Does au often become ao in Italian like Paulus > Paolo?

< Previous | Next >

Catagrapha

Member
Malagasy
Are there examples of au > ao from Latin or other languages to Italian like Paulus > Paolo?
(excluding -aus/-aum>-ao like Menelaus>Menelao)
 
Last edited:
  • A User

    Senior Member
    Italiano
    Aosta from Augusta Prætoria

    Aosta (pronuncia Aòsta, /a'ɔsta/[3]; Aoste in francese[4][5]; Aoûta in arpitano sopradialettale; Oûta, o Veulla in patois valdostano standard, Ohta nella variante della bassa valle[5]; Augschtal in walser[6]; Osta o Aosta in piemontese[7]) è un comune italiano.

    Aosta (UK: /ɑːˈɒstə/,[4] US: /ɑːˈɔːstɑː/,[5] Italian: [aˈɔsta] ; French: Aoste [ɔst],[a] formerly Aouste; Arpitan: Aoûta [aˈuta], Veulla [ˈvəla] or Ouhta [ˈuhta]; Latin: Augusta Praetoria Salassorum; Walser: Augschtal; Piedmontese: Osta) is the principal city of Aosta Valley
     

    Cenzontle

    Senior Member
    English, U.S.
    It seems to me that the stressed "o" of "Aosta" results from the stressed "u" of "Augusta", not from the diphthong "au".
    The case of Paulus > Paolo is different from this, isn't it?
     

    A User

    Senior Member
    Italiano
    AVGVSTVS—Αὔγουστος—Α(ὔ)γο(υ)στος—Agosto(IT)/August(EN).
    Non posso stabilire se la parola Aosta derivi da AV(GV)STA, da A(VG)VSTA, o da AV(G)VSTA.
    Osta(Piemontese) può derivare da AV(GV)STA [Aurum—Oro(IT)/Gold(EN)].
    Aoûta(Arpitano) è più probabile che derivi da AV(G)V(S)TA, o da A(VG)V(S)TA.
    Aosta sembra un compromesso tra Aoûta e Osta.
    Παῦλος—Πάουλ—Πάο(υ)λ—Paolo(IT).
     

    A User

    Senior Member
    Italiano
    Consultando un ‘Vocabolario Universale Italiano’(1834) a pagina 541 ho potuto leggere una derivazione di parole:
    Pàguro, pàuro, pòrro simile a Pagolo, Pavolo e Paolo.
    Una conferma:
    ... bbrutta arpia tornerà da la bbùscia de San Pavolo doppo tanti mil ’ anni er Nocchilia .
     

    Sobakus

    Senior Member
    I don't believe there are any examples of /aw/ the diphthong > /ao/. What happened with Paolo is quite parallel to Menelao (except the latter is not inherited and so we can't talk of it having undergone phonetic developments at all). Namely, /paw.lus/ has been reinterpreted to contain the diminutive suffix /ulũ/, breaking up the syllable/dipthong /aw/: /pa.u.lũ/. The hiatus was in all probability regularly filled by /w/, and so the diminutive suffix developed regularly. Certain (Tuscan) dialects shifted the hiatus-filler to /g/ (this interchange is already visible in Late Latin, e.g. in σαγμα /saɣ.ma/ > sauma /saw.ma/) and is otherwise common in Italy and the islands; others retained it as /v/; yet others dropped the hiatus filler altogether, presumably because they tolerated hiatus more, and this was selected as standard. Hence we get the three forms Pagolo, Pavolo and Paolo.

    I'm not aware of any "Byzantine" form with /i/ or /e/, and it's not necessary. The /e/ in Slavic is an intra-Slavic development from an epenthetic vowel ь = ĭ (Pavьlъ, Pavĭlŭ). Slavic didn't tolerate closed syllables back then, including left-headed diphthongs (aw).

    The Latin form in -au- coexisted with Pōllus, originally dialectal but very common in the city of Rome by the Late Republic. It doesn't seem to have survived into Romance, likely due to eventual homophony with the outcome of pullus.
     
    Last edited:

    Sobakus

    Senior Member
    So, you assume Paulus was /pawlʊs/ rather than /paʊlʊs/. Could you explain why?
    I'm not sure if you're asking about the phonetic realisation or the phonology of it, but the syllable /aw/ behaves precisely the same as any vowel-consonant sequence. If you add a vowel, for example, the /w/ resyllabifies: /kaw.tus/ > /ka.wē.re/, and vice versa /a.wi.kel.la/ > /aw.kel.la/. Further, /aw/ was the only original diphthong that had survived into proto-Romance the multiple waves of diphthong eliminations; where it remains today, it's primarily (if not exclusively) as two syllables (probably the whole of Italy) or as a vowel-consonant sequence. Latin "short/lax" vowels can only exist as the syllable nucleus, and they get invariably deleted as the first vowel in hiatus. The only truly diphthongal area I can think of is Galician-Portuguese. The last pointer is quite straighforward: the /w/ in /aw/ never develops in the same way as /ŭ/. Granted, that's begging the question.
     
    Last edited:

    Catagrapha

    Member
    Malagasy
    Certain (Tuscan) dialects shifted the hiatus-filler to /g/ (this interchange is already visible in Late Latin, e.g. in σαγμα /saɣ.ma/ > sauma /saw.ma/) and is otherwise common in Italy and the islands; others retained it as /v/; yet others dropped the hiatus filler altogether, presumably because they tolerated hiatus more, and this was selected as standard. Hence we get the three forms Pagolo, Pavolo and Paolo.
    Indeed, e.g., nubilus > nuvolo > nugolo, uvula > ugola.
    Also the other way around, e.g., in Agone > Navona
     

    Penyafort

    Senior Member
    Catalan (Catalonia), Spanish (Spain)
    The Latin form in -au- coexisted with Pōllus, originally dialectal but very common in the city of Rome by the Late Republic. It doesn't seem to have survived into Romance, likely due to eventual homophony with the outcome of pullus.
    I agree. And likely with Paullus too, as in Catalan we've got two well-established variants, Pau and Pol.
     

    Sobakus

    Senior Member
    Well, exactly:

    Paulus > Paolo would be such an example.
    It would be in absence of any other explanation. Tuscan Italian doesn't preserve the PRmc /a͜w/, but regularly monophthongises it to /ɔ/, as do many other Romance varieties. Paolo is clearly a special development, for which I gave a straightforward and regular explanation. It's crystal-clear that it contains the regular diminutive suffix.

    On a more obvious level one can indeed say that Paolo is an example of AV > AO in graphemic notation, with the caveat that the AV in question stood for a bisyllabic sequence /a.(w)u/.
    That would be a counter example agaist the phonological analysis <au>=/aw/ rather than /aʊ/. Geminate consonants can only occur intervocalically in Latin.
    Paullus is the earlier form that underwent the regular degemination to Paulus, that applied after AV and AE, but not after long vowels. It is precisely after this happened (1 c. BC) that one can confidently treat /aw/ as a vowel-consonant sequence - a necessary condition for the shift. The fact that it applied after /ae/ (caelum < *caed-lom) coincidentally tells us that it wasn't monophthongised yet at that point. If geminates can only occur intervocalically, then the V and E in question weren't vowels, but consonants. The geminate spellings continued to exist as graphic archaisms (also in caussa, cāssus), but the grammarians explicitly say that they cannot be pronounced as spelt. Notice in cāsus that consonants other than /l/ were simplified also after long vowels.
    Another attested form is paullulus, a secondarily formed diminutive (as *paurelos>paullus was a diminutive itself).

    My proposed *pauvulus can in principle lead directly to Pavolo~Paolo, assuming a simplification *pauvulus>*pavulus.
    *paurelos is unattested and is merely a reconstructed form. Its development to Paullus via unstressed vowel deletion was complete by about the 5 c. BC, which pretty much excludes any such surivors. Latin has very regular dissimilation of r-r and l-l (which continues even in modern Castilian), but r-l sequences themselves are desirable and stable. There's neither a reason for nor an example of /r > w/, least of all with a /w/ already preceding. In this case the regular development is metathesis: *pawros > parwos.
    By the way, what's the standard explanation of the phonetic evolution of Pablo?
    The same as I gave for Italian: /paw.lũ/ > reanalysis /pa.(w)u.lũ/ > regular syncope /paw.lũ/ > regular B~V merger /pablo/. I'm not sure about the syllabification in Old or New Spanish, but the outcome being the same as that of tabula and different from causa testifies that /bl/ was homosyllabic when /aw/ monophtongised in Castilian. Curiously, Venetian seems to have both Pagoło and Poło, but only toła; it's the reverse in French (Pol, table). The syllabification of muta-cum-liquida seems to have remained unstable from pre-literary Latin right down to this day.
     
    Last edited:

    ahvalj

    Senior Member
    Your idea with w faces one major problem: the lack of examples of such a development in Latin. Paullulus>paululus rather suggest that paullus>paulus weren't perceived as diminutives anymore, so what would be the motivation of this special development paulus>*pavulus?

    Ll after a long vowel in the imperial period also could stand for a palatalized l as an orthographic convention (vīlla with derivatives, mīlle).

    Latin retains/maintains (perhaps by recreating) a number of syncopated/non-syncopated doublets: facultās~facilitās, extrā~exterā. For our case compare misellus~miserulus, puellus~puerulus.
     

    Sobakus

    Senior Member
    Your idea with w faces one major problem: the lack of examples of such a development in Latin.
    What development exactly are you referring to?
    Paullulus>paululus rather suggest that paullus>paulus weren't perceived as diminutives anymore, so what would be the motivation of this special development paulus>*pavulus?
    • Latin, like many other languages including Russian, allows concatenation of diminutive suffixes. The fact that мамусенька exists doesn't imply that мамуся or мамка aren't perceived as diminutives any more.
    • paulus the adjective no longer exists in Late Republican Latin; paulum and paulō are the only forms in use (one noun and the other an adverb), and they have a very strong diminutive semantics baked into them. Whether Paulus the name was perceived as a diminutive from a non-existent word is not apparent on its own, and it's precisely the Romance reinterpretation that is the evidence we're looking for.
    • The motivation for the morphological reanalysis is simple: in Latin, -ulus was a by-form of the basic -lus preceded the a-/o-stem vowel (which regularly reduced or syncopated and was restored). In Romance, -ulũ was generalised in favour of -lũ. This prompted the reanalysis in question: paw+lũ > pa(w)+ulũ. Come to think of it, the /w/ might have remained all along, the only thing that changed is the addition of a vowel.
    Ll after a long vowel in the imperial period also could stand for a palatalized l as an orthographic convention (vīlla with derivatives, mīlle).
    All geminate /ll/ were prototypically palatalised. VILLA regularly spells /vīl.la/ like POLLVS spells /pōl.lus/.
    Latin retains/maintains (perhaps by recreating) a number of syncopated/non-syncopated doublets: facultās~facilitās, extrā~exterā. For our case compare misellus~miserulus, puellus~puerulus.
    Yes, this is precisely parallel to the change I'm talking about. In fact it could be the exact same change: consonant-initial suffixes were no longer felt to be the basic forms, replaced by vowel-initial ones: puer+lus > puer+ulus :: paw+lus > paw+ulus.
     
    Last edited:

    ahvalj

    Senior Member
    We both seem to agree that the original source of Pavolo~Paolo and Pablo was *Pavulus. You suggest that it was reanalyzed from the late paulus, where -ulus was still/again perceived as a diminutive suffix — I suspect that it may represent a non-resyllabified purely phonetic continuation of the original trisyllabic form of this word (we'd rather expect *paurelos>*paur̥los>*pavellus, so *paurlos>paullus is not quite regular either and could have coexisted for example with the form with a syllabic u: *paur̥los>*pau̥los>*pavulus).
     
    Last edited:

    Sobakus

    Senior Member
    Could you provide examples of the purely phonetic shifts that you postulate? Never in my reading have I come across anything of this sort in Latin. What's irregular about *paurlos>paullus? How did you arrive at *paur̥los>*pau̥los>*pavulus? All of this looks extremely unusual, and frankly impossible to me, and I'd say you created these shifts entirely ad-hoc.
     
    Last edited:

    ahvalj

    Senior Member
    Well, some instances of -ellus and -ullus are results of such re-syllabifications from *-relos>*-r̥los>-ellus (*agrelos>agellus, *polkrelos>pulcellus, *lufrelos>libellus, *ruþrelos>rubellus) and *-nelos>*-n̥los>*-ollos>-ullus (*xemnelos>homullus).

    My point is that the syncopation of -e- in sonorant+-el- retained a syllable that was normally restored by inserting a vowel before the sonorant (see examples above), and from *paurelos we'd properly expect *pavellus. That we find paullus>paulus is itself aberrant. Do we have other examples of aurl>aull?
     
    Last edited:

    Sobakus

    Senior Member
    I see, then the different development of must must be down to the peculiar syllable structure of the resulting *paur̥los - the "expected" outcome would necessitate the breaking up of the diphthong (*pa.wel.los), which was allowed and normal in circa-Classical Latin, but apparently not in the period in question, which is something like 7 centuries before that. That is, if it were to not undergo the "expected expected" development, which is metathesis *pau.re.los > *par.we.los, which is visible in the presumably later rebuilt parvulus. I don't think there are other examples of -wr- in Latin, which was noted in a work I once read that questioned the regularity of /wr > rw/, but I have no idea where...​
    And with that I consulted Weiss 2009 (p.177) only to see that he derives paullus from *paukslos, which has a further diminutive pauxillus just like aulla~ōlla, auxilla (cf. āla, axilla < *aks-; māla, vēlum, pālus where the vowel was lengthened, but after a diphthong it was the consonant). In this case parvulus could indeed be the direct outcome of *paurelos.

    ...but then I opened De Vaan 2008 p.451, who doubts that derivation: "However, the suffix *-slo- is otherwise only used for instrument nouns, and only after consonant stems; both are reasons to reject a preform *pauk-slo- derived from *pau-ko-", and quotes Thurneysen as deriving it from our *paurelos.

    Whatever the case may be, neither *pavellus nor *pa.(v)ulus are attested in Latin, and I don't think it's justified to postulate their covert existence, especially in such common and well-attested words as these. Especially when the only possible ground for postulating the latter form, namely some Romance forms of the name, have been already explained through entirely regular, attested developments.

    That, and the fact that your derivations are still impossible, as I've mentioned: *paurelos>*paur̥los would "expectedly" give *pa.wel.los, and "expectedly expectedly" *par.we.los or even *pa.ru.los. The single-l form can only be derived from the regular degemination of Paullus, which is proof that the latter was disyllabic, with the first syllable closed by a consonant.​
     
    Last edited:

    ahvalj

    Senior Member
    de Vaan himself mentions *paurelo- on p. 451 (above), though without direct connections with paulus. It seems that this PIE *pehₐu- had several extensions in Italic, so both *pau-ks-os and *pau-r-os could have existed (along with *pau-k-os and *pau-per-os).

    I am not convinced about the often proposed ru̯-metathesis: we have just two roots with it (parvus and nervus) and two without (taurus and -staurāre). Celtic has *taru̯os, but Lusitanian has taurom.

    [Partial cross-post with your update]

    P. S. To sum up my suggestion: *pau̯relos>*pau̯rlos>*pau̥rlos>*pau̥los>*pavulus>Pavolo~Paolo & Pablo parallel to *pau̯relos>*pau̯rlos>paullus>paulus and *pau̯relos>*paru̯elos>*paru̯olos>parvulus (that is, all the three variants were real and had attested outcomes).
     
    Last edited:

    Sobakus

    Senior Member
    *pau̯relos>*pau̯rlos>*pau̥rlos>*pau̥los
    The last two are simply and openly an impossible syllable structure in Latin, or even ancient Indo-European as a whole. /u/ after a vowel and before a consonant surfaces as [w]. /r/ between two consonants surfaces as [r̥]. /Vrl > Vll/, or conceivably /V̄l/, but in no case /Vl/.
     
    Last edited:

    Sobakus

    Senior Member
    These would be short-lived intermediate stages following the syncope. *Agros>*agr̥s>ager acquired long after the PIE syllabic sonorants had vocalized in Proto-Italic.
    And for all we know there was a prolonged stage with secondary syllabic sonorants. But what you're suggesting is equivalent to *agros > ag̥r. It's not a question of how long this stage lasted - it's that such a syllabification is without precident at any stage from PIE to modern Romance, which are all basically CV languages that demand a syllable onset, and as such it's synchronically impossible. Even if it was possible, *pau̥rlos > *pau̥los is impossible but must > paullos; Even if that was possible, the only syllabification of /paulos/ that is possible in any kind of Latin is /paw.los/, and postulating /pa.u̥.los/ is the same as postulating /mo.n̥.te/. The only way to get /pa.(w)u.los/ is through a morphophonemic metanalysis, which is what I've proposed.
     

    ahvalj

    Senior Member
    I don't understand why in a highly unusual group au̯r̥lo, that occasionally emerged in one single word as a result of syncope, the development could have not been such as to resolve it into both au̯llo (with loss of syllabicity) and *au̥lo>*au̯ulo (with its retention). These variants could have coexisted in the speech of the same person (including au̥~au̯u to please the Italic phonetic gods). Again: do we have other examples with auCl>aull? It's as unique as the latter scenario.
     

    Sobakus

    Senior Member
    For the same reason *agrelos!>*aglus, *polkrelos!>*pulclus, *lufrelos!>liblus, *ruþrelos!>rublus and *xemnelos!>homlus: the sonorant cannot simply disappear, and neither can the syllable /u̯r̥/ that you yourself are postulating. The whole purpose of postulating said syllable is to explain the appearence of a vowel before the sonorant, /e/ in the case of /r/. The syllable /u̯r̥/ must be reflected as /wer/ (cf. agellus). The /w/ is not syllabic and there can be no loss or retention of its syllabicity, and in a /VwRC/ sequence it must be non-syllabic because CV syllables invariably win over VC. *au̥lo>*au̯ulo is impossible because it has never been observed in Latin, there is only one process, that of forming a VC (or V: ) syllable out of V.V, widely represented throught the history of the language. One cannot just invent the opposite process out of nothing. Again, this exists in modern Romance languages, for instance Italian, even with epenthesis at the south of Italy, e.g. in Sicilian càvuru<*caudu< caldũ. This is becuase these languages have an extremely limited syllable structure, where even syllable-final sonorants are banned. Late Latin allowed even CC codas, and /aw/ was eliminated through monophthongisation, or through deletion of /w/ before /u/ (Agosto, ascultare), both of which is very well attested. What you're postulating is not attested.

    Incidentally the -ul- in homullus speaks against its derivation from a syllabic nasal, since *-n̥lo- gives -illo- (sigillum, tigillum < signum, tignum).

    An example of auCl>aull is aulla<*auksla, and vīlla<*veiksla, caelum<*caedlom, lūna<louksna are close enough analogies.
     
    Last edited:

    ahvalj

    Senior Member
    But your fictitious examples imply a disappearance of the syllable, which is the opposite to what I suggest. In my scenario *u̯r̥l becomes (u̯)ul. Try to pronounce *pawrlos yourself several times and try to observe what happens in each case. I am sure *pawərlos and *pa.u.rlos and *pawəlos will emerge as variants.

    Yes, homullus is a problem, but compare homunculus, which has the same *onc>unc (for the development compare uncus). Perhaps an o-grade then (<*xemonelos)?

    Yes, aulla etc. are good examples, but with s, which deletes everything between it and l, compare ex vs. ēlūdō. So, we need au + stop + l.

    P. S. I'd like to repeat that I don't suggest a phonetic law. I suggest an idiosyncratic development of a unique short-lived hard to pronounce cluster.

    P. P. S. A development au̯>au̯u, even by analogy as you suggest, has not been observed in Latin either. We're dealing with a unique case, whatever the explanation.

    P. P. S. As a crazy idea, why not to imagine we're dealing with a re-latinization of the Greek Pavlos>*Pavulus? Like in John vs. Sean~Shaun~Shawn~Shon?
     
    Last edited:

    Sobakus

    Senior Member
    But your fictitious examples imply a disappearance of the syllable, which is the opposite to what I suggest. In my scenario *u̯r̥l becomes (u̯)ul. Try to pronounce *pawrlos yourself several times and try to observe what happens in each case. I am sure *pawərlos and *pa.u.rlos and *pawəlos will emerge as variants.
    Here it's worth asking why create such a cluster in the first place, when you have an already-existing solution in the metathesis? Ideally it should serve as an event horizon preventing us from speculating about what would have happened to the sequence had it not metathesized.

    *pawərlos and *pa.ur.los do emerge, but I'm perplexed why you're suggesting the clearly impossible *pawəlos. I can't put this down to anything other than syllable weight being foreign to your native language, and geminate consonants unstable. Even modern Italian preserves these things meticulously, and in Latin you simply can never have a consonant disappear to leave an open syllable.

    This is notwithstanding that both *pawərlos and *pa.ur.los would regularly develop to our attested /paul.lus/, one via assimilation and regular syncope of the medial syllable, the other simply by the former step alone. It makes no difference whether the /u/ ever made a syllable or belonged to a different one, or even if it contracted later, was final and preceded by a diphthong (neu̯, seu̯ < neiu̯e, seiu̯e).

    If there had been a trisyllabic by-form, it's precisely this form that would have escaped degemination, giving *Pavollo.
    Yes, homullus is a problem, but compare homunculus, which has the same *onc>unc (for the development compare uncus).
    The o>u raising isn't even surprising next to examples like ampulla < ampora. It's the back vowel itself in all the on-stems.
    Yes, aulla etc. are good examples, but with s, which deletes everything between it and l, compare ex vs. ēlūdō. So, we need au + stop + l.
    The s is between the stop and the l, and as far as I can see that s is completely transparent to the outcome. A lone s lengthens the preceding vowel (vīlis < *wes-li), as does stop + l (pālus<*paksl-). I've given three examples of diphthong + stop + l, all of which were phonemically no different from au. I think you already have what you're looking for.
    P. P. S. A development au̯>au̯u, even by analogy as you suggest, has not been observed in Latin either. We're dealing with a unique case, whatever the explanation.
    The advantage of my explanation is that metanalysis doesn't require being observed in a language in order to be postulated - it's a universal linguistic process. Of course, in our case this exact metanalysis has been noted in the very same language by your own self. Most importantly, we're not talking about phonetics, and therefore what exactly precedes our metanalized diminutive suffix simply doesn't matter. It makes no difference in the least whether it was paw- or puer-, in this is why I think my explanation simply can't be shot down.
     
    Last edited:

    A User

    Senior Member
    Italiano
    "La nostra plebe dice «fiura» per «figura» (ndr. al Nord, perché al Sud dice/diceva «pagura» per «paura»). Originando la voce cosi «Paguro» (ndr. πάγουρος), poi frodando il g, venne a dirsi «pauro» : nello stesso modo che da noi fu detto «paura», e da' Franzesi «peur», dal latino «pavor» fognando l'u consonante, che corrisponde al g. E da questo «pauro» di tre sillabe , si fece poi di due, e si disse «poro», e per più enfasi «porro». È ciò molto simile a Pagolo, Pavolo e Paolo”.
    Other examples (with some differences between them)
    PAONAZZO (common word, understandable, but not very used)
    PAVONAZZO (much less common of «paonazzo», nowadays)
    PAGONAZZO (ancient word, probably no longer used)
    Evolution of «Parvŭlus» (Diminutive of PARVVS)
    PARGOLO (understandable word)
    PARVOLO (no more common; literary or more literary form (considering «pargolo» is less widespread of its synonyms).
    PAROLO (It doesn’t exist)
    Diminutives of diminutive: PARGOLETTO - PARVOLETTO
     

    ahvalj

    Senior Member
    I think now that my crazy suggestion of a re-borrowing from Greek solves everything: phonetically, semantically (only connected with Christianity), geographically (existing in parallel with the proper Latin Paulus with its Romance outcomes).

    P. S. Concerning pawəlos: I chose the wrong letter, I meant a sound close to the American unstressed -er. I think w may have colored the following shwa.

    P. P. S. Clusters are resolved sometimes in an unpredictable way. For example, thorn clusters: there is no way to get s in ursus from *tkʲ in *hₐr̥tkʲos, yet this is what we find in reality (instead of something like **ārtus).

    The s is between the stop and the l, and as far as I can see that s is completely transparent to the outcome. A lone s lengthens the preceding vowel (vīlis < *wes-li), as does stop + l (pālus<*paksl-). I've given three examples of diphthong + stop + l, all of which were phonemically no different from au. I think you already have what you're looking for.
    I only see caelum<*caedlom, which by the way has no accepted etymology.
     
    Last edited:

    ahvalj

    Senior Member
    The "sky" one has a couple very convincing ones, both involving kaid-. But I'm talking about the "chisel" one. The other ones a lūna and vīlla.
    These latter involve s, which deletes the preceding consonant together with itself even in Slavic (luna<*lou̯ksnā, lono<*logʰsno(m) ~ ložesno<*logʰesno(m) vs. agnьcь<agnikos). I am not convinced about caelum.
     

    Sobakus

    Senior Member
    These latter involve s, which deletes the preceding consonant together with itself even in Slavic (luna<*lou̯ksnā, lono<*logʰsno(m) ~ ložesno<*logʰesno(m) vs. agnьcь<agnikos). I am not convinced about caelum.
    The s doesn't delete the preceding consonant. The whole cluster is assimilated to l after a diphthong, or adds a mora to the vowel otherwise (not sure if there are examples after a clearly long vowel). Are you expecting some other development without the s?

    You're not convinved that caelum "chisel" with its deverbal caelāre "to engrave" is from *kaid-slo-, from caedere?
     
    Last edited:

    ahvalj

    Senior Member
    We're discussing the probability of assimilation auCl>aull: what I want to say, that if this C is a single consonant and not s, I have not seen unequivocal examples: I don't understand why we should reject the anaptyxis to auCul instead. “Chizel” asks for -slom for semantic reasons, as you yourself have cited.

    P. S. Again, when discussing paulus we're dealing with one single word with unique prehistoric phonetics, in either scenario. Anything could have happened.
     

    Zec

    Senior Member
    Croatian
    When discussing various scenarios, it would be good to be aware of the fact that semivowels are not your typical consonants. Depending on the language, the only difference between, say, u and w could be that u counts as a syllable while w doesn't; in other languages there may be a phonetic difference between the two. In the former case epenthesis in *pawrlos may not be as inevitable as it seems on a first glance.
     

    A User

    Senior Member
    Italiano
    Dal “Tommaseo-Bellini on line” al quale si può accedere dal sito dell’Accademia della Crusca:
    Ricerca voci pertinenti: U, V, Paolo, Pavolo, Pagolo
    Solo un accento di quello che si può trovare.
    Excerpt: [G.M.] Alcune volte, invece dell'U(vocale), si trova il V(consonante) con un O innanzi o dopo: Continovo per Continuo, Pavolo per Paolo, Capova per Capua, Pattovire per Pattuire, Strenovo per Strenuo, e Statova per Statua (in Guitt.). Così da Mantua, Vidua, s'è fatto Mantova, Vedova.

    It seems to me that the stressed "o" of "Aosta" results from the stressed "u" of "Augusta", not from the diphthong "au".
    The case of Paulus > Paolo is different from this, isn't it?
    AVGVSTA (latin) – ? – Agòsta – Avòsta – Aòsta
    La v(consonante) cade 2 volte perché, come ricorda il Tommaseo, limitatamente ad alcuni dialetti (del Nord? - in "Augusta" in Sicilia non cade nulla), in AV di AVGVSTA la V ha suono consonantico.
     
    Last edited:
    < Previous | Next >
    Top