I had thought of that, too, but linguists don't seem to agree. They just mention ''dissimilation'' (initial j was palatalized, just like the subsequent lj>gl, hence the need to differentiate..). Etimologia : luglio;Is it plausible to relate the initial letter of the month to the masculine article L' ?
Dissimilation because it is impossible to pronounce Gliuglio?I guess it must just be a case of dissimilation. Similar to that of Catalan jull or Spanish joyo.
Maybe, but Spanish doesn't seem to have a problem with Julio being both the name and the month. French has Jules and Juillet though, the -et being another mystery.Another reason is (in my opinion) the need to avoid confusion with the very common personal masculine name Giulio. The latter is a more faithful continuation of Latin Julius. The man and the month have phonetically taken somewhat divergent ways.
But did Catalan ʎ become ʒ too at a certain stage?
I don’t think it’s silly at all. I have noticed a number of other words that have come from Latin that are spelled or pronounced in an unexpected manner (when compared with the usual conversions from Latin to a particular language). Changing a Latin I (which were identical to J) to an L in Italian happens in several words besides this, and given the fact that they were both just straight lines early on (the point over an i and the serifs on a capital I were late additions in writing), this particular error in hand-copying manuscripts is especially likely. I can easily imagine some functionaries in farflung places thought the documents establishing the calendar said Luglio and pronounced it that way and his underlings were too afraid to question it, same way that Castilian Spanish has a lisping s because a King had a speech impediment.Sooooo... what if somebody mistook the I of Iulius for an L? Sorry, I was just being silly. I suppose that Iuglius became Gliuglius for assimilation, the two syllables being so similar, but the sound "gl" being too hard to pronounce at the beginning of a word, it naturally morphed into a L.
A continuation of Latin /lj/ is illustrated by the title word; Giulio, like the vast majority of Latin-resembling names, is a borrowing.Another reason is (in my opinion) the need to avoid confusion with the very common personal masculine name Giulio. The latter is a more faithful continuation of Latin Julius. The man and the month have phonetically taken somewhat divergent ways.
In order to believe that explanation one would have to find a systematic confusion between the two letters, that would furthermore somehow find its way into people's speech. This is inconceivable for many reasons. Firstly, in an age of 5% literacy, scribal copy errors remain on dusty manuscripts. Secondly, they remain inside a single line of the manuscript tradition. Thirdly, they remain in the exact place where the scribe made a mistake. Fourthly, they were actively corrected during copying. There's no process by which a single mistake could propagate itself into all occurrences of the same word inside a single manuscript (that's difficult even for a word that only occurs two or three times), so that line of reasoning cannot proceed even thus far.I don’t think it’s silly at all. [...] And in the age of laborious hand-copying of texts, any errors not caught/admitted to then would be slavishly perpetuated by later copyists (who might add one of their own).
In this relation is often mentioned giglio < līlium. Maiden 2014 explains luglio as a hypercorrection for the phenomenon in giglio. Catalan jull, Spanish joyo and Portuguese joio would then be part of the same vacillation whose outcomes were different in different regions. It probably affected all the words in l_lj, of which there was only a handful.