LINGUIST List 11.1360

Mon Jun 19 2000

Qs: Romance Phonology/Fouche's Law

Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <>

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.


  1. R�my Viredaz, Romance phonology

Message 1: Romance phonology

Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:02:02 +0200
From: R�my Viredaz <>
Subject: Romance phonology

Dear Romanists

According to P. Fouche, Phonetique historique du fran�ais, vol. II,
1969, p. 184-189, Latin long i and u, when unaccented, were often
shortened even before the general loss of the quantity correlation,
resulting in Romance e, o instead of the regular i, u. E.g. mirabilia >
merveille, mucere > moisir.

However, Fouche limits himself to examples that involve French; some of
his examples are to be rejected; he does not give a balanced account of
examples showing or not showing this early shortening; and there was no
room for a full discussion of alternative explanations for his examples.

Do you know if any studies of Fouche's law have been published since or
are in preparation? Many thanks.

Best regards,

Remy Viredaz
1, rue Chandieu
CH - 1202 Geneva
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue