From: dgkilday57
Message: 70588
Date: 2012-12-13
>>I suspect this lowering is a plebeianism, but the evidence is less compelling than it is for the famous shibboleth, pleb. -o:- for -au- in all positions. I found two other good examples:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <sean@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Bhrihskwobhloukstroy <bhrihstlobhrouzghdhroy@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For instance (Oscan-Umbrian loanwords)?
> > > >
> > > > 2012/12/8, stlatos <sean@>:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A doublet like <bortitz>/<portitz> from Lat. <fortis> in this view
> > > > >> requires no intermediate language, merely an earlier and later stage of
> > > > >> borrowing the same word.
> > > > >>
> > > > > I don't think 2 stages of borrowing are needed. If Bq. had no f, then
> > > > > either f > p or f > v ( > b later) would be equally good substitutions.
> > > > > This is sim. to how L. borrowed Osc-U. words with -v- as either -b- or -f-
> > > > > (before w > v in L.).
> > > > >
> > > [reply to Bhr.'s top-posting]
> > >
> > > Sihler mentioned ro:bus : ru:fus, *londH- > lumbi: = loins (and some related words). He compared it to opt. OE borrowings of v (vannus > fann, v- > berbena, etc.). Either shows the reality of what I proposed.
> > >
> > While <ru:fus> is obviously borrowed from P-Italic (not only into Latin but into Etruscan, where we find Raufe, Rufe, Rafe as regional variants of the cognomen Ru:fus), <ro:bus> and <ro:bi:go:> are not. The -b- cannot come from any known P-Italic language, and we must be dealing with a Q-Italic dialect closer to Latin than to Faliscan (which has <efiles> 'aediles' and the like). The problem with Bhr.'s designation of "Latial" or non-Roman Latin is that <Ro:ma> itself probably comes from this dialect. It evidently lowered *u: (or the diphthong predating it) to *o: before labials. The city was founded at the major ford of the Tiber, and fords occur where rivers are broad, so we can understand *Ru:ma 'Broad Space' formed like <spu:ma> with the root of <ru:s>. Likewise <abdo:men> (var. <abdu:men> cited by Charisius), formed like <nu:men>, <lu:men>, from *deu- 'to place': reg. Roman Latin <abdu:men> 'a putting away, place to put away' (i.e. food; cf.
> Johnny Depp's remark that ultra-skinny girlfriend Kate Moss did eat, and in fact "could really put it away"). Provisionally, perhaps we could label this dialect "Tiberian".
> >
> On second thought, if <Ro:ma> is derived from *reuH- 'to spread out, make room' (as in Lat. <ru:s> 'countryside' from *rewHos 'expanse, spread', Gmc. *ru:maz 'space, room' from *ruH-mo- 'extended, spread out, etc.), it is better to explain the morphology without going outside standard Latin.
>
> A plausible parallel is Lat. <po:mum> 'fruit', for which Umb. <Puemune> dat. sg. 'to Pomonus' requires an Italic stem *powemo- 'fruitful'. This can be taken as containing the /o/-grade of the root *peu- 'to propagate one's kind, procreate' whose zero-grade implemental noun *putlo- 'implement of procreation, offspring, son' is reflected as Skt. <putra->, Osc. acc. sg. <puklum>.
>
> Formed like *powemo-, Itc. *row(H)emo- 'expansive, broad' would apply to the wide part of a river where fording is feasible, and <Ro:ma> would simply be the fem. sg. of this adjective.
>
> Beside <ro:bus> and <abdo:men>, other examples of prelabial -o:- for std. Lat. -u:- are <bo:bus> for <bu:bus> dat./abl. pl. 'to/with cattle' (from *bovibus; the noun has b- from *gW- and is an early borrowing from P-Itc.), <o:pilio:> for <u:pilio:> 'shepherd' (*ovi-), <po:milio:> 'dwarf' (cited by Donatus) for <pu:milio:>, and <to:fus> 'tufa' for *tu:fus, *tu:fa required by Romance forms (with intervocalic -f-, this cannot be a native inheritance). This assortment, including borrowings also found in std. Latin, indicates that the speech with -o:- should not be considered a separate language as I suggested yesterday, but a mere dialect of Latin. It is unlikely to have had its own army and navy.
>
> Since <Ro:ma> is explicable through std. Latin, the /o:/-dialect has no special connection to the Tiber and should not be called "Tiberian". Perhaps we could call it "Robigan".
>
> DGK
>
> Could there have been different accents from early on between Plebs and Patricians accounting for this?