Re: ants was barb

In Portuguese inverno, Spanish invierno, if they do come from hibernum, the /n/ is probably the result of folk etymology, with the idea that the opposite of verano was in-vierno, i.e. "un-summer"

The idea that invierno comes from some permutation of *in-verano is somewhat common among school teachers, etc. in Latin America

From: dgkilday57 <dgkilday57@...>
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2012 8:40 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: ants was barb

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > --- 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,
> >
> 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.

The soundlaws admit no exceptions. Apparent exceptions require explanations. Either the soundlaws are more complicated than previously thought, or some mechanism has interfered with regular development such as dialect-mixing, back-formation, analogical restoration, folk-etymology, tabuistic substitution, whatever.
> >
> 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.

Finally, progress! After all these years, you are looking for a MECHANISM instead of reflexively invoking an optional soundlaw!

DGK