Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T03:51:49.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Question of Free and Checked Vowels in Gallic Popular Latin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

John E. Matzke
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The problem of the nature of free and checked vowels in the gallo-roman popular speech has recently been made the subject of an article published by Dr. L. E. Menger, in Publications of the Modern Language Association, x, pp. 306-341. His conclusions are that vowels are free when ' they develop: a > e, ẉ > oi, e > ie, ọ > ou, o > ue;' that they are checked when 'they retain their original forms,' and that those cases which cannot be included in either category are neither free nor checked, and are to be grouped under the general term of 'secondary developments.' It is evident that such a division begs the question at issue. The solution offered must be rejected in toto and has already received a categorical answer by Behrens in Z. f. R. Ph., xxi, p. 304. The question is however of sufficient importance to merit new consideration, and I shall try to outline in the following pages the direction in which its solution must be sought. The history of the terms free and checked and of their grammatical signification will serve as a suitable basis for the argument.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , 1898 , pp. 1 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1898

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Note 1 in page 4 An oversight of the punctuation leads Menger (p. 307) to distort the definition of G. Paris in a curious manner.

Note 2 in page 4 Cf. Bartsch-Horning, Chrest., p. 4; Schwan, Grammatik, 1st ed. (1888), §§ 49, 50; 2nd ed. (1893), §§ 55, 56; Schwan-Behrens (1896), § 33; Suchier, Allfrz. Gram. (1893), § 6.

Note 3 in page 4 Following Menger's example we omit the consideration of $iM and $uM, because no criterion as to their free or checked nature can be gathered from their history.

Note 1 in page 6 Cf. Seelmann, Die Aussprache des Latein, p. 137 f.

Note 2 in page 6 “Sie folgten dabei den eingebungen ihres articulationsgefühles,” l. c., p. 137.

Note 3 in page 6 ‘ Indessen sind viele lat. worte mit solchen consonanten complexen später neu entlehnt, und so wenig bedeutung sie auch für die historische grammatik sonst haben mögen, für unsere Zwecke sind sie desto wertvoller. Da kein historisch-traditioneller causal-nexus zwischen den lateinischen und romanischen orthographisten besteht, so wird gerade an diesem entlehnten gut die neuromanische Eigenart die silben abzuteilen, am charakteristischsten und lebendigsten hervortreten,‘ l. c., p. 148-149.

Note 1 in page 7 For a good exposition of Modern French syllabification from the phonetic point of view, see Jenkins, Mod. Lang. Notes, xii, col. 96 f.

Note 2 in page 7 Cf. Seelmann, l. c., p. 147.

Note 3 in page 7 For the exceptions in the case of -stj- and -strj-, cf. below.

Note 1 in page 10 The material for this list is for the most part taken from Meyer-Lübke's article in Gröber's Grundriss, Vol. i.

Note 1 in page 13 Cf. l. c., § 225.

Note 2 in page 13 Cf. Koschwitz, Commentar zu den ältesten französischen Denkmälern, p. 11 ff.

Note 1 in page 14 Cf. Alexis, p. 82.

Note 2 in page 14 Suchier, Altfrz. Gram., p. 63, puts it into the ninth century without assigning any reasons.

Note 1 in page 15 In Eulalie maentmanet the glide is represented by an e.

Note 1 in page 17 Cf. G. Paris, L'altération romane du c latin, Paris, 1893.

Note 2 in page 17 Cf. Meyer-Lübke, Grundr., i, p. 363, and Schwan-Behrens, § 28.

Note 3 in page 17 The words ending in -cum and -gum, as locu, fāgu, should be briefly discussed at this point, but their history is altogether too obscure to figure in the argument.

Note 1 in page 18 Cf. Schwan, Gram. 2, § 56, Anm. and Schwan-Behrens, § 33-3, Anm.

Note 2 in page 18 Cf. Suchier, Grundr., i, p. 574, and Meyer-Liibke, Rom. Gram., §§ 154, 189, 639.

Note 3 in page 18 The history of o in Provençal is full of obscurities, but the diphthong is found not only before j, but also under other conditions; cf. Suchier, Grundr., i, p. 574.

Note 1 in page 21 Cf. Seelmann, l. c., p. 320.

Note 2 in page 21 Behrens, l. c., § 21-3, Anm., and 28-3, says with great probability that gj and dj had become j in early Popular Latin.

Note 1 in page 23 Zur Laut- und Flexionslehre des Altfranzösischen (1878), p. 25.

Note 2 in page 23 The difference in development between cj > ts and ce-i > its or is lies in the different points of departure; cj was k'j while ce -i was k'. It will be seen below that with the exception of stj, sçj, ssj and strj a parasitic i never appears in the case of a checked vowel.

Note 1 in page 24 For agreger cf. Behrens, Unorganische Lautvertretung, p. 51.

Note 2 in page 24 Cf. Godefroy, s. v. Note also the variants triaige and triage cited ibid., s. v., triege.

Note 1 in page 26 Cf. Förster, Z. f. R. Ph., ii, p. 85.

Note 1 in page 27 Of. Schwan-Behrens, l. c., § 48, Anm., and § 60, Anm.

Note 2 in page 27 Cf. Suchier, Grundr., i, p. 574, and Meyer-Lübke, Rom. Gram., §§ 154 and 189.

Note 3 in page 27 Cf. G. Paris, Rom., xvi, p. 625, and Förster, Wiener Studien, 1892, p. 316.

Note 1 in page 28 Cf. Schuchardt, Vokalismus des Vulgärlateins, ii, p. 488.

Note 1 in page 29 The attempt which I made in Mod. Lang. Notes, v, col. 104, to explain the diphthong in mielz as due to analogy of vielz, is therefore unnecessary.

Note 1 in page 32 In both of these words the digraph is merely a graphic sign for ę; cf. Meyer-Lübke, Rom. Gram., § 223.

Note 2 in page 32 Cf. Förster, Rom. Stud., iii, p. 184, and Gutheim, Ueber Konsonanten-Assimilation, p. 44.

Note 1 in page 33 Cp. p. 10.

Note 1 in page 34 Rydberg, Die Enstehung des-Lautes, Upsala, 1896, p. 30 ff., overlooks the diphthongization of ę just mentioned and as a result places the syncope of the penult before a in the ultima too early. “ Obengenannte Synkopierungen müssen folglich alle vor Ende des v. Jahrh. vollendet gewesen sein und gehören, wenigstens zum Teil (so z. B. die Typen manca, rasca, etc.) der ältesten galloromanischen Zeit an,” p. 33. On p. 32 he puts the change of c (+ a, o) > g as having taken place centuries before that of t > d, without citing the necessary proof. Meyer-Lübke, Rom. Gram., § 648, puts this development into the seventh century.

Note 2 in page 34 Cf. Meyer-Lübke, Rom. Gram., §§ 314 and 523.

Note 1 in page 37 Rydberg, l. c., p. 44, draws from these forms the valid conclusion that the assimilation of m'n had not yet taken place, when the ultima fell.

Note 1 in page 38 Cf. Seelman, l. c., p. 326.

Note 1 in page 40 Cf. Meyer-Lübke, Rom. Gram., § 403 f.

Note 1 in page 41 The consideration of vowels in monosyllables has been omitted in this paper, because this class of words presents no particular difficulty. The principle regulating their development is stated by Behrens in the third edition of Schwan's Grammatik, § 33.