From: stlatos
Message: 70112
Date: 2012-10-04
>You really refuse to accept anything but perfect regularity, don't you? I don't see why ja- > yacer, but > je- > echar, enero; but I accept that It happened.
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Joao S. Lopes" <josimo70@> wrote:
> >
> > [top-posting corrected]
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The printed DRAE (18th ed., 1956) cites Sp. <ivierno> as the regular form, and <invierno> as influenced by the prefix in-. Since this form of the prefix belongs to learned words borrowed from Book Latin rather than inherited (e.g. <invitar> against <envidar>, from Lat. <invi:ta:re>), I find this explanation implausible. It seems more likely that <invierno> actually does continue archaic *hi:mbernum, while the less common <ivierno> continues classical <hi:bernum>, introduced to Spain and Portugal by later colonists.
> > >
> > > This eliminates the unattractive hypothesis that heavy and light vowels behaved differently before *-mr-.
>
> > The initial syllabe in- in Portuguese <inverno> (instead of expected *iverno), also present in Spanish and Italian, is usually explained as a way to prevent initial atonic syllabe i-. Another explanatonion would be nasal contamination, maybe from the expression "um iverno" (a winter) > "um inverno".
>
> Regarding the first explanation, I do not see why Portuguese would create <inverno> while leaving <idade> not *indade, <isenc,a~o> not *insenc,a~o, and the like,
>
>as well as borrowing a large number of learned words from Greek and Latin with initial atonic (h)i- before a single consonant. Regarding the second, I do not see why the same thing would fail to happen with other initial vowels, e.g. "um aval" > *"um anval", "um evento" > *"um envento", "um ouvido" > *"um o(u)mvido".
>It's likely *verno and *ivErno were made more distinct, possibly seen as antonyms w 0- vs in-, after -b- > -B-, or whatever the stage was after w- > v-, etc.