ua-, *-uba-, and *-uva- into
> -oa-, but perhaps early (preliterary) OProv had *-ova-, and this *Genova was
> borrowed into Old Tuscan. The alternative source of <Genova> is a dialect
> of NE Italy, where <Padova> is regular for *Padua

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

The regular form is Pava from *Paova; Padova is Tuscan, since
intervocalic /d/ disappears in Paduan (incidentally, qualifying as NE
Italy a NE Cisalpine variety is somehow ambiguous, because present-day
Italy (only since 1861) is crossed by the greatest Italo-Western
Romance linguistic boundary, by which Italo-Romance starts with Tuscan
and Central Marchigiano, while Southern Romagnolo is already
Rhaeto-Cisalpine, a Western Romance branch).

> DGK:
> (identical to the name of
> a mouth of the Po, Catull. 95:7; cf. Polyb. 2:16; Lat. <Patavium> evidently
> comes from the archaic Etruscan form) and we have Old Friul. <innoval>
> 'birthday' (i.e. <annua:lis> sc. <die:s>) and the like.

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

You maintain Florentine had lost its own form for Genoa and
mutuated a Provençal or Venetian (!) or even Friulian one, but
accurately avoided the Genoese one, although Tuscany borders with
Liguria; and, moreover, You want that Padova 1) isn't Tuscan and 2) be
Eastern Cisalpine (both assumptions are falsified by real data). All
this in order to save Your hypothesis that Genua was a Ligurian form
and not its Latin outcome...

> DGK:
> >
> Grk. <aphúe:> 'anchovy' acquired a glide in Lat. <apyia> (CGL) and
> underwent further deformation and contamination in Romance. Spanish
> <ancho(v)a>, Catalan <amploia>, Nizzese <amplova>, and Genovese <anc^ova>
> apparently continue *ampluva, resulting from <amplus> (the fish congregates
> in ample numbers) crossing with *apiuva, a Vulgar Latin adaptation of
> <apyia> (or crossing in turn with <apis>, since the schools of fish resemble
> swarms of bees). The treatment of the ending in Genovese makes it highly
> unlikely that Lat. <Genua> was locally pronounced *Genuva. The glide would
> have protected the atonic -u- and we would expect Gen. *Zenova, not <Zena>.
>
> DGK

Bhrihskwobhloukstroy:

that's precisely what's happened: Old Genoese Zenoa