Re: R: Re: More changes in Montreiano :)

Christophe wrote:

> En réponse à Roger Mills <romilly@...>:
>
> >
> > Steg's pamivja < familia shows the rule taken to its logical conclusion,
> > since most Romance langs. treat -íliV in other ways.  E.g. alliu-
> > garlic,
> > It. aglio, Fr. aïl?, Sp. ajo (that may be irregular, but it would
> > certainly
> > be a necessary word--I once thought of printing up a Tshirt:
> > "Everything
> > good begins with garlic"... well, maybe not desserts...!)
> >
>
> I don't think it's irregular. There is a well established correspondance
between
> French final /j/ (written -il like in <ail>: garlic or <vieil>: old - the
form
> <vieux> appears only before consonnants -) and Spanish final /xo/ (written
> -jo: <ajo> and <viejo>). I don't know the Italian correspondant of <vieil>
> though, nor the Latin correspondant (I'd like to know it because it's been
quite
> a long time that I'm wondering what it would be in "Roumant". I'm trying
to find
> a cool ending corresponding to French <-il>. Maybe something like <-ix>
/i(S)/).

pRomance had *vetulu, a diminutive of vetus,-eris (meaning 'old'). *vetulu
wassyncoped in *vetlu, giving *veclu and its Italian descent 'vecchio'
/vEkkjo/. My dialect has vegg /vEtS/ because it develops /kl/ as /tS/, while
Italian has /kj/ (another exemple? *clave 'key', Italian chiave /kjave/, my
dialect ciaav /tSa:f/). Probably Spanish and French worked out a *vellu /
*velliu from *vet(u)lu, and then they dimply passed these forms through
their typical sound changes' patterns.

Luca

>
> Christophe.