LINGUIST List 17.2438|
Wed Aug 30 2006
Qs: SLA Corpora;Vulgar Latin/Romance Palatalization, Contraction
Editor for this issue: Kevin Burrows
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.
In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
2. Benct Philip
Vulgar Latin/Romance Palatalization, Contraction
Message 1: SLA Corpora
From: Michael Schwartz <m_schwartz2004yahoo.com>
Subject: SLA Corpora
I'm looking for a corpus of ESL speakers. Does anyone know of such a
corprus and where I might find it?
Michael Schwartz, University of New Mexico
Linguistic Field(s): Applied Linguistics
Message 2: Vulgar Latin/Romance Palatalization, Contraction
From: Benct Philip Jonsson <bpjmelroch.se>
Subject: Vulgar Latin/Romance Palatalization, Contraction
Subject: Vulgar Latin/Romance palatalization, contraction and diphthongization.
I have a bit of trouble with a passage in Grandgent's ''An Introduction to
Vulgar Latin'' -- an old work, but still of some value as a general
overview. The passage in question follows.
- 225. But the combinations _eé, ié, oó, uó_ developed
- differently, _eé_ and _ié_ apparently being
- contracted into _e_, _oó_ and _uó_ into _o_, at an
- early date: _arietem > aretem_ (Varro, ''ares
- veteres pro aries dixisse''); _*de-excito >
- dexcito_ > It. _desto_; _faciebam > *facebam_;
- _mulierem > mul´erem_, the _i_ remaining long
- enough to palatalize the _l_ (the Romance [E] was
- doubtless a later analogical development);
- _parietes > paretes_; _prehendere >
- prendere_, then _*prendere_ through the analogy
- of _reddere_ and perhaps also of _ascendere,
- defendere, pendere, tendere_; _quietus >
- quetus_, common in late inscriptions (cf.
- _requebit_); _cohortem > cortem_; _cooperire
- > coperire_, then _*coperire *cop'rire_
- through the analogy of _co-_ and perhaps also of
- _opera, opus_; _duodecim > dodecim_
If this contraction really is very early, which it has to be if it preceded
the diphthongization of former _e_ and _o_ into _ie_ and _uo_, *and* it
didn't bleed the palatalization of _l_ (and presumably of _n_) then the
palatalization of resonants itself must be very early indeed, which seems
unlikely to me, unless there were several palatalizations of resonants
occurring at different times, since a palatalization like VERECUNDIA > Old
French _vergogne_ hardly can be 'early' -- at least no source on Vulgar
Latin that I've read mentions any misspellings of the kind one would expect.
I thought that this contraction that Grandgent describes might be a
dialectal phenomenon within Latin that normally didn't affect the dialects
leading to Romance, but I checked the words ARIES and PARIES in
Meyer-Lübke's Romance etymological dictionary which I happen to have
inherited, and they are reflected in Romance languages I really don't know
my way out here, so I'd be grateful for any elucidation anyone might offer.
Linguistic Field(s): Historical Linguistics
Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.