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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@...> wrote:

>
> 2012/6/19, dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> 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:
No objection.

> > 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:
No objection.

> > 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:
Obviously, it is time to retire this hypothesis.

> > 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

DGK:
All right. I must accept the glide.