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.
No, words from lo- become llo- and stay like that (lloc, llom, llong). Loliu should have given lloll, so in jull there is a clear case of dissimilation (probably causing the closing of o into u).But did Catalan ʎ become ʒ too at a certain stage?