Syllable and Segment in Latin (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics) [Illustrated] 9780199660186, 0199660182

Citation preview

Syllable and Segment in Latin

O X F O R D S T U D I ES I N D I A C H R O N I C AN D H I S T O R I CA L L I N G U I S T I CS general editors Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge advisory editors Cynthia Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; David Willis, University of Cambridge recently published in the series 9 Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages Edited by Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli 10 Vowel Length from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro 11 The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax Edited by Katalin É. Kiss 12 Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic George Walkden 13 The History of Low German Negation Anne Breitbarth 14 Arabic Indefinites, Interrogatives, and Negators A Linguistic History of Western Dialects David Wilmsen 15 Syntax over Time Lexical, Morphological, and Information-Structural Interactions Edited by Theresa Biberauer and George Walkden 16 Syllable and Segment in Latin Ranjan Sen

Syllable and Segment in Latin RANJAN SEN

1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries # Ranjan Sen 2015 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2015 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2014943829 ISBN 978–0–19–966018–6 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, cr0 4yy Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

Contents Series preface Acknowledgements List of figures List of tables Abbreviations 1 Philology and phonology 1.1 Approaches to Latin phonology 1.2 Explanation in diachronic phonology 1.3 Sources of evidence 1.3.1 Indo-European reconstruction 1.3.2 Inscriptions 1.3.3 Manuscripts 1.3.4 Grammarians 1.3.5 Romance languages 2 Clear and dark /l/ 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Grammarians’ statements 2.3 Pre-/l/ vowel colouring 2.3.1 Colouring before coda /l/ 2.3.2 Colouring before onset /l/ preceding /a o u/ 2.3.3 Colouring before onset /l/ preceding /e/ 2.3.4 No colouring before onset /l/ preceding /i/ 2.3.5 No colouring before geminate /ll/ 2.3.6 Summary 2.4 Phonological analysis of Latin /l/ 2.5 Conclusions on Latin /l/ 3 Inverse compensatory lengthening: The littera-rule 3.1 Introduction 3.2 History of the problem 3.2.1 There is a problem 3.2.2 Part of gemination 3.2.3 Chronology and register 3.2.4 Diachronic development or synchronic variation?

ix x xii xiii xiv 1 1 4 9 10 10 12 13 13 15 15 16 17 18 21 23 28 28 29 31 41 42 42 44 45 45 46 47

vi

Contents

3.3

3.4 3.5

3.6

3.7

3.2.5 Stress 3.2.6 Phonological environment 3.2.7 Syllable structure 3.2.8 Summary Phonological preliminaries 3.3.1 Segmental length and syllable weight 3.3.2 Sources of length in consonants 3.3.2.1 Assimilations 3.3.2.2 Lengthening before glides and liquids 3.3.2.3 Analogy 3.3.2.4 Spontaneous consonant gemination Examination of the forms Evaluating the results 3.5.1 Phonological environment 3.5.1.1 Consonants 3.5.1.2 Vowels 3.5.1.3 Generalizations 3.5.2 Semantic categories 3.5.2.1 Onomatopoeic words 3.5.2.2 Children’s words and the body 3.5.2.3 Plants and animals 3.5.2.4 Expressive words and nicknames 3.5.2.5 Common object words 3.5.3 Stress 3.5.4 Chronology Phonological analysis 3.6.1 Compensatory lengthening: phonological weight analysis 3.6.2 Compensatory lengthening: phonologization analysis 3.6.2.1 High vowel + voiceless stop 3.6.2.2 /a/ + sonorant 3.6.2.3 Front vowel + /l/ 3.6.2.4 Functional load Conclusions on inverse compensatory lengthening

4 Syllabification: Vowel reduction before TR 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Archaic Latin vowel reduction 4.2.1 Unconditioned developments 4.2.2 Some conditioned developments 4.2.2.1 R-conditioning: before /r/ 4.2.2.2 Labial conditioning: before labial C

48 49 50 50 51 51 53 53 53 54 55 57 57 59 59 60 60 60 61 61 61 61 62 62 63 65 65 67 69 72 73 74 75 79 79 80 81 81 82 83

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

Contents

vii

4.2.2.3 L-conditioning: before dark /l/ 4.2.2.4 V-to-V conditioning 4.2.3 Summary 4.2.4 The problem: conflicting evidence for the syllabification of TR Proposed explanations of reduction before TR 4.3.1 R-conditioning before Tr 4.3.2 Morpheme–syllable alignment Examination of the forms 4.4.1 Forms in -bra < archaic *-bra < PIE *-dʰr-a: 4.4.2 Forms in -trum/-tra < archaic *-trom/-tra < PIE *-tr-o-m/-tr-a: 4.4.3 Forms in -bulum < archaic *-blom < PIE *-dʰl-o-m 4.4.4 Forms in -culum/-cula < archaic *-klom/-kla < PIE *-tl-o-m/-a: 4.4.5 Forms in -crum < archaic *-krom < PIE *-tl-o-m 4.4.6 Forms in -tri :x < archaic *tri :ks < PIE *-trih1-k-s 4.4.7 Forms in -bilis < archaic *-blis < PIE *-dʰli-s 4.4.8 Forms in -bris < archaic *-bris < PIE *-dʰli-s 4.4.9 Forms in -cris < archaic *-kris < PIE *-tli-s 4.4.10 Forms in -brum/-bra, -bris < archaic *-brom etc. < PIE *-s-ro-m/-a: , *-s-ri-s 4.4.11 Forms in -Trum/-ra, -T-ris < archaic *-Trom etc. < PIE *-T-ro-m/-ra: , *-T-ri-s 4.4.12 Other formations resulting in internal TR Analysis 4.5.1 Results of the examination 4.5.2 Morphological transparency and alignment 4.5.3 Constrained r-conditioning 4.5.4 Summary Conclusions on archaic Latin syllabification

84 85 86 87 88 89 92 94 96 98 99 100 103 104 105 106 106

5 Vocalic epenthesis in Tl 5.1 Introduction 5.2 /bl/ 5.2.1 Syllable structure 5.2.2 Chronology 5.3 /kl/ 5.3.1 Syllable structure 5.3.2 Metrical structure 5.3.3 Morphological structure 5.3.4 Chronology: po:culum, Aescula :pius, Hercule :s 5.4 /pl/ 5.4.1 Morphological structure

108 109 109 111 111 114 117 119 120 121 121 124 124 126 126 126 128 131 132 135 138

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

viii

5.5 5.6 5.7

5.8

Contents 5.4.2 Metrical structure 5.4.3 Syllable structure 5.4.4 Chronology: manipulus, populus, pu :blicus /gl/ Word-initial Tl Frequency and the implementation of epenthesis 5.7.1 Inscriptions 5.7.2 Plautus 5.7.3 Terence 5.7.4 Frequency in context 5.7.5 Conclusions on frequency Conclusions on vocalic epenthesis in Tl

140 142 149 152 154 156 160 160 164 166 168 170

6 Assimilations: Syllable structure and segmental sequence

172

6.1 Introduction 6.2 Voice assimilation 6.3 Place and continuance 6.3.1 The Place Hierarchy 6.3.2 The Manner Hierarchy 6.4 Nasality 6.5 Analysis: a linear hypothesis 6.6 Voice assimilation in TR 6.6.1 Sonorant voice specification 6.6.2 Analysis: syllable-based distribution of [voice] 6.7 Morphological structure 6.8 Conclusions on assimilations

172 175 177 179 180 181 185 186 186 189 195 195

7 Conclusions: Reconstructing phonological change 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

197

Identifying and refining problems Examining evidence and identifying patterns Reconstructing phonetics and synchronic structure Evaluating explanations in diachronic phonology Latin phonology and philology

198 198 199 201 202

Appendix: Examination of littera-rule forms References Index of Latin words Index of subjects, languages, authors, and selected sources

204 231 243 260

Series preface Modern diachronic linguistics has important contacts with other subdisciplines, notably first-language acquisition, learnability theory, computational linguistics, sociolinguistics, and the traditional philological study of texts. It is now recognized in the wider field that diachronic linguistics can make a novel contribution to linguistic theory, to historical linguistics, and arguably to cognitive science more widely. This series provides a forum for work in both diachronic and historical linguistics, including work on change in grammar, sound, and meaning within and across languages; synchronic studies of languages in the past; and descriptive histories of one or more languages. It is intended to reflect and encourage the links between these subjects and fields such as those mentioned above. The goal of the series is to publish high-quality monographs and collections of papers in diachronic linguistics generally, i.e. studies focusing on change in linguistic structure, and/or change in grammars, which are also intended to make a contribution to linguistic theory, by developing and adopting a current theoretical model, by raising wider questions concerning the nature of language change, or by developing theoretical connections with other areas of linguistics and cognitive science as listed above. There is no bias towards a particular language or language family, or towards a particular theoretical framework; work in all theoretical frameworks, and work based on the descriptive tradition of language typology, as well as quantitatively based work using theoretical ideas, also feature in the series. Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts University of Cambridge

Acknowledgements This book arose out of my doctoral thesis at the University of Oxford. I owe a great debt to my D.Phil. supervisors, John Penney and John Coleman, for their unceasingly sage advice, ever-willingness to assist, and invariably significant observations. Both always encouraged me to challenge my own assumptions, and showed an enthusiastic interest in both philological and phonological aspects of the research. My examiners, Philomen Probert and Bert Vaux, were extremely generous with their feedback, and have been constantly supportive of my career ever since as mentors and friends. I was extremely fortunate to have been part of the Faculty of Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics, University of Oxford. As a comparative philologist, I thank Anna Morpurgo Davies for valuable assistance before and after I returned to Oxford. On the phonological side, I am extremely grateful to Aditi Lahiri for the interest she has always shown in my work and for advice on its improvement; I continue to enjoy fruitful phonological discussion with Aditi-di whenever time and opportunity permit. Elinor Payne was generous in sharing her ideas, and John Harris was a very kind colleague and mentor, with whom I enjoyed several discussions during my time at UCL. Nick Zair is always an invaluable source of questions, observations, and suggestions, as well as a good friend. More generally, I thank the Oxford graduate students and Kate Dobson for having made life in the department very enjoyable. My doctorate was funded by an Arts and Humanities Research Council Doctoral Award, and I was given assistance at an early stage by the Wingate Foundation. The Arts and Humanities Research Council, the Faculty, and my college, Christ Church, have given me financial assistance for presenting overseas, notably at the very useful CUNY Conferences. My friends at Christ Church have always been important to me throughout my undergraduate and graduate degrees. In particular, I owe thanks to Richard Smith for being a constant in my academic life. I am also very grateful to my current department, the School of English, University of Sheffield, for being a warm and wonderful academic home, offering generous support and plenty of scope for me to develop my research interests. The School of English and Faculty of Arts and Humanities have provided financial assistance for overseas conferences, feedback from which has contributed significantly to the final volume. I thank my parents for showing such devotion to me and my work, and my brothers for being sources of inspiration all my life. I could not have achieved any of this without their support, encouragement, and love. My nieces were growing up to be wonderful young ladies while I was completing this book, and I always enjoy

Acknowledgements

xi

their company. I also thank my second family in Belgium—mother, father, brother, sisters, niece, and nephew—for their kindness and care. Finally, I owe a huge debt to Charlotte Steenbrugge for her love, patience, assistance, and many more things too numerous to list. She has been subjected to far too much Latin phonology for far too long, and has been instrumental in seeing this work through to completion.

Note on website Readers interested in more detailed discussion of the features discussed in this book are referred to http://ranjansen.com. This site includes a section dedicated to supporting material for the book, in particular Chapters 3 and 4.

List of figures 2.1 Summary of colouring of /l/

30

2.2 Specifications and resonances of Latin /l/ variants 2.3 Articulatory implementation of Latin /l/ specifications

33 38

3.1 Inverse compensatory lengthening: moraic analysis 3.2 CVC and CVCV compensatory lengthening: phonologization analysis

67 68

3.3 The littera-rule

72

4.1 Unconditioned open-syllable vowel reduction to /i/ 4.2 Conditioned open-syllable vowel reduction

86 86

4.3 Closed-syllable vowel reduction 6.1 Regressive nasal assimilation

87 184

List of tables 3.1 Forms showing a diachronic development, synchronic variation, or replacement of V:C with a VCC suffix

58

3.2 Forms categorized according to the three phonological patterns 3.3 The development V:C > VCC from Sanskrit to Pāli

65 66

4.1 Open-syllable vowel reduction indicating tautosyllabic TR 4.2 Closed-syllable vowel reduction indicating heterosyllabic TR

112 113

5.1 Frequency of words and epenthesis in /kl/ in Plautus

161

5.2 Frequency of words and epenthesis in /pl/ in Plautus 5.3 Frequency of words and voicing in /pl/ in Plautus

162 162

5.4 Frequency of words and epenthesis in /kl/ in Terence 5.5 Frequency of words and epenthesis in /pl/ in Terence

165 165

5.6 Frequency of words and voicing in /pl/ in Terence 5.7 Counts of words in /kl/ in context

165 166

5.8 Counts of words in /pl/ and */pl/ > /bl/ in context

167

5.9 Sample diachronic developments of words in /bl/ 5.10 Sample diachronic developments of words in /kl/

171 171

5.11 Sample diachronic developments of words in /pl/ 6.1 Assimilation in obstruent place and continuance

171 177

6.2 Assimilation in nasality and place

182

Abbreviations General abbreviations and notations Attested Latin forms are written in italics in their received orthography, with the addition of the length mark ‘ : ’ as appropriate. Small caps denote inscriptional forms. Words from Greek, Sanskrit, and other languages with a non-Roman script are Romanized, using appropriate accent markers. Oscan and Umbrian forms are written using their received orthography, adopting the practice of Untermann (2000). C

consonant

H

heavy syllable

L

light syllable

N

nasal consonant

R

liquid consonant

Son

sonorant consonant

T

stop consonant (non-nasal)

Tl

stop + /l/

TR

stop + liquid

Tr

stop + /r/

V

vowel

V:

long vowel

-

morpheme boundary

.

syllable boundary

*x

reconstructed form

{

x

incorrectly reconstructed form

/x/

phoneme

[x]

phonetic form

hxi

orthographic form

x̩

syllabic segment

0

x

primary stress

(x)

foot

{x}

extrametrical element

>

diachronic sound change to


/r/), Sihler (pp. 172–3) comments that ‘a change of s to r may appear extreme, phonetically, but is observed in many languages’, and then provides examples from Proto-Germanic to West and North Germanic, the Eretrian dialect of Ionic Greek, and Sanskrit. In the domain of synchronic typology, he states that ‘very little is known of PIE phonotactics’, but ‘still, typologically speaking, the assumed phonotactics are not exotic’ (p. 169). Such a concern for establishing the phonetic and phonological likelihood of a purported explanation through invoking parallels is, admirably, often seen, but the main difficulty is that phonetic plausibility is commonly insufficiently constrained in the tradition, as it is not of foremost relevance to the comparative historical enterprise, as Yu (2006: 526) observes. While one of the crowning achievements of historical linguistics is arguably the discovery of ways to reconstruct the history of languages via the comparative method, the comparative method per se has nothing to say about why certain sound changes should be more prevalent than others, nor can it explain why asymmetric directionality effects of sound change exist. The comparative method simply does not require the linguist to understand why languages are structured as they are or behave as they do . . . it is often implicitly assumed that the posited reconstructed forms and the accompanying sound changes must also be within the bounds of the plausible, where plausibility is generally determined inductively, that is, by what the linguists have previously encountered in other human languages. Historical linguists also often rely on the notion of phonetic plausibility. To this end, historical linguists generally turn to phoneticians for answers.

A stumbling block is of course that, unlike for modern languages, we are not in possession of native speaker intuitions and primary phonetic data. As these are lacking for Latin, we must look to other methods to build a coherent picture. Little work has investigated Latin in the light of experimental phonetic research, the

4

Philology and phonology

typological distribution of sound patterns and changes, and contemporary phonological theories, rather than merely acknowledging the possibilities afforded by these sources. The notable recent exception, mentioned above, is Stuart-Smith’s (2004) monograph on the development of the PIE voiced aspirates in Italic in order to explain the many peculiarities. The previous confusion and Stuart-Smith’s achievement is described in Clackson’s (2006) review. Comparative philologists have known of these curiosities for well over a century, and they have striven to give a historical explanation . . . [Stuart-Smith’s] account is certainly unlikely to be superseded in the near future. She examines the available evidence for Latin and all the other ‘Italic’ languages of Italy with a fine-toothed comb, including . . . assessment of rival etymologies for disputed words. She combines this work on Italic with a first-hand knowledge of modern phonetics, and she is able to put rival arguments to the test through comparison with what happens in modern spoken languages. She comes up with a convincing explanation for what actually happened phonetically to the sounds in the history of Latin and the other languages under review.

This volume aims in part to contribute to a methodology for systematically interpreting the recoverable phonetic and phonological data of any non-current language with sources of evidence similar to early Latin, influenced to a large degree by StuartSmith’s steps, as identified by Clackson. Our methodology broadly consists of (i) a systematic examination of data in the language pertinent to each phenomenon, after ‘cleaning’ the data by detailed philological investigation, (ii) establishing the evidence from phonological typology regarding each phenomenon and its potential conditioning factors, (iii) employing the results of phonetic research, with cross-linguistic implications, to reconstruct the conditions in the dead language, and (iv) evaluating the roles of synchronic phonetic pressures and phonological structure in motivating and guiding the change. The book investigates five phenomena in Latin: vowel colouring before clear and dark /l/; inverse compensatory lengthening; vowel reduction before stop + liquid; vocalic epenthesis in stop + /l/; and diachronic assimilations. All appear to have been governed in some way by syllable structure, to judge from language-internal and cross-linguistic evidence. I demonstrate both how phonetic research and phonological theory can shed light on a dead language, and in turn how Latin evidence can continue to illuminate problems in phonological theory—e.g. the nature of features, the typology of compensatory lengthenings and vowel reductions, and the role of the syllable in diachronic phonology—as it has done throughout the history of linguistics.

1.2 Explanation in diachronic phonology The five studies in this volume investigate sound changes in Latin. We not only focus upon isolating the precise phonological (and chronological) conditions for the

Explanation in diachronic phonology

5

developments, but also motivate those conditions, accounting for why pressures towards change existed in the language. In doing so, we reconstruct aspects of causation in diachronic phonology, a much-disputed field. The core debate surrounds the role of synchronic phonological structure—speakers’ mental linguistic systems at a point in time—in explaining diachronic phonological development. The relationship between synchrony and diachrony—a dichotomy introduced by de Saussure (1916)—remains a topic of vigorous discussion over 100 years after the scholar’s death (see Honeybone and Salmons 2014). It is uncontroversial that phonological change can be phonetically motivated; the constraints of speaking and hearing can explain the roots of most diachronic developments. However, whereas ‘reductionists’ (adapting Bermúdez-Otero’s 2006 terminology) posit that such pressures alone guide sound change through language use, and deny the existence of autonomous principles of synchronic organization (e.g. Ohala 1992; Blevins 2004), ‘non-reductionists’ hold that change is constrained and explained by innate or universally constructed mental linguistic structure (Universal Grammar), in the form of possible grammars and markedness constraints (e.g. Kiparsky 2006; 2008; Bermúdez-Otero 2006; 2007). Although the present volume does not focus upon addressing this debate, the analyses offered are most in harmony with a reductionist account, with a focus on establishing the phonetic origins of each phenomenon (with one exception), and perceptually based motivations for phonologizations (interpreting phonetic effects as phonological), reanalyses (assigning innovative phonological structure to existing surface realizations), and their directions. However, the non-reductionist approach equally acknowledges that diachronic change can begin in phonetic implementation, before becoming structuralized synchronic rules. Therefore, our analyses can be interpreted as accounts of the actuation of each sound change, i.e. how the variant underlying the change came about and was prone to an unintended parse by the listener, rather than the life story of the change, encompassing its implementation across the lexicon, if lexically diffused (Wang 1969; Chen and Wang 1975), and its ‘lifecycle’ through successive rounds of input restructuring at progressively higher levels in the grammar (Bermúdez-Otero 2006; forthcoming). The exception is the investigation into vocalic epenthesis in Chapter 5, which I argue was an analogically driven process (with first morphological then phonological conditions), and displays a lexically diffused spread where most frequent forms are most resistant, corroborating our hypothesis. Synchronic morphological structure also played a crucial role in the archaic syllabifications seen in vowel reduction (Chapter 4) and assimilations (Chapter 6), but I argue that on the whole, morphology’s influence was some steps removed from the solely phonetic conditions governing the sound changes themselves.2 2 However, alternative repair strategies to regular assimilations, arising from root faithfulness, provides some evidence for the lifecycle of phonological changes (Ch. 6), as per Bermúdez-Otero (2006).

6

Philology and phonology

However, a key question throughout this volume remains motivated by the synchrony/diachrony dichotomy: what role did synchronic phonological structure, in the shape of syllable structure, play in guiding and constraining diachronic sound change? I hypothesize that the influences of this prosodic unit can broadly be divided into two categories: an indirect influence whereby syllable structure conditioned surface variants, which in turn resulted in phonetically driven sound change (syllable structure à phonetics à change), or a direct influence whereby the structural context for the change necessarily made reference to syllable structure, without any conditioning influence on surface phonetics (syllable structure à change). Indirect and direct influences might include phenomena such as the following.3 (1)

Sample indirect influences of syllable structure on sound change a. Categorical surface variants (allophones) governed by syllable structure might result in a phoneme split and subsequently divergent histories. E.g. ‘l-vocalization’ in Latin al.ba ‘dawn’, la.va: .re ‘wash’ > French aube, but laver b. Categorical surface variants governed by syllable structure might gradiently colour adjacent segments through coarticulation, leading to the reinterpretation of those segments as different phonemes. E.g. vowel colouring before dark /l/ (Chapter 2); voice assimilation before syllable-initial sonorants (Chapter 6) c. Gradient surface variants due to the surrounding environments common in certain syllable positions (e.g. onset = pre-vocalic/word-initial, coda = preconsonantal/word-final) might result in phonetic tokens which are reinterpreted as different segments. E.g. assimilations (Chapter 6); lenitions, fortitions, neutralizations d. Gradient effects in timing conditioned by syllable structure might render segmental contrasts difficult to perceive in settings of low duration, resulting in their neutralization. E.g. vowel reduction in open and closed syllables before TR (Chapter 4) e. Phonetic cues to syllable structure, such as gradient effects in duration, might lead listeners to interpret one structure (e.g. open syllable) for another (e.g. closed syllable) if external influences on duration provide conflicting cues. E.g. inverse compensatory lengthening (Chapter 3).

Direct influences are either those which are based in phonological universals, under a non-reductionist approach, or those which are due to the necessary invocation of

3

We leave aside stress- and rhythm-related phenomena here, as they are plausibly metrically governed, rather than by syllable structure, although there is of course an interplay between the two, e.g. quantity sensitivity.

Explanation in diachronic phonology

7

syllable structure in the conditions of the change, without phonetic motivations. This latter can be due to an analogical spread of an earlier phonetically based process, resulting from the listener attributing a phonological pattern to a certain structure, and therefore might be accommodated in reductionist models which preserve the Neogrammarian ‘sound change’ versus ‘analogy’ split (e.g. Blevins 2004). (2)

Sample direct influences of syllable structure on sound change a. Phonological rules might be restricted in their structural description to a particular syllable constituent. E.g. vocalic epenthesis in onset /kl/ (Chapter 5) b. Changes in permitted syllable structures, themselves possibly governed by higher-order changes in speech rhythm, might lead to insertions or deletions. E.g. possibly: stress-timed Latin with abundant CVC syllables > syllabletimed Spanish with predominantly CV (see Delattre 1966; Holt 1997); degemination in V:CC (Chapter 3) c. Changes in syllable-based phonotactic constraints might yield repairs such as assimilations, insertions, and deletions. E.g. possibly: vocalic epenthesis in onset /bl/ (Chapter 5); simplification of word-initial clusters, e.g. stlocus > locus ‘place’; assimilations (Chapter 6) (but rejected) d. Fortition in onsets and lenition in codas, if not through phonetics, but rather cognitively controlled strengthening and weakening in positions of prosodic prominence and weakness respectively. E.g. possible onset devoicing in TR in prehistoric Latin (Chapter 6) e. No sound change requires all coda consonants to be voiced, despite plausible diachronic paths to such a change, due a universal markedness constraint on voiced codas, by a non-reductionist account (Kiparsky 2006).

The phenomena investigated here mostly fall under the ‘indirect influence’ category. Syllable structure, itself sensitive to morphological structure, governed categorical or gradient surface variants, yielding the phonetic tokens which were the roots of phonetically based change, through phonologization or reanalysis. A summary of the five phenomena and analyses illustrates this. (i) Clear and dark /l/ a. Ternary categorical surface contrast reconstructed in Latin /l/: clear, dark, and underspecified, or [– back], [+ back], [Ø back]. b. Clear in geminate /ll/, dark in codas, underspecified in onsets, which were gradiently ‘contextually darkened’ by the following vowel. c. /l/-darkness gradiently coloured the preceding vowel through anticipatory coarticulation.

8

Philology and phonology d. Colouring in preceding vowels was phonologized as a different vowel segment (e.g. */e/ > /u/). e. Syllable structure à categorical surface variants à gradient phonetic realizations à sound change. (ii) Inverse compensatory lengthening a. *V:C > VCC sporadically in three phonetically motivated environments, e.g. ‘high vowel + voiceless obstruent’. b. In ‘high vowel + voiceless obstruent’, a phonologically long vowel which was intrinsically the phonetically shortest in an environment where it was still phonetically shorter was reinterpreted as phonologically short. c. The following consonant comcomitantly lengthened because the phonologically long vowel in an open syllable was reanalysed as a phonologically short vowel in a closed syllable due to the expected (though typologically uncommon) vowel durations in open and closed syllables (Sen 2012b). d. The only segment which could be causing syllable closure was the following voiceless obstruent, which was therefore lengthened with minimum aerodynamic difficulty. e. Syllable structure and non-structural contexts à gradient phonetic realizations à sound change (including reanalysis of syllable structure). (iii) Syllabification in vowel reduction before TR a. TR was heterosyllabic by default in archaic Latin, but tautosyllabic if there was an immediately preceding transparent morphological boundary. b. Closed-syllable vowel reduction before heterosyllabic TR, including where etymologically evident morphemes were not synchronically transparent. c. Open-syllable vowel reduction before tautosyllabic TR, including greater environmental conditioning, such as constrained r-conditioning across the stop in TR. d. Morphological structure à syllable structure à gradient phonetic realizations à sound change. (iv) Vocalic epenthesis in Tl a. Chronological extension of epenthesis contexts: /bl/ à /kl/ à /pl/. b. Epenthesis in /kl/ was based upon /bl/-epenthesis through morphological analogy (/bl kl/-initial mediative suffixes), followed by phonological analogy (internal onset suffix-initial /kl/ à internal onset /kl/). c. /kl/-epenthesis therefore affected the least frequent lexical items first, and the most frequent words either utterly resisted or were slower to adopt the change.

Sources of evidence

9

d. /pl/-epenthesis probably affected the most frequent items first and showed sensitivities to stress not seen in /kl/-epenthesis, indicating that it was phonetically based, and possibly spread from /bl/-epenthesis (same place of articulation). e. Morphological structure à syllable structure à structurally based sound change in /kl/ (linear segmental sequence à gradient surface realizations à sound change in /pl/). (v) Assimilations a. Salience of perceptual cues in linear segmental sequence to featural contrasts governed diachronic assimilations in voice, place, continuance, and nasality (not syllable-internal position). b. Surface voice specification of sonorants conditioned by syllable structure: [+ voice] syllable-initially, [Ø voice] elsewhere (coda, TR onset). c. Voice assimilation in TR was therefore sensitive to syllable structure via feature distribution, not directly. d. Morphological structure influenced syllabification of TR. e. Morphological structure à syllable structure à categorical surface variants à gradient phonetic realizations à sound change. The investigations in this volume therefore corroborate the primacy of phonetic realizations in the actuation of sound change, as almost all the phenomena display sensitivity to gradient surface variants, and not simply the categorical phonological specifications that conditioned them. However, vocalic epenthesis in /kl/ also shows how a sound change may, after the event, appear identical to others in its nearregular outcome, but in fact may have resulted from very different, non-phonetic, motivations. Finally, I emphasize how a complete account of sound change needs to incorporate considerations of synchronically transparent morphology and synchronic phonological structure, as well as surface phonetics.

1.3 Sources of evidence For the purposes of the investigations, I shall recognize six periods in the history of Latin: (i) prehistoric Latin, from the break-up of Proto-Italic to the earliest attestations in the 7th century bc; (ii) archaic Latin, from the 7th century bc to the beginning of the literary period in 240 bc, consisting of inscriptional and reconstructed evidence; (iii) early Latin, from 240 bc to the beginning of Cicero’s career in 81 bc, consisting mainly of the works of the early playwrights such as Plautus and Terence; (iv) classical Latin, consisting of two sub-periods with abundant inscriptional and literary evidence: republican, from 81 bc until the death of Cicero in 43 bc, and Augustan, from 43 bc to the death of Augustus in 14 ad; (v) imperial Latin, from 14 ad to the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 ad; and (vi) late Latin, to the 7th century

10

Philology and phonology

ad. This volume focuses upon changes which occurred in the archaic and early periods. The data in this book constitute a synthesis of evidence drawn from various dictionaries, etymological dictionaries, digital corpora, handbooks dealing with Latin phonology, and specific studies on particular phenomena. The most comprehensive handbook is Leumann (1977); other extremely important works include Lindsay (1894), Niedermann (1997[1906]), Sommer (1948), Allen (1973; 1978), Sommer and Pfister (1977), Sihler (1995), Meiser (1998), and Weiss (2009). The main dictionaries and etymological dictionaries used are OLD (= Glare 1996), LEW (= Walde and Hoffmann 1938–56), DELL (= Ernout et al. 1985), and EDL (= de Vaan 2008). Digital corpora drawn upon are Perseus (= Crane 2009), and the IntraText Digital Library (2009). Some specific in-depth works and the chapters in this book to which they are relevant include Graur (1929, Chapter 3), Serbat (1975, Chapter 4), Bernardi Perini (1974, Chapter 4), and Wachter (1987, Chapter 5). The sources of evidence can furnish us with a wide range of information about Latin phonology. In the following sections, we consider how these sources can be interpreted. 1.3.1 Indo-European reconstruction Comparative evidence from Indo-European languages enables us to reconstruct forms in the parent language, Proto-Indo-European, providing a starting point for Latin. Similarly, other languages of the Italic family, such as Oscan and Umbrian, can allow us to reconstruct an intermediate Proto-Italic form. PIE morphological theory is sufficiently sophisticated for us to make judgements on the well-formedness of an etymology, even where comparative evidence is lacking; for example, a basic pattern in verbs is root + suffix(es) + ending, and these three elements combined in various accent and ablaut patterns to give the PIE paradigms (Rix 1992: 123). 1.3.2 Inscriptions Within our corpus of Latin attested while it was a living language, inscriptional evidence has the advantage of directly representing the orthography intended by the composer, or at any rate the inscriber, without later revisions. However, we encounter not only relatively straightforward ‘phonetic spelling’ (including instances where Latin was rendered using the orthographic practices of another language, such as Greek or Oscan) but also numerous orthographic conventions indicating segmental quality and quantity which require interpretation. Consonantal length was denoted by double writing in the vast majority of Latin inscriptions, the exceptions being from the archaic period, where they were written singly, e.g. fvise from the mid-3rd century bc (CIL 12.9, epitaph of L. Cornelius Scipio). The first datable writing of a double consonant is from 211 bc (CIL 12.608),

Sources of evidence

11

where the name of a Sicilian town, Henna (Gk. Énna), is found as hinnad (abl.). Double writing in native Latin words is first attested in the decree of Lucius Aemilius (CIL 12.614), which can be dated accurately to 19 January 189 bc , and includes the forms tvrri, essent, oppidvmqv, and vellet, but also posedisent beside possidere on the following line. Writing of double consonants did not become regular until around 100 bc, and inscriptions throughout the 2nd century have both single and double writing, often employing the former in conservative registers such as chancery language: e.g. the Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus (CIL 12.581) from 186 bc never uses double consonants. During the last quarter of the 2nd and the first quarter of the 1st centuries bc, inscriptions occasionally indicated the long vowels /e: a: o: u:/ by their double writing, following the practice used in Oscan in texts in the Osco-Etruscan alphabet, e.g. duunated ‘gave’ (Untermann 2000: 194), and sometimes in Umbrian in texts in the Latin alphabet, e.g. eetu (Untermann 2000: 207). The first datable example of this practice is the form paastores ‘shepherds’ (CIL 12.638) from 132 bc. The practice continued until later in the case of /u:/, especially in 4th declension nouns, and is occasionally even found in manuscripts. The PIE diphthong */ei/ was retained in archaic Latin in all positions, thus inscriptional deivos, nei, and perhaps einom in the Duenos Inscription (CIL 12.4). This, along with [ei] developed from [oi] in final syllables, monophthongized during the course of the 3rd century bc to a close-mid long front vowel [e:], which was indicated by the spelling hei in faleries < *-eis < *-ois from around 241 bc (Zimmermann 1986: 40), ploirvme < *-ei < *-oi from the mid-3rd century bc (CIL 12.9, epitaph of L. Cornelius Scipio) and devas (CIL 12.975). This pronunciation is supported by the play on words at Pl. Truc. 262–4 between i: ra [e:ra] ‘anger’ < *eira and era ‘mistress’. Subsequently [e:] raised to [i:], merging with inherited /i:/ in the middle of the 2nd century, as shown by pvrgati (CIL 12.586) from around 150 bc, and the classical Latin forms. From around 150 to 70 bc, orthographic heii was used simply to indicate vowel length for all instances of /i:/ from whatever source. Note that this convention was used during this period instead of the double writing of hii, at the time when length in the other vowels was thus indicated. Examples of this non-etymological writing of the diphthong are tarenteinvs (CIL 12.1458) and veivam (CIL 12.1837) < *wi: wa: m-. Similarly, the PIE diphthong */ou/ monophthongized at the end of the 3rd century bc, probably initially to close-mid long back [o:] and thereafter raising to [u:]. Therefore, we see podlovqveiqve in the Dedication from Lavinium (CIL 12.2833) from around the mid-6th century bc, but lvciom in the otherwise archaizing epitaph of L. Cornelius Scipio (CIL 12.9). Thenceforth, the orthography with the diphthong could represent /u:/ of any origin, so covr[avervnt] < *koisa: - (Wachter 1987: 426) from the 2nd century.

12

Philology and phonology

At around 110 bc, the long vowel /i:/ came to be represented orthographically by a letter hIi which rose above the line of the other characters, known as the ‘I-longa’, supposedly arising by superimposing a second hii above an hii. The use of this feature can be found alongside the other markers of vowel length discussed above, as at CIL 12.1221, containing feida, naatam, and vIva. Flobert (1990) shows how this device began purely as an indicator of vowel length, but in Augustan times came to indicate the vowel in initial position. In later imperial times, it also denoted the phoneme in consonantal function, whether initially or intervocalically. The life of this device seems to coincide on the whole with that of the apex, discussed below, and both were used until around the end of the 3rd century ad (see CIL 5.857). The use of the two devices was very sporadic (never in more than half of the long vowels in any of the given texts, and sometimes in much less than 20% of them), and hardly ever found more than once within a word. The apex, a diacritic mark placed over the vowels hei, hai, hoi, and hvi, resembled a lopsided circumflex (e.g. ), sometimes little more than an acute accent, and seems to have been sporadically written over long vowels. It appeared towards the end of the republican period and even began to be used above the vowel hii from the 2nd century ad. The first example is m vrvm at CIL 12.679 from 104 bc. As with ‘I-longa’, this device was used solely to indicate vowel length in the republican period, but in imperial times it came to be used to indicate features such as the start and end of words, accented syllables, and any heavy syllable (Flobert 1990). The sporadic use of the device is explained to a degree by Quintilian (Inst. 1.7.2), who appears to indicate that regular repeated use of such devices was unpleasant to the eye: longis syllabis omnibus adponere apicem ineptissimum est ‘to put the apex on all long syllables is most unseemly’. Quintilian goes on to say that the device should only be used for phonological contrasts, but in practice its use was clearly more widespread. 1.3.3 Manuscripts The most abundant source for all that concerns the history of the Latin language is to be found in the manuscripts (MSS) of the texts of Latin authors. However, most of these date from a period much later than the author’s autograph, and the processes of dictating, copying and misreading may well obscure the original text. Where all the MSS agree on a reading, we can usually be confident that this was the original version, but where they disagree, an editor must judge which form is most likely to be the one intended by the author. However, MSS which are deemed to be good may well have ‘corrected’ a non-standard but original form that the author in fact intended. Alternatively, a copyist may have written (and a dictator may have pronounced) a form present in the speech of his own time. Such concerns cloud the actual chronology of attested forms. Lindsay (1900: 1–12) provides a good discussion regarding Plautine MSS.

Sources of evidence

13

Metrical evidence from verse texts tells us clearly whether a syllable was light or heavy—our main reliable source of evidence for vowel length and syllable structure in Latin. In some later texts (and verse inscriptions), authors were not wholly comfortable with versification and regularly made errors, commonly placing an open-syllable short vowel in a metrically long syllable (notably when the vowel was stressed) and a closed syllable (including where closure was by a geminate) in a metrically short position. 1.3.4 Grammarians Contemporary Latin grammarians commented on numerous aspects of Latin phonology, and also provided evidence for the chronology of developments by citing older forms or censuring newer ones. Evidence from grammarians is used throughout the investigations in this book, most notably when reconstructing clear, dark, and underspecified variants of Latin /l/ (Chapter 2). 1.3.5 Romance languages Comparative evidence from the Romance languages allows us to identify the spoken late Latin form. This is useful for two reasons: first, we can verify a historical ‘end-point’ for the forms we are investigating, and secondly, we have independent evidence for spellings within Latin of which we should otherwise have been suspicious. The contrastive vowel length of Latin was not retained by the Romance languages, nor was original consonantal length, except in central and southern Italo-Romance, and with /r/ versus /rr/ in branches such as Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, and probably Old French (Lloyd 1987: 140–45, 242–3; Giannelli and Cravens 1997: 32–3; Cravens 2002: 67-8; Padgett 2009). At one extreme, Sardinian has lost vowel length distinctions without trace, with long and short vowels simply merging (Maiden 1995: 28); in Romanian, length has been neutralized only in the back vowels /o u/ and low /a/. The Romanian front vowel series shows the principle which is otherwise universal: distinctions of vowel quantity have been replaced by those of vowel quality, with the exception of /a/. We infer (Allen 1973: 131–4) that Latin short vowels were pronounced with a more open articulation than their long counterparts, and the standard view is that in the vowel system of the Proto-Romance underlying the Western Romance languages and the central and southern Italian dialects, these aperture distinctions were enhanced in stressed syllables. Short /i u/ opened to close-mid vowels [e o], thereby merging with the reflexes of Latin long /e: o:/, also phonetically close-mid, after quantity distinctions had collapsed. These close-mid vowels were in contrast with original short /e o/, realized as open-mid [ε O]. Long and short /a/ simply merged with no qualitative differentiation, as the two were already maximally open. This resulted in the sevenvowel system of Western Proto-Romance: /i e ε a O o u/. In unstressed syllables, it

14

Philology and phonology

seems reasonable to infer that the aperture distinctions were less pronounced, but still present. Therefore, the short high vowels opened to [e o] as before, but these merged with both long and short mid vowels in the front and back series, thus /i e: e/ > /e/ and /u o: o/ > /o/, so establishing a five-vowel system. Turning to the consonants, we find a number of major changes from Latin to the Romance languages, notably the phonemicization of the glides, the reduction of hiatus and glide formation from high vowels (with further repercussions), the simplification of consonant groups, and the emergence of palatal and affricate consonants. In the Western Romance languages (except Sardinian, and central and southern Italian dialects), a qualitative distinction has again arisen in the stop series, as in the vowels. Generalizing the developments, the long voiceless consonants came to be pronounced as singletons, merging with the ‘strong’ allophones of the singleton consonants found word-initially (after consonants and pauses) or post-consonantally. The ‘weak’ allophones found intervocalically voiced and merged with the ‘strong’ allophones of the voiced stops. Careful interpretation of the sources of evidence above therefore provides a wealth of useful data to reconstruct Latin phonology over several centuries. We are not only able to chart the development of words and sounds diachronically, but also—having recovered segmental contrasts, phonotactic constraints, and prosodic structure—to establish synchronic systems at a given point in time.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

2 Clear and dark /l/ 2.1 Introduction The diachronic behaviour of a sound and its neighbours can allow us to reconstruct that segment’s variant phonetic realizations in different structural and linear environments, which in turn may permit us to identify categorically distinct alternants of the segment in the pre-change synchronic phonology. A careful examination of diverse types of evidence from Latin permits us to discern three non-contrastive categories of archaic Latin /l/: (i) dark /l/ in codas, (ii) clear /l/ in geminates, and (iii) /l/ underspecified for tongue body position in onsets. The former two are recognized by traditional Latin grammars, but there is ambiguity and disagreement in accounts of (iii), most grammars conflating it with (i) or (ii). Lindsay (1894: 89–90, 92), Sommer and Pfister (1977: 131–2), Leumann (1977: 140–42), Niedermann (1997: 9), Sihler (1995: 174), Meiser (1998: 52), and Weiss (2009: 82, 117) agree that dark /l/, presumably velarized, appeared not only word-finally and internally before a consonant (except another /l/) but also before the vowels /a o u/ (regardless of their length), and that clear /l/, presumably palatalized, occurred in geminate /ll/ and before the vowel /i(:)/. However, the evidence indicates that alongside consistent darkness in codas and clearness in geminates, /l/-darkness before vowels (hence in onset position) was gradient and conditioned by the environment; thus /l/ before /a o u/ was darker than that before /e/. The tongue body position of onset /l/ can be interpreted as underspecified on the surface, a phonological specification we might expect to be particularly susceptible to local colouring (Keating 1988). This allows us to establish a ternary contrast in tongue backness (+ – Ø), a somewhat elusive pattern sought out by proponents of equipollent features (Kim 2002; Vaux 2010), and often illustrated by voicing in Turkish (Inkelas and Orgun 1995). The following sections interpret the information we can glean from direct and indirect sources to establish the above pattern. Direct evidence comes from the statements of Roman grammarians (}2.2), and indirect evidence from the colouring of the preceding vowel to /o u/ before dark /l/ (}2.3). To summarize, Pliny the Elder (1st century ad) reports dark /l/ (described as ple: nus ‘full’) in syllable-final position, clear /l/ (exi: lis ‘thin’) in geminates, and middle /l/ (medius ‘middle; ambiguous’)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

16

Clear and dark /l/

elsewhere. Coda /l/ caused backing of a preceding vowel to /u/ (*ensalsos > i: nsulsus ‘dull’). Pliny’s medius variety concurs with the colouring evidence that /l/ was contextually darkened in onsets, conditioned by the following vowel: a following /a o u/ darkened onset /l/, resulting in backing to /u/ (*konseluerunt > co: nsulue: runt ‘they took counsel’). However, this onset /l/ was not as dark as coda /l/, as shown by the backing only to /o/ and not /u/ in stressed initial syllables (*wel.tes > vul.tis ‘you want’ vs. *we.lo: > vo.lo: ‘I want’). Traditional grammars disagree as to which variant appeared before /e/, but colouring indicates that /l/ was relatively dark in this environment (*ad-ale: skere > adole: scere ‘grow up’). However, this /l/ was not as dark as coda /l/, or the /l/ preceding /a o u/, as backing word-internally was only to /o/ and not /u/ (cf. adultus ‘adult’ from the same root). Finally, onset /l/ before /i/ behaved identically to geminate /ll/ (in any context), in that no colouring occurred, suggesting that the former was contextually palatalized, but the latter clear by specification. This is corroborated by the degemination /V:ll/ > /V:l/ only before a following /i/: mi: lia ‘thousands’ beside mi: lle ‘thousand’. Coda /l/ in Latin was therefore assigned a phonological specification for darkness, which can be interpreted as a [+ back] feature, or velar tongue body gesture (Sproat and Fujimura 1993). Geminate /ll/ was specified for a [– back] feature, or palatal tongue body gesture, and onset /l/ was underspecified for backness, or this gesture’s location.

2.2 Grammarians’ statements Evidence for the existence of at least two, and possibly three, variants comes from grammarians’ statements (see Lindsay 1894: 106–8). The 1st-century ad grammarian Pliny the Elder (reported by Priscian G.L. 2.29) and much later Consentius (5th century ad) both report dark /l/ (described as ple: nus ‘full’ in Pliny and pinguis ‘fat’ in Consentius) in word- and syllable-final position only, with another /l/ (medius ‘middle; ambiguous’ in Pliny) elsewhere. Pliny reserves a third category, exi: lis ‘thin’, for clear geminate /ll/. The terminology appears unambiguously to mean ‘thin = clear, full/fat = dark’; Pliny’s recognition of a medius variety supports our hypothesis that /l/ was contextually darkened in a gradient fashion in onsets, as the colouring evidence below indicates. In contrast, there are two claims or implications in the grammarians which independent evidence indicates were otherwise. First, Pliny reports ple: nus /l/ in complex onsets such as /fl/; but on the contrary, vocalic epenthesis in complex onset ‘stop + /l/’ (Chapter 5) resulted in a front vowel if the lateral was followed by /i/ (*stablis > stabilis ‘firm’), and a back vowel otherwise (*stablom > stabulum ‘stable), as we would expect if /l/ was medius in this context (see }2.3).1 Second, the colouring 1 Italian evidence seems to indicate that in late Latin, the lateral in Tl was clear and palatalized, given its development to palatal /j/ in Lat. pla:num ‘flat, level’, cla:rum ‘clear, bright’ > It. piano, chiaro. However, the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Pre-/l/ vowel colouring

17

evidence discussed below clearly shows that internal onset /l/ was sometimes dark, but the grammarians make no mention of this, and also seem to suggest that every word-initial /l/ was non-dark. It is quite likely that they simply omitted to mention the sensitivity of onset /l/ to the following vowel, which presumably occurred both word-internally (for which we have colouring evidence) and initially (for which we do not). Presumably the term medius conveyed this variable behaviour without further elucidation.

2.3 Pre-/l/ vowel colouring Word-internal and final /l/ often conditioned a preceding vowel as a back vowel /o/ or /u/, a diachronic change which occurred in archaic Latin (7th–3rd centuries bc), to judge from inscriptional evidence and the relative chronology of sound changes. The change always occurred in closed syllables, when the lateral was pre-consonantal or word-final (hence in the syllable coda), but also in open syllables, when /l/ was prevocalic (in the onset), before /a o u/ and, we argue, /e/. Except in initial syllables, all preceding vowels were affected by this change, although there are no secure examples with etymological /i/ (see }2.3.2). Meiser (1998: 68–9) presents the following evidence, revisited in more detail in the following sections. (1)

Vowel colouring before /l/ a. Closed syllables /e/ *sepelitos > sepeltos > sepultus ‘buried’2 /a/ *ensalsos > i: nsulsus ‘unsalted; dull’ /o/ *obkolto: d > oqvoltod (CIL 12.581.15) > occulto: ‘in secret’ b. Open syllables /e/ *konsel- > consolvervnt (CIL 12.581.1) > co: nsulue: runt ‘they took counsel’ /a/ *de: sal- > de: suluerunt (Pl. Rud. 75) ‘they leapt down’ /o/ *ambʰikʷolos > anculus ‘manservant’ /u/ *arkulos > arculus ‘headband’ (Paul. Fest. p.16M)

Unusually for vowel-colouring effects in Latin, dark /l/ also conditioned initialsyllable /e/, thus *weltes > vultis ‘you (pl.) want’. Initial-syllable changes in Latin are uncommon primarily because many of the vocalic developments occurred in the archaic period, when stress fell on the initial syllable of each prosodic word (}4.2). The common phonetic correlates of stress, such as increased intensity

vocalic epenthesis evidence shows that this was not the case in archaic/early Latin, when the darkness of the lateral was dependent on the following vowel. 2

Archaic *(LLL) syncope (Sen 2012a: 221–2) therefore pre-dated colouring.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

18

Clear and dark /l/

and duration, which Latin appears to have displayed, presumably provided robust perceptual cues to vowel quality, normally shielding initial-syllable vowels from change. Pre-/l/ colouring in this position might therefore be an indication of the magnitude of the effect of dark /l/ on preceding vowels at this period. There is disagreement as to which variant of /l/ appeared before /e/: Meiser (1998: 52) has the clear lateral, but Sihler’s (1995: 174) and Weiss’s (2009: 82, 117) formulations have clear /l/ only before /i(:)/, with dark /l/ elsewhere. Leumann (1977: 140–42), Sommer and Pfister (1977: 131–2), and Niedermann (1997: 9) draw a distinction between long and short /e/: before long /e:/ the lateral was dark, but before short /e/ it was clear. The evidence considered in }2.3.3 indicates that Sihler’s and Weiss’s accounts are correct: /l/ was dark before /e(:)/. The backing phenomenon has a straightforward acoustic account, and has well-attested historical parallels. The inverse correlation of the frequency of F2 with dark resonance is universally acknowledged (Sproat and Fujimura 1993: 292; Andrade 1999: 543; Carter and Local 2007: 184 with numerous references).3 Dark /l/ therefore has a relatively low F2 compared to clear /l/. Given that F2 is positively correlated with frontness in vowels, a following back vowel could be capable of conditioning a relatively low F2 in /l/, and a following front vowel a relatively high F2, unless the lateral itself were specified as clear or dark. Furthermore, a dark /l/ could, by anticipatory coarticulation, lower the F2 in a preceding vowel, rendering it more back. Over time, listeners might reinterpret this low F2 of a non-back vowel before dark /l/ as intrinsic to the vowel, resulting in a sound change. These observations offer a good account of the conditioning of Latin /l/ by a following vowel, and the backing of vowels before any dark /l/. Dark coda /l/ in the Romance variety resulting in French presumably explains the diachronic backing of the vowel and lateral vocalization, providing a neat parallel. (2)

Colouring and vocalization in French al.te.rum > French hautrei = [o:.tʁ] ‘other’ al.ba > French haubei = [o:b] ‘dawn’

2.3.1 Colouring before coda /l/ Laterals were consistently dark before a consonant or word-finally, triggering the backing of almost all preceding vowels to /u/, regardless of both word position and the quality of a following consonant.

3 Andrade states that F2 is ‘positively correlated with the tongue body retraction and lowering which characterizes lateral velarization’, presumably for ‘negatively correlated . . . ’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Pre-/l/ vowel colouring (3)

19

Colouring to /u/ before coda /l/ Initial syllable: *elkos > ulcus ‘ulcer’ Internal syllable: *sepeltos > sepultus ‘buried’, *ensalsos > i: nsulsus ‘unsalted; dull’, *obkolto: d > oqvoltod (CIL12.581.15) > occulto: ‘in secret’ Final syllable: *konsel > co: nsul ‘consul’4

The two classes of exceptions to this otherwise consistent development occurred in initial syllables. Firstly, the most front vowel /i/ and the lowest vowel /a/ resisted backing, thus silva ‘wood’ and altus ‘high’ (not {sulva, {ultus). The backing effect of dark /l/ in initial syllables only affected /e/ and /o/, perceived as the most back vowel /u/ due to retraction in anticipation of /l/. Presumably, any retraction of /i/ or /a/ caused by the lateral did not result in their being perceived as /u/ due to the perceptual distance between them in backness and height respectively, especially in stressed syllables. Secondly, the vowel varied between /o ~ u/ after the glide /w/ (and possibly /j/), presumably a height dissimilation. (4)

Variation /o ~ u/ in initial syllables after glides before coda /l/5 Volca: nus ~ Vulca: nus ‘Vulcan’ volgus ~ vulgus ‘common people’ volnus ~ vulnus ‘wound’ volpe: s ~ vulpe: s ‘fox’ voltur ~ vultur ‘vulture’ voltus ~ vultus ‘face; look’ volsus ~ vulsus ‘plucked’ volva ~ vulva ‘womb’

There seems to be a chronological aspect to the initial-syllable /o u/ variation, with /o/-forms appearing more commonly in earlier texts, thus early Latin volt for classical vult ‘he wants’ (e.g. Pl. Am. 294), and voltis for vultis (e.g. Pl. Am. 5). This might indicate a more gradual conditioning in initial syllables—where a chronologically intermediate /o/ is detectable or was never completely backed—than in internal syllables. There are no Latin words in the OLD beginning in iulC- = /julC/, but the only evidence for conditioning to /o/ after the front glide /j/ is Iolcus (a seaport in Thessaly from which the Argonauts began their legendary voyage), where /o/ may simply reflect the Greek, as suggested by the word’s variable ending between Iolcus ~ Iolcos (OLD 964). 4 Archaic instances of cosol with a chronologically intermediate /o/ suggests that final-syllable colouring to /u/ was more gradual than in other syllables. 5 The vowel is consistently /o/ with no variation in volvere ‘to roll, circle’ because the second-syllable /w/ was syllabic /u/ at an earlier stage (*wolu-), resulting in the regular open-initial-syllable development to /o/ (Leumann 1977: 47; Meiser 1998: 84).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

20

Clear and dark /l/

Both the exceptions identified are presumably due to the greater intensity and duration of the initial-syllable vowel, providing sufficient cues for the identification of the most front/low vowel in the former, and for a lingering discriminability between inherited and developing /u/ in the latter. The development to /o/ before word-internal coda /l/ is found only by analogy in prefixed forms where /o/ is in the initial syllable in the simplex, as seen above.6 (5) Prefixed forms with internal /wolC/ invulga: re ~ involga: re ‘make public’ convulnera: re ~ convolnera: re ‘inflict severe wounds’ invulnera: bilis ~ involnera: bilis ‘invulnerable’ convulsio: ~ convolsio: ‘violent displacement of body part’ involvere ‘roll; wrap’ (no variation) convolvolus (no variation), involvulus ~ involvolus ‘caterpillar’7 Other apparent counterexamples to the development to /u/ were due to the earlier presence of either a geminate clear /ll/ (}2.3.5), e.g. helvus, celsus (Leumann 1977: 47, 141–2), or a structure in which the /l/ was originally syllable-initial, e.g. *se-luo: > solvo: ‘I loosen’ (Leumann 1977: 47, 132). Firm indications that the environments ‘pre-consonantal’ and ‘word-final’ can be conflated as ‘syllable coda’ are first the identical colouring in the two contexts, always conditioning a preceding vowel as /u/, suggesting that the /l/ was equally dark in the two positions, and secondly the inference that pre-consonantal /l/ was equally dark before any consonant, regardless of its quality (except another /l/; see }2.3.5), thus culpa ‘fault’, ulcus ‘ulcer’ and vultis ‘you (pl.) want’, with identical preceding /u/ before a labial, coronal, and dorsal respectively. Unlike before vowels, /l/-darkness was not conditioned in any coarticulatory way before consonants, suggesting that the consistent darkness of the lateral was the result of coda position. We can therefore conclude with reasonable confidence that coda /l/ was phonologically specified in Latin as dark. Furthermore, the development of nearly all vowels, front or back, to /u/ before coda /l/ in any syllable suggests that this positional variant was consistently very dark compared to onset variants in Latin, with four key patterns differentiating the precoda development and pre-onset changes. First, several environments provide exceptions to backing to /u/ before onset /l/ word-internally, as discussed in the next two sections, whereas there are none before internal coda /l/. Secondly, backing to /u/

6 Early forms such as avonculus ‘maternal uncle’, sequontur ‘they follow’ (without following /l/) for classical avunculus, sequuntur suggest that preceding /w/ inhibited the development of internal /o/ to /u/. Alternatively, these spellings may be due to an orthographic avoidance of successive hvi. 7 The /o u/ variation in the penultimate open syllable in involvolus, where consistent /o/ might be expected after /w/, is presumably due to dissimilation of /o/ in adjacent syllables.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Pre-/l/ vowel colouring

21

even occurred in stressed initial syllables, whereas backing was only to /o/ before onset /l/, thus *weltes > vultis ‘you (pl.) want’ versus *welo: > volo: ‘I want’.8 Thirdly, there is very little evidence of a chronologically intermediate /o/ in internal syllables—possibly oqvoltod > occulto: above and consolto (CIL 11.548), although both could be false archaisms (cf. consolvervnt (CIL 12.581.1) below)—a gap in the evidence which is perhaps coincidental, but which could indicate more gradual colouring before onset /l/. As these are the only exceptions to backing to /u/, we can conclude that Latin coda /l/ was consistently very dark. 2.3.2 Colouring before onset /l/ preceding /a o u/ In a similar fashion to the coda lateral, onset /l/ coloured a preceding short vowel, but only when the onset /l/ was followed by the vowels /a(:) o(:) u(:)/. The onset variant can therefore be termed ‘contextually darkened’, as opposed to the consistently dark coda lateral. In internal syllables, a short vowel before /la lo lu/ became /u/. (6)

Colouring to /u/ before /la lo lu/ /la/ Gk. kraipála: → Lat. cra: pula ‘state of intoxication’ Gk. epistolá: → Lat.epistola/epistula ‘letter’ /lo/ *ambʰikʷolos > anculus ‘manservant’ *se: (d) dolo: d > se: dulo: ‘earnestly’ /lu/ *konsel- > consolvervnt (CIL 12.581.1) > co: nsulue: runt ‘they took counsel’ *de: sal- > de: suluerunt (Pl. Rud. 75) ‘they leapt down’ (classical de: silue: runt)

However, unlike before coda /l/, there are several exceptions to this development, suggesting that the colouring influence of this variant was not as robust. In initial syllables, backing of /e/ occurred only to /o/ before onset /l/, suggesting that it was insufficiently dark to yield /u/ under the initial-syllable stress. (7)

Colouring to /o/ before /la lo lu/ in initial syllables /la/ *elaiwa > oli: va ‘olive’ /lo/ *welo: > volo: ‘I want’ *helos > holus ‘vegetables’ /lu/ *seluere > solvere ‘loosen’

There is some evidence to suggest that this change only occurred where there was no dorsal consonant preceding the vowel.

8 Sihler (1995: 174) also interprets this as evidence that /l/ was darker before consonants than before vowels.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

22

Clear and dark /l/

(8)

Blocking of colouring after a dorsal consonant9 celo: x ‘cutter’ gelo: , -a: re ‘freeze’ scelus ‘crime’

Leumann (1977: 47) notes that analogy can explain these forms (cf. celer ‘swift’, sceleris ‘crime (gen.)’ and gelidus ‘icy cold’),10 but the dorsal pattern (whose identification Leumann attributes to Havet) can be explained by the blocking of backing owing to the robust perceptual cues for the front vowel resulting from the fronting of the preceding velar plosive, thus [k̟ eɫ] and [g̟ eɫ]. Original /o/ was unaffected, thus columen ‘roof ’ (see also its doublet culmen, with /u/ before coda /l/), showing that the outcome was the result of blocking, not dissimilation. As before coda /l/, /i/ and /a/ did not retract in initial open syllables, thus pila ‘ball’, stilus ‘spike, stem’, calor ‘heat’, malus ‘bad’. It is possible that inherited /i/ also failed to retract before contextually darkened onset /l/ in internal syllables, thus aquilus ‘swarthy’, aquila ‘eagle’, mutilus ‘mutilated’, nu: bilus ‘cloudy’, rutilus ‘ruddy’, si: bilus ‘hissing’, ventilo: , -a: re ‘ventilate’. However, the etymologies are dubious (Leumann 1977: 86). Furthermore, all except the last two can be explained by a dissimilation of lip-rounding from immediately preceding /kʷ/, or /u/ in the preceding syllable (and following syllable in some case forms). Si: bilus was onomatopoeic, which might explain the maintenance of /i/ in successive syllables, and /i/ in ventila: re could have been a compositional vowel, if the form arose after vowel colouring (few early attestations). Note also that beside rutilus, we find the tribe name Rutuli: , showing evidence of backing. The preferable explanation is therefore that original internal /i/ was not an exception to backing, but was retained only in specific contexts through other contextual factors, although the fact that contextually darkened /l/ did not override these conditions is itself instructive. However, internal syllables do indeed provide further evidence for a less dark onset lateral, as the preceding vowel was conditioned only to /o/ rather than /u/ in internal syllables after the glides /w j/, whether these were segments in their own right, or arose in hiatus after /i e/. Recall (}2.3.1) that a similar exception before coda /l/ only resulted in /o ~ u/ variation, and only occurred in initial syllables. In prefixed forms, this may be due to analogy on the simplex (e.g. convola: re ‘flock together’, invola: re ‘fly at’ beside vola: re ‘fly’), but further evidence where analogy cannot be the explanation indicates that the internal development to /o/ was regular after glides.

9 10

Note *kwelo: > colo: ‘I cultivate’, showing that labiovelars patterned with labials, not dorsals. We can perhaps add ce:lo:, -a:re ‘hide’, beside cella ‘chamber’, but see Ch. 3 for discussion.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Pre-/l/ vowel colouring (9)

23

Colouring to /o/ after phonetic or phonological glides parvolus ‘tiny’ fi: liolus ‘little son’ alveolus ‘basin’ (and other forms with the diminutive suffix usually found as -ulus)

Other exceptions should indeed be attributed to analogy on the simplex, with backing to /o/, not /u/, in the internal (but root-initial) syllable of prefixed forms, thus *enkʷelere > incolere ‘inhabit’, *en-kʷola: > incola ‘inhabitant’, beside colere ‘inhabit; cultivate’ (Leumann 1977: 86).11 The development to /o/ in *en-kalamis > incolumis ‘uninjured’ might alternatively be attributed to an avoidance of two internal /u/s. Finally, unlike before coda /l/, there are numerous instances of a chronologically intermediate /o/, suggesting that the colouring effect of this lateral was more gradual. The intermediate form is found not only where an etymological vowel was coloured (e.g. consolvervnt (CIL 12.581.1) from 186 bc), but also where an epenthetic vowel between a stop and /la lo lu/ was inserted in late archaic to early Latin (see Chapter 5: pocolom, popolom, aiscolapio for classical forms in /u/, e.g. po: culum ‘cup’). Therefore, we can conclude that onset /l/ was contextually darkened before /a o u/, enough to colour a preceding short vowel as /o u/, but was not as dark as the coda variant. 2.3.3 Colouring before onset /l/ preceding /e/ As noted in }2.3, there is disagreement in the literature as to which variant appeared before /e/, and in particular it has been posited that dark /l/ appeared before long /e:/ whereas clear /l/ was the variant before short /e/ (Leumann 1977: 140–42; Sommer and Pfister 1977: 131–2; Niedermann 1997: 9). As dark resonance (velarization in articulatory terms) is correlated with backness in vowels, this would be a particularly peculiar pattern given the generally accepted reconstruction of /e:/ as higher and fronter than /e/ in Latin, even in republican times (Allen 1973: 132), implying that if the former triggered dark resonance in the lateral, then the latter should also have done so. Indeed, contrary to all the formulations aside from Sihler (1995: 174) and Weiss (2009: 82, 117), there are indeed firm indications that both short and long /e/ contextually darkened preceding /l/. Furthermore, we can even detect a darker lateral before short /e/ than before fronter long /e:/; however, the contextually darkened lateral before /e(:)/ was still less dark than before the more back vowels /a o u/. The main evidence comes from the degree of backing in internal syllables. Internal /le/ usually coloured a preceding short vowel as /u/.

11

For the development of internal /*kʷV/, cf. *kom-kʷatio: > co:ncutio: ‘I brandish’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

24 (10)

Clear and dark /l/ Colouring to /u/ before /le/ (evidence from Leumann 1977: 336) a. *openentus > *opelentus > opulentus ‘wealthy’, supposedly the prototype for the denominative adjectival suffix in (10b) and (11). b. -ulentus ‘equipped with’, e.g. (from Plautus) corpulentus ‘corpulent’, fraudulentus ‘dishonest’, lu: culentus ‘excellent’, pisculentus ‘fishy’, truculentus ‘ferocious’ c. Forms in -ulenter, e.g. (with earliest attestations) fraudulenter ‘dishonestly’ (Cato orat. 223), lu: culenter ‘splendidly’ (Cic. Fin. 2.15), turbulenter ‘turbulently’ (Cic. Fam. 2.16.7) d. Forms in -ulente: , e.g. (with earliest attestations) lu: culente: ‘splendidly’ (Pl. Mer. 423), turbulente: ‘turbulently’ (Cic. Part. 105)

The evidence is, if not beyond argument, still reasonably compelling. The etymology of opulentus cited in (10a) is not secure, but it is difficult to see how else a back vowel could have arisen if not other than regularly before /le/, given the regular appearance of the stem opi- in other derivatives of ops ‘power; abundance’,12 such as the archaic opiparus ‘sumptuous’ (Pl. Capt. 769). The other forms in -ulentus in (10b) all have unexpected /u/ if the following /l/ was clear (i.e. not {corpilentus, {fraudilentus, etc.). As the words in question had different stem formations—corpus, -oris was an s-stem, fraus, -dis,13 lu: x, -cis and trux, -cis consonant stems, and piscis, -is was an i-stem— the consistent termination indicates that an element -ulentus had become morphologized. The path to such a morphologization through resegmentation could, as argued by Leumann, have lain in the development of the form opulentus beside ops.14 The words in (10c) (-ulenter) and (10d) (-ulente: ) were built on forms in -ulentus and therefore simply provide more examples for darkness in /l/ before /e/. Some forms with apparently the same termination show colouring to /o/ rather than /u/. (11)

Colouring to /o/ before /le/ e.g. (from Plautus) violentus ‘violent’, vi: nolentus ‘intoxicated by wine’, (from Varro) sanguinolentus ‘bloody’ (Var. in Non. p. 465M), but also sanguinulentus

As before /la lo lu/ (}2.3.2, (9)), /o/ rather than /u/ was regular after a phonetic or phonological glide, explaining violentus. However, before /le/ the conditions were even less constrained, with the preceding vowel being coloured to /o/ if there was /w/ anywhere in the preceding syllable, presumably a distant dissimilation in height, thus also explaining vi: nolentus /wi:nole-/ and sanguinolentus /saŋgwino-/. More contexts for less extreme colouring might indicate that /l/ before /e/ was less dark than before /a o u/.

12 13 14

The nominative singular is found perhaps only at Acc. trag. 669. Fraus occasionally has a genitive plural in -ium, indicating some contamination from i-stems. Cf. the retention of /e/ after op- before onset /r/: *opes-a: > opera ‘effort’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Pre-/l/ vowel colouring

25

Opposing the hypothesis that /l/ before /e/ was dark is a body of counterevidence. (12)

Counterevidence to colouring before /le/ (with their earliest attestations) a. Forms in -ilentus, e.g.*akwalentus > aquilentus ‘watery’ (Var. Men. 400), gracilentus ‘slender’ (Enn. Ann. 253), macilentus ‘thin’ (Pl. e.g. As. 400), pestilentus ‘insalubrious’ (Laev. poet. 9 (Gel. 19.7.7))15 b. Adverbs in -ile, e.g. dapsile ‘plentifully’ (Lucil. 1074), difficile ‘with difficulty’ (Vell. 2.63.3), facile ‘easily’ (Pl. Men. 223) c. Neuter substantives in -ile, e.g. simile ‘image’ (Nov. com. 62) d. Compounds of i-stems, e.g. dentilegus ‘tooth-gatherer’ (Pl. Capt. 798) e. Poetic or technical compounds with a compositional vowel /i/, e.g. fa: tilegus ‘gathering death’ (Luc. 9.821), flo: rilegus ‘culling flowers’ (Ov. Met. 15.366), sacrilegus ‘sacrilegious’ (Pl. Rud. 706), sortilegus ‘prophetic; soothsayer’ (Hor. Ars 219; Var. L. 6.65), spi: cilegium ‘the gathering of stray ears of corn’ (Var. L. 7.109), tu: rilegus ‘gathering incense’ (Ov. Fast. 4.569)

The counterevidence reported in (12) can be accounted for in ways which do not preclude our conclusion that /l/ before /e/ was dark. Gracilentus, macilentus and pestilentus all had /i/ in their stems (cf. gracilis ‘slender’, macie: s ‘leanness’,16 and pestis ‘physical destruction’), and appear to contain an element -lentus, an allomorph of -ulentus which attached directly to a stem in /i/. These are plausibly later formations, after vowel colouring had ceased, with a stem attached directly to a termination, e.g. pesti+lentus. If this was the regular early formation for i-stems, we would not be able to explain forms such as pisculentus, which seem to reflect the originally morphologized termination -ulentus. The forms in /i/ can therefore be straightforwardly explained by the stem-final vowel, whereas /u/ in the latter cannot unless we accept dark /l/. The adverbs and neuter substantives in -ile in (12b) and (12c) were formed secondarily on their cognate adjectives in -ilis, where /i/ was regular (e.g. facilis, similis). The compound forms in (12d) and (12e) retained /i/, as they were either built on i-stems or contained a non-etymological compositional vowel /i/, in formations plausibly post-dating vowel colouring. The form aquilentus in (12a) escapes a straightforward account, but it could be a later compound, on the analogy of several forms in aqui- which were themselves phonologically irregular, such as aquilus ‘swarthy’ (}2.3.2). The only form from this stem with regular colouring appears to be aquola/acula ‘a small stream’ (Pl. Cur. 160). Therefore, as the counterexamples can 15 Leumann (1977: 336) argues that forms such as pestile: ns, -entis, sile:ns, -entis and viole:ns, -entis are secondary formations, built upon the adjectives in -lentus (in the case of silentus, the formation is in -entus). 16 Leumann (1977: 336) states that macilentus is built on macie: s and not directly on macer ‘thin’, presumably as it would be unusual to derive an adjective from an adjective of identical meaning. Similarly, gracilentus was presumably formed on a noun and not directly from gracilis.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

26

Clear and dark /l/

more straightforwardly be accounted for than the forms with /u o/, we can conclude that /l/ before /e/ was relatively dark. Similarly, there is evidence and counterevidence for colouring before long /e:/. (13)

Colouring to /u/ before /le:/ a. *Herkle: s > Hercule: s ‘Hercules’ (with an epenthetic vowel; see }5.3) b. *ad-ale: skens > adule: sce: ns ‘young man/woman’ (DELL 23–4, s.v. alo: )

(14)

Colouring to /o/ before /le:/ a. *ab-/ad-/eks-/in-ale: skere > abole: scere ‘cease’, adole: scere ‘grow up’, exole: scere ‘grow out of use’, inole: scere ‘grow in’ (DELL 23, s.v. alo: )17 b. *ab-ale: re > abole: re ‘to abolish’ (DELL 3–4, s.v. aboleo: )18 c. *ind-/sub-/pro-ale: s > indole: s ‘innate character’, subole: s ‘offspring’, pro: le: s ‘progeny’ (DELL 23, s.v. alo: ) d. *ob-sole: skere > obsole: scere ‘fall into disuse’

The counterexamples to /e:/ conditioning a preceding /l/ as dark (i.e. retention of /i/ before /le:/) can all be explained in some other way. (15)

Counterevidence to colouring before /e:/ in Latin a. Aquile: ia (a town in Venetia) can be explained by the simplex aquila ‘eagle’ (itself with unexpected /i/; see }2.3.2 on aquila/aquilus, and the discussion of aquilentus above) b. rutile: scere ‘turn a glowing red colour’ (Plin. Nat. 8.217) can be explained by the simplex rutilus ‘ruddy’ (itself with unexpected /i/) c. sterile: scere ‘become barren’ (Dirae 9) can be explained by the simplex sterilis ‘barren’, with regular clear /l/ d. co: nsile: scere ‘fall silent’ (Enn. Ann 293), and other compound forms, which can be explained by analogy on their simplices, where /i/ is unaffected in the initial syllable (e.g. sile: sco: ; see (16a)) e. cantile: na ‘refrain’ (Ter. Ph. 495); the /i/ was plausibly part of the stem synchronically and so analogically retained, given the form canti-uncula ‘a mere song’ (Cic. Fin. 5.49), built on cantio: ‘singing’; in support of this is the only other early form with the etymologically obscure -le: na:19 postile: na ‘crupper’ (Pl. Cas. 125), with an initial morpheme *posti- (DELL 527, s.v. *posti, etc.)

17 The ancient grammarians (e.g. Fest. p. 402.19M) explained the /o/ in the forms in (14a) and (14b). by reconstructing a verb *oleo: with an inchoative *ole: sco:, but such forms are not otherwise supported and hence rejected by DELL 23, s.v. alo: and Leumann (1977: 86). 18 DELL states that the most frequent forms are the present infinitive (cited above) and the past participle abolitus, whose vocalism presumably arose through paradigmatic levelling. 19 Leumann (1977: 323) argues for a dissimilation from *cantile: la, with the same suffix as loque:la, and the stem of a verb *cantila:re, attested later as a backformation.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Pre-/l/ vowel colouring

27

f. pri: vile: gium ‘law passed against a specific individual’ (Cic. Brut. 89), and other compounds plausibly formed after vowel colouring ceased, with a compositional vowel /i/ g. epile: us ‘buzzard’ (Plin. Nat. 10.21), possibly a borrowing or influenced by the Greek prefix epih. Borrowings, e.g. Mytile: nae ‘Mytilene’ (Gk. Mutilé: ne: ) As the forms in (13) and (14) do not have straightforward alternative histories, whereas those in (15), though more numerous, are easily otherwise explicable, the most likely explanation is that the former group arose through the regular conditioning of /l/ as dark before /e:/, with resulting colouring of the preceding vowel, as before /a o u/. The resulting vowel fluctuated between /o/ and /u/ much more than in other contexts, and it seems that the regular backing before /le:/ was to /o/, as in (14), with the exceptions showing backing to /u/ in (13) easily explained. The internal vowel in Hercule: s was epenthetic and therefore in origin a very short vocalic transition which was likely to have been interpreted by the listener as a high vowel, a phenomenon seen in archaic vowel reduction (see Sen 2012b and Chapter 4). As before /la lo lu/, there is evidence of an early epenthesized form with /o/ (e.g. hercolei CIL 12.607), which developed to /u/ as presumably there remained a perceptual difference between an inherited full vowel (which was conditioned as /o/) and an epenthetic one (which became /u/). The /u/-vocalism in compounds of alere was usually restricted to the substantive adule: sce: ns (DELL 23, s.v. alo: ). It is noteworthy that the term had become specialized by early Latin to mean ‘young man; girl’, and was synchronically associated with and plausibly influenced by adultus ‘adult’, another specialized term from the same root, but with regular internal /ulC/, with coda dark /l/. As the regular backing was to /u/ before /le/ (e.g. -ulentus), but to /o/ before /le:/ (e.g. -ole: scere), we can reconstruct a darker /l/ before /e/ than before /e:/, as expected by the established reconstruction of the long vowel as more front. However, neither was as dark as the lateral before /a o u/, or in the coda, given that /le(:)/ presents more environments yielding /o/ rather than /u/. This pattern is extended in stressed initial syllables, where not only inherited /i a/ (as before /la lo lu lC/) but also other vowels such as /e/ resisted backing. (16)

Resistance to colouring of /i e/ before /le(:)/ in initial syllables a. /i/: silentus ‘silent’ (Mat. Poet. 8 (Gel. 9.14.15)) , sile: scere ‘grow silent’ (Ter. Ad. 785), silex ‘stone’ (Pl. Poen. 290) b. /e/: celeber ‘celebrated’ (Pl. Poen. 758), celer ‘swift’ (Enn. Ann. 592)

In contrast to the backer vowels (cf. *welo: > volo: ‘I want’), there is no evidence for /e/ triggering backing in initial syllables, although this could be an accidental gap, as

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

28

Clear and dark /l/

the only examples of the shape /Cele/ had an initial dorsal, a context which blocked backing before /la lo lu/ as well (}2.3.2), thus celer ‘swift’ alongside celo: x ‘cutter’. To conclude, /l/ before /e:/ was dark enough to trigger backing to /o/, whereas /l/ before /e/ was darker, triggering backing to /u/. Neither was as dark as /l/ before /a o u/, which in turn was not as dark as coda /l/. 2.3.4 No colouring before onset /l/ preceding /i/ To complete the picture of the behaviour of the onset lateral, /l/ before /i(:)/ shows no signs of having had any dark resonance. This /l/ had no conditioning influence on a preceding vowel, which retained its quality in stressed initial syllables and reduced to /i/ internally where it was unstressed, as was regular in internal open syllables before any consonant (Chapter 4): /i/ facilis ‘easy’; /e/ gelidus ‘frozen’; /a/ alius ‘other’; /o/ folium ‘leaf ’; /u/ mulier ‘woman’. It is important to note that /li/ not only failed to cause backing, as found before velarized /l/, but also did not cause fronting of a preceding vowel, as might plausibly be expected before /l/ palatalized by following /i/, e.g. solidus ‘solid’, not {selidus. We shall return to this asymmetry between velarized and palatalized /l/ in }2.4. 2.3.5 No colouring before geminate /ll/ Geminate consonants constituted coda + onset in Latin, as shown by classical stress placement and archaic closed-syllable reduction of the preceding vowel (Chapter 4). Grammarians’ statements (}2.2) together with the behaviour of preceding vowels indicate that geminate /ll/ was never dark in Latin. Pliny’s reservation of a category ‘thin’ uniquely for geminate /ll/ suggests that this was the clearest variety, without the dark resonance causing the ambiguity of the onset medius category. The geminate’s failure to condition preceding vowels in internal syllables corroborates this view. (17)

No colouring before geminate /ll/ Internal syllable: agellus ‘little field; farm’ (cf. a: nulus ‘ring’) fefelli: ‘I deceived’ (cf. pepuli: ‘I struck’, EDL 455–6) Initial syllable: velle ‘to want’ versus volo: ‘I want’

This observation is at odds with two conclusions we reached above: (i) coda /l/ was dark, and (ii) onset /l/ could be contextually darkened by the following vowel. Therefore, /ll/ would be expected at least to have begun with dark resonance, and when before a vowel other than /i/, to end with dark resonance; for example, /ll/ in agellus might be expected to have been dark throughout. We saw above that simple onset /l/ before /i/ had no effect on initial syllables, and preceding internal vowels raised to /i/, the usual reflex of internal open-syllable short vowels in the absence of any conditioning environment (*de: -bel-is > de: bilis ‘weak’). Similarly, geminate /ll/ had no conditioning effect, neither backing nor fronting, on

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Pre-/l/ vowel colouring

29

initial syllables (ille ‘that’, velle ‘to want’, fallere ‘to deceive’, collis ‘hill’, pullus ‘young chicken (n.); dingy (adj.)’), and triggered the usual closed-syllable reduction of /a/ to /e/ internally, thus *fefallai > fefelli: ‘I deceived (perf.)’.20 Forms with internal /illu/ show that geminate /ll/ resisted the darkening influence of a following back vowel (capillus ‘hair’), and forms with /ull/ illustrate that it did not cause fronting (ampulla ‘flask’). Therefore simple onset /l/ before /i/ and geminate /ll/ alike had no conditioning influence on the preceding vowel. It is plausible from cross-linguistic observation that simple onset /l/ was palatalized before /i/, thus [lʲ], hence it was ‘clear’ as opposed to the velarized ‘dark’ variant [lˠ] found in the coda and a gradient range of non-clear variants before other vowels. It therefore seems likely that geminate /ll/ was also palatalized, given the similar behaviour of the two, and this conclusion is corroborated by highly suggestive external evidence: Latin simplified most long vowel + geminate consonant (V:C:) sequences to V:C (}3.3.1), but permitted V:ll. However, simplification to V:l occurred in one context only: when the geminate lateral was followed by /i/, thus mi: lle ‘thousand’, but mi: lia ‘thousands (pl.)’, and vi: lla ‘rural house’, but vi: licus ‘farm manager’. This suggests that the geminate was characterized by a palatal quality, which resulted in its misinterpretation by the listener as singleton /l/ when that quality could be attributed to its environment, namely the following /i/. However, unlike /l/ before /i/, the geminate’s clear realization had no contextual basis. The only explanation is therefore that geminate /ll/ was phonologically specified as clear, just as the coda variety was specified as dark. As a result of this specification, it was resistant to the environmental influence of surrounding vowels, just as coda /l/ was unaffected by the nature of the following consonant. The clear specification of geminate /ll/, a doubly linked coda+onset structure, overrode or prevented the specification of the coda element of the geminate as dark. 2.3.6 Summary The pattern identified in the preceding sections suggest that darkness in /l/ proceeded from most to least dark along the following scale. (18)

Scale of darkness in /l/ Syllable coda » Pre-/a o u/ » Pre-/e/ » Pre-/e:/ » Pre-/i/, geminate /ll/

This conclusion is based upon grammarians’ statements, the degree of backing of a preceding vowel, and exceptions to backing, as summarized in Figure 2.1.

20 The internal reflexes before /li/ and /ll/ should not be seen as fronting conditioned by a palatalized /l/, as they simply reflect the unconditioned developments of vowels in open and closed syllables. See Ch. 4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

30

Clear and dark /l/

BEFORE:

Coda /1/

Pliny’s term

plenus

Internal σ

> /u/

/la lo lu/

/le/

/le/

/li/

exilis

medius > /u/

> /u/

Geminate /ll/

> /o/

No

No change

change Exceptions

None

(1) > /o/ after [w j] (2) Chronologically intermediate /o/

(1) > /o/ when /w/ in preceding

Forms

N/A

N/A

No change

with specific histories

syllable (2) Forms with specific histories

Initial σ

Exceptions

> /u/

(1) /i a/ remain

> /o/

(1) /i a/

No

No

No

change

change

change

N/A

N/A

N/A

remain (2) dorsal C

(2) /o ~u/ blocking variation after /w j/ Figure 2.1 Summary of colouring of /l/

N/A

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Phonological analysis of Latin /l/

31

The darkest shading indicates where vowel colouring was normally to /u/, the next darkest to when it was to /o/, and the lightest indicates when no colouring occurred. The pattern shows that dark resonance in Latin /l/ had both categorical and gradient aspects: there was a three-way categorical distinction between the dark coda variant, the clear geminate, and the context-sensitive onset; within this last category, darkness was a gradient quality that was more pronounced the more back the following environment was. The three categories identified by vowel colouring in different phonological contexts coincide with Pliny’s three terms. Pliny’s onset medius ‘middle; ambiguous’ /l/ seems to be an appropriate description of gradient, contextually darkened /l/ in onsets: it was sometimes clearer, sometimes darker depending on its environment. Finally, Pliny’s report of ‘syllable-final’ as the relevant phonological context for ple: nus /l/ also appears to be accurate, as the darkest variant is found consistently in the syllable coda.

2.4 Phonological analysis of Latin /l/ The categorical three-way behaviour of Latin /l/ can be interpreted as evidence for a ternary surface contrast in backness: if coda /l/ was specified as dark and geminate /ll/ as clear, the contextually darkened onset /l/ is most straightforwardly analysed as underspecified for darkness. Such a three-way contrast can be analysed using the following surface equipollent feature specifications. (19)

Equipollent analysis 1: [back] feature specifications of Latin /l/ Coda dark /l/ [+ back] Clear geminate /ll/ [– back] Underspecified onset /l/ [Ø back]

Latin /l/ was presumably underlyingly underspecified for [back], as the distribution of the feature is dependent on syllable structure, which is argued not to be in the mental representation, but constructed online (e.g. Cholin et al. 2006). Once a string was syllabified, feature-filling rules assigned [– back] to /l/ doubly associated with both a coda and a following onset (geminate), and [+ back] to coda /l/, unless blocked by the prior assignment of [–back] to codas forming part of a geminate. Onset /l/ therefore remained underspecified for [back] on the surface. Ternary contrasts (+  Ø) are somewhat elusive in the phonology of the world’s languages, and are sought out by proponents of equipollent/binary features (e.g. Kim 2002; Vaux 2010) as evidence for the existence of both + and  settings of a given feature, with the underspecified variant behaving precisely as if it lacks a target for the feature in question. The ternary contrast in phonology is most commonly illustrated in the literature by voicing in Turkish, as analysed by Inkelas and Orgun (1995).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

32 (20)

Clear and dark /l/ Ternary voice contrast in Turkish (adapted from Kim 2002: 34) a. Non-alternating voiceless plosive: [-voice] sanat ‘art’ sanat-lar ‘arts’ sanat-Im ‘art (1sg. poss.)’ b. Non-alternating voiced plosive: etyd ‘etude’ etyd-ler ‘etudes’

[+ voice] etyd-ym ‘etude (1sg. poss.)’

c. Alternating plosive: [Ø voice] kanat ‘wing’ kanat-lar ‘wings’

kanad-Im ‘wing (1sg. poss.)’

Unlike [back] in Latin /l/, the three-way [voice] contrast here is underlying. Where a stem-final plosive is underlyingly specified as [–voice] (20a), it remains voiceless word-finally and pre-consonantally (i.e. in the coda), and also pre-vocalically (in the onset). Where it is underlyingly [+voice], there is again no alternation, but this time the plosive is consistently voiced on the surface (20b). However, if the stem-final plosive is underlyingly underspecified in voice, it obtains surface voicing specifications through two feature-filling rules assigning [–voice] in codas, and [+voice] in onsets, resulting in a stem alternation (20c). As the forms in (20a) and (20b) are prespecified for voice, they are not subject to feature-filling rules. Such a pattern, with two invariant members and one variant, supports the view that there are three settings for a single feature: + – Ø. Under this analysis of Turkish, all segments are fully specified for voice on the surface. However, surface underspecification has also been posited to occur, where segments remain without a specification for a given feature (Keating 1988). In such cases, an underspecified segment is more susceptible than specified ones to coarticulation with its environment along the articulatory dimension of the feature in question, as there is no requirement for that articulator to adopt a particular configuration. The linear transition of articulators through an underspecified segment, from preceding to following segments with specifications for that feature, is described as ‘phonetic interpolation’.21 Given that our analysis of Latin /l/ posits surface underspecification in backness of the onset variant, we might expect onset /l/ to show greater sensitivity to its environment than the coda and geminate variants.22 Despite the impossibility of testing this prediction through phonetic measurements, we can indeed detect such a sensitivity through its diachronic effects—namely the gradient colouring of the preceding vowel by a contextually darkened /l/, as identified in the previous sections. In the absence of a [back] specification, the position of the tongue body along the 21 Vaux (2010: 305 with references) cites the following types of evidence supporting equipollent features: (i) exchange rules (e.g. height inversion in Brussels Flemish), (ii) ternary patterns (e.g. Turkish voicing alternations), (iii) phonetic interpolation effects, (iv) permanent underspecification (e.g. Odden 2005 on tone in consonants), and (v) phonetic vacillation in underspecified segments. Types (ii) and (iii) are relevant for the analysis of Latin /l/. 22 Kim (2002) also discusses a ternary [back] contrast in Turkish harmony.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

33

Phonological analysis of Latin /l/ Pliny’s term

exilis

medius

plenus

Categorical specification

[–back]

Underspecified for [back]

[+back]

Gradient phonetic realization

Clear/ Palatalized

Dark

Darker

Darkest/ Velarized

Coda

Geminate

[lÂ]

j

[ll ] [lji]

[luu] [l°e]

[luo] [luO]

[l°ε] [lua]

Figure 2.2 Specifications and resonances of Latin /l/ variants

front–back dimension produced gradient dark resonance in the lateral in proportion to the backness of the following vowel. Kelly and Local (1989: 72–4) report that resonances of the dark and clear type are usually categorized alongside coarticulation, but recognize that there are numerous possible contextually defined oral-cavity configurations and corresponding auditory classes, and state that ‘we can routinely and reliably discriminate and identify a number of resonance categories’.23 Supplementing the IPA symbols for palatalization and velarization with superscripted vowel symbols to reflect the type of resonance (along the lines of Kelly and Local 1989), Figure 2.2 illustrates the variants of Latin /l/ in different environments, showing Pliny’s terms, the surface categorical specifications, and the gradient phonetic realizations.24 Privative/unary features straightforwardly predict two-way contrasts (present versus absent), but accounts of three settings for the same feature arguably result in inefficiency (e.g. invoking more than one feature). In Latin /l/, privative [back] alone fails to capture the three-way surface contrast; privative [back] and [front] might, but fail to express the mutual exclusivity of the settings, while otherwise replicating the equipollent analysis.

23 Kelly and Local label their categories (from front to back): palatalized, clear, half-clear, central, halfdark, dark, and velarized. 24 Recall that /e:/ was higher and fronter than /e/ in Latin (}2.3.3). Similarly, /o:/ was higher and backer than /o/ (Allen 1973: 132).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

34 (21)

Clear and dark /l/ Privative analysis 1: [back] and [front] Coda /l/ [back] Geminate /ll/ [front] Onset /l/ neither feature

A privative analysis with place features also fails to capture the three-way contrast. As /l/ has a tongue tip closure, it is always [coronal]. Dark /l/ with an additional back constriction might therefore be considered to be [coronal-dorsal], but no other place feature straightforwardly accounts for the difference between the clear and underspecified variants. An additional feature is required to do the job in a privative analysis, and given that the clear and dark variants require constrictions caused by tongue displacement, one candidate is [high]. Under this analysis, the dark variant implemented the [high] feature by a high, back tongue body position, to satisfy the [dorsal] feature, and the clear variant by a high, front tongue position (presumably the default position for a [high] coronal segment). (22)

Privative analysis 2: place features and [high] Coda /l/ [coronal-dorsal, high] Geminate /ll/ [coronal, high] Onset /l/ [coronal]

This analysis captures a ternary contrast, but as onset /l/ is simply [coronal] in terms of its tongue targets, it predicts that this variant should behave identically to other segments specified as just [coronal]—/t d n s/—in that the tongue body was free to adopt coarticulatory configurations according to the environment. However, this prediction is incorrect: the backing of a preceding vowel only occurred before /l/ (coda or onset) and not the other segments, suggesting that there was a tongue body requirement for /l/ that was not present in the other coronals. Given that the requirement for tongue body displacement was characterized as [high] for coda and geminate /l/, it seems plausible that this same feature should characterize the requirement in onsets, but this would result in the analysis once again failing to capture a three-way distinction, as both geminate and onset /l/ would be specified as [coronal, high]. Yet another feature would be required to differentiate them, and the obvious candidate would be [front] for the geminate, essentially returning to the dispreferred privative analysis 1 in (21). A similar criticism can be levelled at the equipollent analysis in (19): if onset /l/ was underspecified as to tongue body position, it should behave identically to the other coronals, but does not. However, an equipollent analysis can indeed be rescued by the inclusion of another feature as the tongue body displacement requirement, such as [+high], since the onset and geminate variants are still differentiated by the [back] feature.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Phonological analysis of Latin /l/ (23)

35

Equipollent analysis 2: [high] and [back] Coda /l/ [coronal, +high, +back] Geminate /ll/ [coronal, +high, back] Onset /l/ [coronal, +high, Ø back]

These surface feature specifications differentiate the three lateral variants as well as /l/ from other coronals, which were presumably underspecified for height, in the most efficient way. Articulatory Phonology (Browman and Goldstein 1989) provides an alternative approach, using privative articulatory gestures as phonological primitives rather than features. Sproat and Fujimura (1993) analysed the different varieties of English /l/ by appealing to there being not one but two articulatory gestures involved in the production of laterals: an ‘apical’ gesture extending the tongue tip (TT gesture), and a ‘dorsal’ gesture retracting the tongue body (TB gesture). They argue that laterals are darker in direct proportion to the magnitude of the dorsal gesture, that is, the degree of retraction of the tongue dorsum. The apical gesture is hypothesized to be attracted to the syllable margins, and the dorsal gesture to the syllable nucleus, resulting in the availability of greater duration for the attainment of the dorsal target when /l/ is syllable-final, as the tongue dorsum can begin its retraction during the preceding vowel, whereas it cannot in the onset, as it is coordinated after the apical gesture. This is the proffered explanation for dark /l/ appearing in the coda and clear /l/ in the onset in the variety of English investigated. Sproat and Fujimura’s gestural timing theory has been justifiably challenged by Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 360–61), Carter (2003), and Carter and Local (2007); and for our purposes it notably fails to explain clear Latin geminate /ll/, as there was presumably sufficient duration during the closure period for the dorsal gesture to be implemented and the lateral to darken. However, their bi-gestural analysis is generally accepted (e.g. Carter 2003: 248–50), with the proviso that the TB gesture need not refer to dorsal retraction, but rather to any specified movement of the tongue body. As each gesture in Articulatory Phonology has a Constriction Location (CL) and a Constriction Degree (CD), dark /l/ can be analysed as having TB gesture with an approximant-degree velar CL, and clear /l/ as having a TB gesture with approximant-degree palatal CL.25 From the point of view of Latin, geminate clear and coda dark /l/s can be analysed as having the above gestural specifications, but contextually darkened onset /l/ remains problematic. The bi-gestural account neatly accounts for why /l/ behaves differently to other coronals in Latin in terms of its effect on the preceding vowel: the presence of the TB gesture in addition to TT closure is similar to our equipollent

25

It may be more accurate to describe the location of the dark /l/ TB gesture to be further back than ‘velar’ given Recasens and Espinosa’s (2005) articulatory findings, but the precise location does not greatly affect the present argument.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

36

Clear and dark /l/

analysis above where /l/ is always specified as [+high] in addition to being [coronal]. However, it is unclear what should take the place of underspecified [back] which allowed us to explain the gradient nature of onset darkening. The notion of underspecification in Articulatory Phonology is usually attributed to the absence of a gesture in the score, but on this occasion, we are committed to an underlying TB gesture to differentiate /l/ from other coronals. However, the Latin pattern suggests that the Constriction Location of that TB gesture was not underlyingly specified, as it was variably realized according to syllable structure, and clear geminate /ll/ in particular cannot be explained by the timing of gestures. We might therefore analyse onset /l/’s TB gesture as remaining underspecified for CL on the surface, the location of its implementation determined by the following vowel. Note that under this analysis, every lateral in every position has an approximant-degree TB gesture, hence even onset /l/ was affected, darkening before /e a o u/ by a pre-specified dorsal constriction that was relatively retracted in the context (but not as retracted as in coda /l/, where the location of the constriction was specified as velar), and becoming clear before /i/ in an environment which already provides a context for a high tongue front.26 (24)

Gestural analysis of Latin /l/: CL of TB gesture a. All /l/s characterized by two gestures TT gesture: CD closure, CL dental/alveolar TB gesture: CD approximant b. Positional variants in TB Constriction Location Coda /l/ TB gesture: CL velar Geminate /ll/ TB gesture: CL palatal Onset /l/ TB gesture: CL not specified

In essence, this gestural analysis is analytically equivalent to the equipollent analysis above, as both analyses require a ternary surface contrast with respect to the position of the tongue body on the front–back dimension. (25)

Equipollent and gestural analyses: equivalences [coronal] TT gesture: CD closure, CL dental/alveolar [+high] TB gesture: CD approximant [+back] TB gesture: CL velar [–back] TB gesture: CL palatal [Ø back] TB gesture: CL not specified

26 Note in this context Recasens et al.’s finding (1995: 49–51) that German /l/, which is consistently clear, is highly resistant to coarticulatory effects compared to the lateral in other clear-/l/-only languages, such as French and Spanish. This could indicate a stricter palatalizing dorsal gesture in German /l/ than in those other languages.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Phonological analysis of Latin /l/

37

As Vaux (2010: 305) notes, most current phonologists prefer privative features. An alternative analysis avoiding underspecified features or gestures, and maintaining privative specifications, might posit that geminate /ll/ was specified with a palatal TB gesture, and both coda and onset /l/ with a velar TB gesture, the difference in behaviour between the latter two resulting from the effect of syllable structure on the timing of the gesture, in the spirit of Sproat and Fujimura (1993). Syllable finally, the velar TB gesture would be anchored at the start of the lateral, closer to the nucleus of its own syllable, permitting the tongue body to move towards its target during the preceding vowel (causing colouring), and so providing sufficient time for the lateral to be fully darkened. Syllable-initially, the same velar TB gesture would be anchored closer to the end of the lateral, again closer to the nucleus of its syllable, shifting forward in time the tongue retraction movement, and so colouring a smaller proportion of the preceding vowel (explaining the less extreme backing before onset /l/). The onset velar TB specification might explain why /l/ was dark before /e/, despite it being a front vowel. However, difficulties remain with this analysis. The gestural timing theory incorrectly predicts colouring of a following vowel after onset /l/, in a symmetrical fashion to colouring before coda /l/, as the vowel would begin at the target peak of the velar TB gesture (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 360–61). Secondly, the front tongue position required by both /i/ and /e/ would conflict with the velar TB gesture of a preceding onset /l/, with both being anchored at the end of the lateral/start of the vowel, but it is not clear why /li/ would result in a clear /l/, whereas /le/ in a dark /l/. The underspecification solution, with [+high] requiring a tongue body constriction of unspecified location, accounts more neatly for both patterns. A starting point for both can be found in Ladefoged and Maddieson’s (1996: 360–61) assertion that a secondary articulation involving velarization is anchored nearer the beginning of the primary articulation than the end, whereas palatalization (pp. 363–4) is often more apparent at the release than at the formation of a primary constriction. First, this accounts for why vowels in Latin were coloured before dark /l/, before not before clear /l/: the tongue body target was at the start of the lateral only in the former. We can explain the coda–onset asymmetry and /li~le/ difference in the following way, acknowledging the different tongue body positions and their timing. Figure 2.3 illustrates the posited articulatory implementations of the different specifications of Latin /l/ in different contexts. Figure 2.3(a) shows that the specifications [+high, +back] of coda /l/ were realized at the start of the lateral by a high and very back tongue position, significantly colouring the preceding vowel due to the requirement of a large proportion of its duration for the tongue body to attain its specified [+back] target, and resulting in a vowel with a very low F2 by the start of the lateral. Figure 2.3(b) shows that a specified [+high] (but not [+back]) of onset /l/ before /a o u/ was implemented by the selection of a back tongue body gesture rather than palatalization, given that the latter would come into conflict with the relatively back tongue body positions of the following vowels. As a tongue back gesture similar

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

38

Clear and dark /l/

a. Coda / l/ Resonance

Approx. tongue position

Vowel

Coda /l/

Back Darkest Darker Velar TB/

Dark Clear

Front

Notes Example Realized as:

[+high, +back] gesture

Colouring

Anchored start

/e/ [u]

/l/ [l ]

at

b. Onset /l/ before /a o u/ Approx. tongue position

Resonance

Back

Vowel

/l/

/u/ /o/ /a/

Darkest Darker Dark

TB/[+high]

Clear

gesture

Front

Notes

Colouring

Example Realized as:

/e/ [u]

Vocalic gesture

Anchored at start

No constriction location conflict

/l/

/a/ [a]

[lu]

Figure 2.3 Articulatory implementation of Latin /l/ specifications

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Phonological analysis of Latin /l/ c. Onset /l/ before /e/ Approx. Resonance tongue position Back Darkest

Vowel

/l/

/e()/

Darker Dark

TB/ [+high] gesture

Clear

Front

Vocalic gesture

Notes

Example Realized as: d. Onset /l/ before /i/ Approx. Resonance tongue position Back Darkest

Colouring

(i) Anchored at start (ii) Less back due to gestural blending (iii) [+high] not realized through palatalization to preserve height cues of /e/

Constriction location (backness) conflict, causing gestural blending

/e/ [o]

/l/ [l°]

/e/ [e]

/l/

/i/

Vowel

TB/[+high]

Vocalic

gesture

gesture

Darker Dark Front

Clear

Notes No colouring

Example Realized as:

/e/ [e]

Palatalization anchored at end /l/ [lj]

Figure 2.3 Continued

No constriction location conflict /i/ [i]

39

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

40

Clear and dark /l/

e. Geminate /ll/ Approx. tongue position

Resonance

Back

Vowel

Darkest

/ll/

e.g. /u/

Palatal TB/ [+high, –back] gesture

Darker Dark

Vocalic gesture

Clear

Front

Notes

Example Realized as:

No colouring (i) Palatalization anchored at end of first half of geminate (ii) Geminate provides sufficient duration to achieve [+high, –back] target without affecting following vowel

Sufficient duration to avoid constriction location conflict

/e/ [e]

/u/ [u]

/ll/ [llj]

Figure 2.3 Continued

to the velarization required by the coda, this was again anchored at the start of the lateral, but in the absence of a [+back] specification, extreme retraction was not required, resulting in a less back high tongue body, a less dark lateral, and a less robust backing effect on the preceding vowel. Figure 2.3(c) shows that before /e/, a similar back tongue gesture was selected to implement [+high]. Palatalization was not selected, as its high front tongue position anchored at the end of the lateral would interfere with the vowel height cues of the following front mid vowel, and presumably it was preferable to affect vowel quality at the end of a preceding rather than the start of a following vowel.27 However, as a front tongue position was required for that following /e/, the conflicting tongue back gesture was presumably not as far back as before /a o u/ (a form of gestural blending, as discussed by Browman and Goldstein 1989), resulting in less extreme colouring. Figure 2.3(d) shows that before /i/, the [+high] feature could straightforwardly be implemented by palatalization, anchored at the end of the lateral and using the same

27

Vowel-conditioning phenomena in Latin are almost all anticipatory.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Conclusions

41

tongue body position as required by the following vowel; no [–back] feature is required to explain this behaviour. Finally, in Figure 2.3(e), [+high –back] of geminate /ll/ are again implemented by palatalization, this time due to featural specifications rather than the context. The failure of geminate /ll/ to front a following vowel in e.g. capillus ‘hair’ (i.e. the mirror-image of backing before velarized /l/) could be accounted for if the palatalization gesture was anchored at the end of the first part of the geminate, rather than its entirety, hence the lateral was clearest at its mid-point, and moving towards its vowel target throughout its second half. At any rate, it is clear that the duration offered by the geminate permitted satisfaction of the lateral’s featural specifications without further interference with vowel quality cues.

2.5 Conclusions on Latin /l/ The distribution of lateral variants in Latin demonstrates the importance of the syllable in synchronic phonological structure. Once a string of segments was syllabified, geminate /ll/, doubly associated to a coda and a following onset, was assigned a [–back] feature or palatal tongue body gesture. Even if this is analysed as simply a phonetic cue to gemination without any need to invoke the syllable, the assignment of a [+back] feature or velar tongue body gesture to all other coda /l/s demonstrates the relevance of syllable structure. Furthermore, we have seen that synchronic structure guided diachronic sound change—the colouring of a preceding vowel— through the distribution of non-contrastive alternants. However, the role of synchrony is one step removed from diachrony, through the intermediary of phonetics, the perceptual cues caused by the lateral alternants leading to phonological reanalysis by the listener over time. We have not, for example, posited that diachronic vowel colouring was a result of synchronic feature spreading, as this would incorrectly predict that colouring would be identical whenever feature specifications were the same, which we have seen was not the case, notably before onset /l/. The underspecification of the onset results in gradient effects in the sound change, which could not be straightforwardly explained by such an account. Synchronic structure itself (e.g. feature spreading, markedness constraints) therefore does not appear directly to govern or constrain the sound change in this instance, other than to result in vowels that were already in the inventory, plausibly an instance of ‘structural analogy’ (Blevins 2004: 154). The investigation has also provided evidence in favour of equipollent features, as a ternary pattern arises which is best accounted for by three settings of the [back] feature: plus (+), minus (–), and underspecified (Ø). Such patterns are somewhat elusive in the world’s languages, and the addition of the Latin case can add to the available evidence marshalled by proponents of equipollent features.

3 Inverse compensatory lengthening The littera-rule 3.1 Introduction The sporadic Latin sound change known as the ‘littera-rule’ transformed sequences of a long vowel followed by a short consonant (V:C) into forms with a short vowel followed by a geminate consonant (VCC), thus li: tera > littera ‘letter’. The change falls under the category of ‘inverse compensatory lengthening’ in Hayes’s (1989) typology, where a vowel is shortened not lengthened, and a consonant is lengthened not lost or shortened, displaying the opposite pattern to ‘classical compensatory lengthening’ (VC > V:). This chapter investigates the regularity and scope of such developments, and posits a phonetically based diachronic analysis which identifies the relevant conditions for the process, supporting Kavitskaya’s (2002) phonologization model of compensatory lengthening. A handful of Latin words appear to show a historical development from V:C to VCC, the most commonly cited being li: tera > littera ‘letter’, Iu: piter > Iuppiter ‘Jupiter’, su: cus > succus ‘juice’, *mi: to: > mitto: ‘I send’, and *gna: ro: > narro: ‘I tell’. The phenomenon acquired the label ‘littera-Regel’ in the work of Helmut Rix and his associates; see e.g. LIV 430 (s.v. *meit̯ h2), and the statement of the rule in Meiser (1998: 77). However, numerous scholars have noted that some words had both V:C and VCC forms simultaneously available to Latin speakers, inviting the hypothesis that the forms with VCC were not necessarily the result of a phonetically based diachronic change, but rather the extension of a pattern whereby V:C and VCC were deemed equivalent, which might have begun in a limited phonological context. Ultimate selection of VCC from the synchronic pool of variation would be the result of sociolinguistic factors alone. However, if this were the case, we might expect V:C ~ VCC variation in forms which were etymologically VCC, which we do not. Furthermore, the reverse historical development VCC > V:C seems not to have occurred, corroborating the view of the littera-rule as a diachronic sound change (conditioned by phonetic, structural, and sociolinguistic factors) and not the accidental outcome of synchronic variation.

Introduction

43

The evidence regularly cited for the development remains scant. Most intriguing is the survival in abundance of counterexamples where V:C remained intact (without a VCC variant), outnumbering the littera-rule forms in the same phonological environments, thus beside the above forms, see li: tem ‘dispute (acc.)’, pu: pilla ‘ward, pupil’, lu: cus ‘grove’, di: to: ‘I enrich’, ra: ro: ‘seldom’, and ca: ra ‘dear’. A phonetically motivated sound change in the Neogrammarian model would not display such irregular behaviour; the phenomenon is perhaps better explained by other models of diachronic change, such as lexical diffusion (Wang 1969), where the sound change occurs word by word within a context (see }5.7). As the spread might have ceased to operate at any given time, we might expect to find some words which had undergone the sound change and others which had not.1 This chapter will not investigate the implementation of the sound change, but rather focus upon explaining the phonological environments and other patterns found in the data, considering whether a phonetically based model of sound change is sufficient or whether structural constraints, notably mora count, guided the development. Since other sound changes such as monophthongization interact with the litterarule, chronology is of some significance in this investigation. As stated in }1.3, we shall recognize six periods in the history of Latin: prehistoric, archaic, early, classical (consisting of republican and Augustan), imperial, and late. This chapter first summarizes the history of the problem within philological scholarship (}3.2), as several factors requiring consideration have been previously identified. The following sections discuss relevant aspects of Latin phonology, focusing on vowel and consonant length (}3.3). A detailed philological investigation into all the Latin forms that are candidates for the littera-rule, establishing which forms need to be taken into consideration, can be found in the Appendix. The results of the examination are collated and patterns identified (}3.5), culminating in a phonological analysis of the sound change (}3.6). To summarize the findings in this chapter: the diachronic change V:C > VCC occurred sporadically in early Latin, to judge from inscriptional evidence, e.g. prechange leiteras in the Lex Repetundarum (122–123 bc), for classical littera: s ‘letters (acc.)’ (where the spelling reflected /ei/ before monophthongization to /i:/, providing an input to the littera-rule). The rule can be distilled into three phonetically guided processes, supporting Kavitskaya (2002). A diachronic development V:C > VCC occurred in ‘high vowel + voiceless consonant’ (e.g. littera): high vowels are intrinsically the shortest, and vowels are commonly shorter before voiceless obstruents than voiced obstruents and sonorants (e.g. Keating 1985: 120). The short duration compromised the perceptibility of the vowel length contrast, resulting in its neutralization. The phonologically long vowels which were shortest by nature (high vowels), 1 A lexical diffusion model can be brought into line with Neogrammarian ideas to some extent; see Lass (1993).

44

Inverse compensatory lengthening

in the environment where they were phonetically shorter still (before voiceless stops), were likely candidates for shortening, by phonologization of the short phonetic duration relative to other vowels and other contexts. The voiceless stop after the shortened vowel concomitantly lengthened with minimal phonetic difficulty, as maintaining voiceless stops presents no aerodynamic problems. This lengthening might be explained structurally by a moraic account of compensatory lengthening (Hayes 1989), as mora count after vowel shortening was preserved by the coda provided by the geminate. However, a phonetically motivated account not requiring structural constraints (beyond the presence of long and short categories) arises if we hypothesize that closed-syllable vowels in Latin were longer than their open-syllable counterparts (Sen 2012b), contrary to near-universal expectations (Maddieson 1985), but as paralleled in Anatolian Turkish (Jannedy 1995), and languages which have longer vowels before geminate than before singleton consonants, e.g. Finnish, Japanese, and Tehrani Persian. This hypothesis allows us better to understand a number of Latin idiosyncrasies, such as vowel raising, vowel shortening, and degemination. Therefore, the diachronic littera-rule occurred when long vowels in open syllables were most susceptible to being reanalysed as short vowels in closed syllables, suggesting that it was not only the abstract structural pressure to retain mora count that led to the gemination of the consonant. The only segment which could be causing syllable closure would be the following consonant, which was therefore realized as a geminate. The second process involves the sequence ‘/a/ + sonorant’ (e.g. flamma : fla: ma ‘flame’), which appears to result in synchronic variation between V:C and VCC. Low vowels have the longest intrinsic duration, and vowels are phonetically longer before sonorants than before voiceless obstruents; hence long and short /a/ were arguably both relatively long and perceptually confusable in this context. ‘front vowel + /l/’ presents a third category (e.g. fillius : fi: lius ‘son’): it is notoriously difficult to pinpoint acoustically the vowel–lateral boundary in high, front vowel + clear /l/ sequences (e.g. Olive et al. 1993: 207–15), and the geminate /ll/ in Latin was always clear (Chapter 2). This might have resulted in confusion over whether both vowel and consonant were long or short. The littera-rule therefore presents further evidence to support a reductionist phonetically based model of sound change, despite initial indications that it was governed by moraic structure.

3.2 History of the problem Numerous scholars from the late 19th century onwards have attempted to account for the data pertaining to the littera-rule; an overview of their approaches gives us an insight into the difficulties associated with the problem.

History of the problem

45

3.2.1 There is a problem As early as Brugmann and Delbrück (1897–1916: 1.801, 975), it has been acknowledged that V:C > VCC apparently only occurred in a limited number of cases, with identical V:C sequences appearing intact in other words. We commonly find a proviso accompanying any discussion of the phenomenon, stating either that the sound change was simply inconsistent (e.g. Mignot 1969: 19 fn. 2, 72) or that the conditions for the change are not clear (e.g. Leumann 1977: 183–4). Niedermann (1997: 113) encapsulates this uncertainty: ‘What makes this phenomenon disconcerting is first that it seems to have been absolutely sporadic and next that, most of the time, the old form with the simple consonant and long vowel remained in use beside the later form with a double consonant and short vowel. There remains a very complex problem there which awaits solution’ (my translation). 3.2.2 Part of gemination The littera-rule is often conflated with an independent process which has simply been referred to as ‘(expressive/spontaneous consonant) gemination’, purported to have occurred in Latin forms with unexplained non-etymological long consonants. This phenomenon is, however, equally elusive. Vendryes (1902: 123) accepts that gemination was absolutely sporadic, and although we can identify circumstances under which it could occur, it is impossible to formulate a law stating where it must occur, as the exceptions would be more numerous than examples of the rule. Defending the position that the two phenomena are different, Niedermann (1997: 114) states : the consonant gemination which has just been discussed [i.e. the littera-rule] must not be confused with the gemination called ‘expressive’, a morphological process by which a double consonant has sometimes substituted a simple intervocalic one immediately after the accent, whatever the quantity of the preceding vowel and without there being a shortening in the cases where it was long. [my translation]

Sommer (1948: 202) and Sommer and Pfister (1977: 156) partially agree: within a discussion of gemination in Latin, they identify a ‘special Latin gemination’, most examples of which show V:C > VCC. However, they add that the coexistence of V:C and VCC can sometimes be better explained by expressive gemination, although not all examples fit this analysis. Carnoy (1917) considers the littera-rule examples to be part of gemination, which for him is a semantic process whose ‘apportionment in the vocabulary is quite natural to a psychologist’, as the forms appear in certain semantic categories only (see }3.3.2.4). However, a more extreme position is found in Juret (1921: 151–5), who denies both the development V:C > VCC, and any variation between the two, claiming that reports of both came about as the result of incorrect orthography and unfounded

46

Inverse compensatory lengthening

etymologies. He lists and rejects each relevant form on the basis that it falls under one of four categories: (i) only VCC is certain, thus littera ‘letter’, mitto: ‘I send’; (ii) only V:C is certain, thus li: tus ‘coast’, su: cus ‘juice’; (iii) the V:C and VCC forms were different words, thus cuppa ‘goblet’ versus cu: pa ‘vat’, and (iv) the geminate form arose by expressive gemination, but retained the long vowel, thus na: rro: ‘I tell’, to: ttus ‘whole’. Graur (1929: 61–2) follows Juret in rejecting the littera-rule or any variation between V:C and VCC; spontaneous gemination is his explanation for words showing simple singleton–geminate variation. Similarly to Carnoy, he incorporates the forms usually associated with the littera-rule into semantic categories such as ‘onomatopoeic words’, where gemination is expected for psychological reasons (pp. 65–79). 3.2.3 Chronology and register The division of words undergoing gemination into semantic categories has led to the hypothesis that gemination was characteristic of a certain register: popular speech. Carnoy (1917) states that ‘the reduplicated [i.e. geminate] forms seem to have been much more numerous in Vulgar Latin, judging from what we find in Romance’, and Graur (1929: 89–100) claims that the expressive force of the semantic categories, along with other word-specific indications, shows that gemination was a feature of the popular language. The same position is found throughout DELL and adopted by Meillet (1948: 166–9), who makes no mention of a specific littera-rule development, but advances the rather circular argument that because popular words showed gemination, words containing geminates were popular forms in origin. Lindsay (1894: 113–18) recognizes a separate V:C > VCC, but in a similar vein sees the development as belonging to late Latin and Romance. An entirely different view of the littera-rule is advanced by Rix (1998), and it is as a result of his work that the phenomenon has come to require more urgent investigation.2 Rix argues that the littera-rule must have taken place before 350 bc (i.e. archaic Latin at the latest), on the grounds that rhotacism of intervocalic /s/ cannot have taken place first. His evidence for this is in Latin morphology, where we find future perfect forms in -ass- in the first conjugation, such as cantasso: (cf. canta: re ‘to sing’). Rix argues that these originated in a sequence *-a: s- which underwent the littera-rule, motivated by a need to formally differentiate the future perfect and the imperfective *-s- futures of Proto-Italic (which in Sabellian became the future and in Latin was retained as the imperfect subjunctive). The stem of this *-s- future had already become homophonous with the stem of the future perfect in Proto-Italic in the 1st conjugation after the loss of intervocalic /i/ and the resulting contraction of /ae/ and /ao/ to /a:/. If this is accurate, the littera-rule must be a Proto-Italic process. Rix sees

2

See e.g. the numerous appeals to the littera-rule in LIV to etymologize Latin words.

History of the problem

47

no objection to this, as he argues that examples in Sabellian can also be found if we interpret Umbrian asa-m3 as /assa:m/ developed from *a: sa: - and we accept that the Oscan -tt- perfect of the type teremnattens (= Lat. terminaverunt ‘they demarcated’) derived from the first singular perfect *termnattom, based on a neuter past participle *termna: tom (est). Both of these hypotheses are difficult to substantiate, and Rix’s position would benefit from independent verification of the early existence of the rule through examination of the Latin evidence. Forcing the littera-rule into distant Italic prehistory poses the question of why almost all the apparent examples of the rule occurred in the historical period: was the rule active throughout the history of the language (or even the Italic branch)? Rix appears to think not, citing the frequent Latin perfect stem formations of the type certa: runt, no: mina: runt, roga: ro: , co: gita: sti: , which are (apart from some likely exceptions due to analogy) best explained as continuations of forms of the s-aorist. After the syncretism of the aorist and the perfect, they remained in Latin as variants of the normal u/v-perfect, but did not show any trace of the littera-rule; singleton /s/ was retained and later regularly developed to /r/ through intervocalic rhotacism. Rix believes that the difference between the occurrence of the littera-rule in the future perfects and sigmatic aorists was chronological, as the former existed before the latter were introduced. Leumann’s (1977: 183–4) position is somewhat more agnostic, but points to an early Latin chronology. He proposes a terminus post quem for the development of 150 bc, by which time the monophthongizations /ei/ > /i:/ and /oi ou/ > /u:/ would have been complete, as long vowels arising from diphthongs appear to have fed the littera-rule, thus *leitera > *li: tera > littera ‘letter’. Weiss (2009: 144) argues that the littera-rule (his ‘Iuppiter rule’) occurred only when the original form had a diphthong */ei ou/ followed by a voiceless stop (see }3.2.6), and never from vowels of non-diphthongal origin. However, Weiss (2010) departs from this view, accepting examples with ‘original’ long vowels. We therefore find three entirely different periods posited in the literature for the occurrence of the rule: Proto-Italic prehistory, early Latin, and late Latin. 3.2.4 Diachronic development or synchronic variation? In }3.1, we encountered two possible relationships between V:C and VCC: (i) words of either origin showed variation between the two shapes at some given time, and (ii) V:C forms developed into VCC forms over time. Rix (e.g. LIV; Rix 1998) couches the littera-rule unambiguously in diachronic terms; this stance is also taken by Brugmann and Delbrück (1897–1916: 1.801, 975),

3 Oscan and Umbrian forms are written using their received orthography, adopting the practice of Untermann (2000).

48

Inverse compensatory lengthening

who express it in terms of the vowel being shortened and the consonant lengthened, and by Niedermann (1997: 113), who writes of a V:C ‘old form’ and a VCC ‘later form’. Mignot (e.g. 1969: 19 fn. 2, 72) and Leumann (1977: 183–4) similarly refer to a historical development. Sommer (1948: 202) and Sommer and Pfister (1977: 156) seem to formulate their ‘special Latin gemination’ as a historical development, contrasting it with the independent process of spontaneous gemination, which resulted in synchronic variation. For Vendryes (1902: 123) the process of gemination, including the littera-rule examples, was a diachronic phenomenon, but where a long vowel preceded a geminating consonant, a synchronic variation between V:C, VCC and all intermediate pronunciations resulted. Meillet’s (1948: 166–9) gemination was also a diachronic process with VCC arising later, and his illustration *Ju: piter (the asterisk is Meillet’s) > Iuppiter ‘Jupiter’ indicates that the littera-rule forms belong under this analysis. Meiser (1998: 77) accounts for V:C/VCC variation through the survival of older non-geminated forms, and hence considers it a diachronic process. However, he accepts that it is not an assured sound law, but could be explained as a development within a certain speech community, or a ‘standard Latin’ synchronic variation. Numerous scholars give precedence to this final position, couching the phenomenon in terms of synchronic variation. Graur (1929: 61–2), who denies the existence of a phenomenon separate from gemination, appears to discuss the forms in synchronic terms. Lindsay (1894: 113–18) accepts the independence of the V:C/VCC relationship, but also writes in synchronic terms of the substitution of V:C for VCC and vice versa. However, he acknowledges that VCC forms are likely to have appeared later. Collinge (1985: 107, 110) makes the stronger claim that the variation between V:C and VCC was a result of a perceived synchronic equivalence between the two sequences, and whenever the sequence V:C arose in Latin, speakers were free to realize it in whichever way they preferred, sometimes resulting in a settled form, but sometimes not. This claim is in the context of a discussion of the so-called Lachmann’s Law past participles: Collinge compares the ‘nuisance’ form fossus ‘dug’ < *fod-to-s with the ‘expected’ ca: sus ‘fallen’ < *kad-to-s, arguing that the difference was due to a ‘spasmodic but clear phonological equivalence in Latin’ whereby V:C was realized in either way, often resulting in competing variants (e.g. Iuppiter/Iu: piter), but sometimes not, giving the appearance of a sound change (e.g. iousit > iu: sit > iussit ‘he ordered’), whereas the fixed form in fact reflected ‘arbitrary choice’. 3.2.5 Stress Many have observed that the vowel in V:C was stressed, and Sommer (1948: 202), Sommer and Pfister (1977: 156), Leumann (1977: 183–4), and Niedermann (1997: 113) accept that this is practically the only phonological regularity. Brugmann and Delbrück (1897–1916: 1.801) speculate that the development occurred under the

History of the problem

49

influence of the ‘strong cut (geschnittenen) syllable accent’, a type which is not discussed elsewhere. Vendryes (1902: 123) invokes archaic initial-syllable stress as a trigger, but concedes that some of the forms originated at a much later period; this is not a problem for Carnoy (1917), as the development was an effect of stress at both archaic and later periods, hence the archaic examples all show the change at the end of the first syllable (the evidence is however not so clear-cut). Mignot (1969: 19 fn. 2, 72) accepts the influence of stress, but points out that within a paradigm the vowel would sometimes have been stressed, but sometimes not, thus balbú: tio: : balbúttio: ‘I stammer’, but balbu: tí: re ‘to stammer’; paradigmatic levelling would then have generalized one form. 3.2.6 Phonological environment Attempts to isolate the phonological environment further are open to contest from counterexamples, but highlight some of the trends in the evidence. Vendryes (1902: 123) alone considers the identity of the vowels preceding and following the consonant, and hypothesizes that consonants geminated between vowels that were in different categories, these being the three groups /i/, /u/, and /a e o/; his examples include4 fulliginem ‘soot (acc.)’ and Juppiter ‘Jupiter’ between /u/ and /i/, bucca ‘cheek; mouth’ and cuppa ‘goblet’ between /u/ and /a/, littus ‘coast’ between /i/ and /u/, littera ‘letter’ and mittere ‘to send’ between /i/ and /e/, allucinari: ‘to wander in mind’ and baccula ‘small berry’ between /a/ and /u/, and accipiter ‘hawk’ and baccifer ‘berry-bearing’ between /a/ and /i/. However, his disposal of counterexamples by appeal to paradigmatic levelling, obscure etymology, or analogy is unsatisfactory. Vendryes also reports that voiceless, but not voiced, stops lengthened. Otherwise, only /l/ participated in the development, a fact he attributes to the time taken to transition between its two distinct articulations, clear and dark. This account is implausible when one considers that geminate /ll/ was consistently clear (Chapter 2). Finally, Vendryes proposes that where the orthography hesitates between simple and geminate forms, all the intermediates could have been pronounced, suggesting that lengthening was gradient, but could have been phonologized. Others have restricted the occurrence of the littera-rule to voiceless stops. Niedermann (1997: 113) and Mignot (1969: 19 fn. 2, 72) do so with no attempt to account for this further, whereas Carnoy (1917) opts for an articulatory explanation in a similar vein, but different in detail, to Vendyres: the twin efforts of pronouncing the ‘strong voiceless explosives, such as c, t, p’ and accenting the previous vowel were combined into one great effort, which consequently required a relatively long silence, after which the organs relaxed for the following weaker syllable.

4

The orthography of the forms cited here and the indication of vowel length follow Vendryes.

50

Inverse compensatory lengthening

3.2.7 Syllable structure Those who assign all the forms to a process of spontaneous gemination, but accept that a preceding long vowel shortened, must account for this shortening. The reasoning has usually centred upon the retention of syllable structure. Vendryes (1902: 123) posits that the point of release of the consonant in its role as syllable explosion (i.e. onset) was fixed; thus the increased duration required if it was to be lengthened would have to have been taken from the preceding long vowel, which consequently shortened. Similarly, Sommer (1948: 202) and Sommer and Pfister (1977: 156) argue that a stressed vowel could have provoked an early articulation of the following consonant, which in turn would have provoked a syllable division in the middle of that consonant, yielding a short vowel in a syllable closed by the first part of a geminate. For Carnoy (1917), the shortening of the vowel after gemination ‘is easy to understand, and is a mere dynamic process’, because ‘if one added to the accented syllable a long silence, one would make it out of proportion with the other syllables. It is a question of rhythmus.’ 3.2.8 Summary The history of the problem exhibits widespread disagreement and uncertainty. The main questions arising are the following. (1)

Questions arising regarding the littera-rule a. Was there a process involving V:C and VCC independent from gemination? If not, we might expect all the relevant forms to be determined by their semantics or register. b. When did the phenomenon occur: prehistoric, early, or late Latin? The relative chronology of sound changes together with contemporary inscriptional evidence might shed some light. c. Was there a diachronic development V:C > VCC? The histories of individual forms might allow us to identify whether V:C was always original and VCC the result of a change, or whether there was a perceived synchronic equivalence between the sequences. d. Can we isolate phonological conditions under which the phenomenon occurred? Relevant contextual factors might be (i) stress, (ii) the vowel undergoing shortening, (iii) the consonant undergoing lengthening, (iv) the following vowel, (v) syllable structure.

Phonological preliminaries

51

3.3 Phonological preliminaries 3.3.1 Segmental length and syllable weight Latin had a phonological contrast of segmental length embracing both vowels and consonants, and thus minimal pairs can be found for every member of the segmental inventory (with the exception of /f/, for historical reasons), although some consist of incomparable lexical categories.5 (2)

Vowel length contrasts /i/ liber : li: ber ‘book’ : ‘free’ /e/ venit : ve: nit ‘he comes’ : ‘he came’ /a/ fe: mina : fe: mina: ‘woman’ : ‘woman (ablative)’ /o/ hoc : ho: c ‘this (nominative, neut.)’ : ‘this (ablative, masc./neut.)’ /u/ gradus : gradu: s ‘step’ : ‘step (genitive)’

(3)

Consonant length contrasts /p/ operior : opperior ‘I am covered’ : ‘I wait’ /t/ catus : cattus ‘clever’ : ‘cat’ /k/ acie: s : accie: s ‘sharp edge’ : ‘you will summon’ /b/ Abas : abbas ‘Abas (a king of Argos)’ : ‘abbot’6 /d/ ador : addor ‘coarse grain’ : ‘I am added’ /g/ ager : agger ‘field’ : ‘rampart’ /m/ gemo: : gemmo: ‘I sigh’ : ‘I sprout, sparkle’ /n/ anus : annus ‘old woman’ : ‘year’ /r/ gero: : gerro: ‘I carry’ : ‘idler’ /l/ ma: let : ma: llet ‘he will prefer’ : ‘he would prefer (imperfect)’ /s/ casa: : cassa: ‘cottage (ablative)’ : ‘shake! (imperative)’

Latin also had a prosodic distinction of syllable weight: syllables containing a long vowel or coda were heavy, and those containing a short-vowel nucleus and no coda were light. Where a geminate occurred intervocalically, it is clear from metrical evidence that the first syllable had a coda, and was therefore heavy, but the consistent requirement for the presence of a syllable onset wherever possible suggests that a geminate formed both a syllable coda and onset, thus VC.CV (Pulgram 1975: 71). In littera-rule forms, the consonant in the original sequence would always have been in onset position as it was always followed by a vowel (V:.CV), with the preceding syllable heavy due to the long vowel. After the development, this syllable would still

5

I leave aside the relationship between consonantal /j w/ and vocalic /i u/. These two words are clearly from two different periods. Abas is the name of various mythological kings, but notably a king of Argos (Verg. A. 3.286); abbas is from a period too late for inclusion in OLD. 6

52

Inverse compensatory lengthening

have been heavy owing to its coda, the first part of the geminate (VC.CV). Syllable weight was therefore preserved by the development. The ‘superheavy’ sequence ‘long vowel (or diphthong) + long consonant (V:CC)’ was rare, and evidence indicates that it tended to simplify by degemination to V:C. By early Latin, all examples with geminate stops had been eliminated. (4)

*V:CC > V:C in stops by early Latin *se: dpara: se > *se: ppara: re > se: para: re ‘separate’ *praidiko: > *praikko: > praeco: ‘public crier’

Geminate nasals seem to have undergone simplification next and were generally eliminated by classical Latin. (5)

*V:CC > V:C in nasals by classical Latin *gleubma: > *glu: mma > glu: ma ‘chaff ’ merce: nna: rius (attested) ‘working for pay’ > merce: na: rius (the later form; see Appendix).

The sequence V:ss survived into the classical period, with degemination occurring in the Augustan period. Quintilian (Inst. 1.7.20) reports ca: ssus and caussa in the autographs of Cicero and Vergil in classical times for later causa ‘cause’ and ca: sus ‘event’ (Niedermann 1997: 121–3; Meiser 1998: 125). (6)

V:CC (attested in early Latin) > V:C in /s/ in Augustan Latin mIssit (CIL 12.1216) > mi: sit ‘he sent’ hpromissimusi (MSS of Pl. Rud. 777, arguably representing pro: mi: ssimus) > pro: mi: simus ‘we promised’ cavssa (CIL 12.709; 90 bc) > causa ‘cause’

V:ll was the only such sequence to survive throughout classical Latin (Sihler 1995: 222, Meiser 1998: 125). (7)

Survival of V:ll ma: lle ‘prefer’, nu: llus ‘not any’, no: lle ‘not wish’, ste: lla ‘star’, vi: lla ‘rural dwelling’, argi: lla ‘potter’s clay’ mi: lle ‘thousand’

There is evidence for degemination after a diphthong (later paulum < paullum ‘small amount’), which is expected if diphthongs are interpreted as vowel + glide sequences (Cser 2001), given that glide + /l/ codas were not permitted. Degemination before short /i/ (vi: licus ‘estate overseer’ beside vi: lla, mi: lia ‘thousands’ beside mi: lle) was analysed in }2.3.5. Simplification only became widespread much later, as shown by Romance developments from both ste: lla ‘star’ (e.g. Sp. estrella, Port. estrela, Rom. stea, It. stella) and *ste: la (e.g. Fr. étoile, Turinese steila) (Lloyd 1987: 110; Parry 1997: 238). Finally, there is no clear evidence for V:rr.

Phonological preliminaries

53

The above evidence suggests that the littera-rule was a different process to simple gemination, as consonantal lengthening in V:C would have resulted in superheavy V:CC, which in turn ought to have undergone degemination back to V:C. The litterarule therefore appears to be a genuinely compensatory process, preserving mora count. 3.3.2 Sources of length in consonants The examination of the candidate forms in }3.4/the Appendix aims to establish the likelihood of a geminate consonant having arisen by the littera-rule. It is therefore important to ensure that a geminate did not arise through a separate phenomenon by examining the word’s etymology. The following is a summary of the developments resulting in geminate consonants, each of which could form a study in its own right (see Chapter 6 on assimilations).7 3.3.2.1 Assimilations assimilations.

Geminate consonants could arise in Latin through various

(8)

Total regressive assimilation /b t d + k/ > /kk/ *obkaidese > occi: dere ‘kill’, *hodke > hocce > hoc ‘this (neut.)’ /b d + g/ > /gg/ *adger > agger ‘rampart’ /d + p/ > /pp/ *kʷidpe > quippe ‘for’ /t d d= + s/ > /ss/ *kwatsai > quassi: ‘I shook’ /t d + n/ > /nn/8 *atnos > annus ‘year’ /d n r + l/ > /ll/ *sedla: > sella ‘stool’, *puerola: > *puerla> puella ‘girl’ Prefix ending /m n d/ + root beginning /r/ > /rr/ *ad-rapese > arripere ‘seize’

(9)

Total progressive assimilation /l + d n s/ > /ll/ *saldese > sallere ‘salt’, *kolnis > collis ‘hill’ /r + s/ > /rr/ *ferse > ferre ‘to carry’

(10)

Assibilation /t d d= + t/ > /ss/

*pat-tos > passus ‘undergone’

3.3.2.2 Lengthening before glides and liquids The precise conditions for consonantal lengthening before glides cannot be isolated, but it is undeniable that it occurred, certainly by Proto-Romance (Sihler 1995: 181; Meiser 1998: 126). A starting point for such a process is glide formation of a high vowel in hiatus and after a consonant, 7 8

For more evidence for Latin assimilations and assibilations, see Sihler (1995: 196–211). Occasionally > /nd/, e.g. *patno: > pando: ‘I extend’.

54

Inverse compensatory lengthening

rendering it non-syllabic (Hayes 1989). Sihler suggests that a preceding syllable needed to be stressed. Glide formation within Latin can be illustrated by the late Latin spellings hbelvai and hbelbai beside Lat. be: lua ‘monster’, although whether this is the source of the geminate in the Latin variant bellua remains unclear. That late Latin spellings genuinely represented pronunciation is supported by the Romance developments It. belva, OPort. belfa, and furthermore by the regular gemination before glides in Italian, thus pozzo ‘well’ < Proto-Romance *[pottˢjo] < Lat. puteus, and sappia ‘he might know’ < Lat. sapiat. The lengthening of a consonant before a glide is cross-linguistically widespread and occurs in e.g. West Germanic (see Sihler 1995: 181). However, note that the lengthening of the consonant is not necessarily in compensation for the loss of syllabicity of the high vowel, as argued by Hayes (1989); thus we find gemination where a glide already existed, and was not the result of loss of syllabicity, in It. acqua ‘water’ < Lat. aqua, late Lat. acqua. Notably, lengthening before a pre-existing glide also occurred in Oscan, if the double writing of consonants indicated geminate, rather than simply palatalized, consonants, thus kúmbennieís ‘assembly (gen.)’ (Untermann 2000: 412) < *kom-gʷem-je- (cf. Latin veni: re ‘come’). On this basis, one could argue that this type of lengthening was a geographical feature. The lengthening of consonants before liquids is again common cross-linguistically (Sihler 1995: 181). The fluctuation in the syllabification of TR, to be discussed in Chapters 4–6, could be the source of the lengthening of the consonant found in forms such as aggro ‘field (abl.)’ (CIL 3.2448) and frattre ‘brother (abl.)’ (CIL 8.111). Oscan alttrús ‘other’ (Untermann 2000: 82) provides a parallel in close proximity, but from a much earlier time, since the phenomenon in Latin is only found in the late sub-literary form of the language, at a time when numerous unusual orthographic practices are in evidence (Sommer and Pfister 1977: 156). 3.3.2.3 Analogy These forms fall under five main categories (Graur 1929: 21–9). The examples provided are mainly from Graur, and some of explanations below are reconsidered in }3.4/the Appendix. (11)

Analogy on a word ‘felt to be connected’ e.g. buccina for bu: cina ‘trumpet’, on bucca ‘cheek’

(12)

Contamination of a near homonym e.g. confusion of buccula ‘visor’ and bu: cula ‘young cow’, callidus ‘clever’ and calidus ‘hot’, molle: s ‘soft (nom./acc. pl.)’ and mo: le: s ‘mass’, pelluis ‘you wash thoroughly’ and peluis ‘basin’

(13)

Reciprocal influence of verbal stems e.g. ma: llo: for ma: lo: ‘I prefer’ on ma: lle (inf.), no: llo: for no: lo: ‘I do not want’ on no: lle (inf.), and tulli: for tuli: ‘I carried’ on tollo: ‘I carry’

Phonological preliminaries (14)

55

False composition, where a word was felt to have a common prefix when it had either none or a different prefix e.g. imma: go: for ima: go: ‘likeness’ after in- (inmago also found in MSS of late texts), suggillo: for su: gillo: ‘bruise’ after sub-

(15) Suffixal replacement (a form of false composition): a form was felt to have one, usually more common, suffix rather than another e.g. querella for quere: la ‘complaint’ Note that analogy could frequently have resulted in the replacement of V:C with VCC, giving the appearance of the littera-rule. However, the analogical proportions are not always in the prosodic relationship V:C : VCC; what appears to have been of prime importance was segmental identity. 3.3.2.4 Spontaneous consonant gemination Spontaneous gemination, the lengthening of a single intervocalic consonant for no apparent phonological reason, is a commonly invoked explanation for the appearance of geminates in Latin. The phenomenon seems to have occurred at the end of stressed syllables, but no other prerequisites can be convincingly isolated, despite the attempts outlined in }3.2.2. The chronology of the phenomenon also poses problems. On the one hand, the retention of intervocalic /s/ in na: sus ‘nose’, beside rhotacized na: re: s ‘nostrils’, seems to push the phenomenon back to before rhotacism in the 5th/4th century bc (see }4.2.2.1), if the retention is explained by an earlier intervocalic /ss/ arising through spontaneous gemination, which simplified to /s/ after a long vowel (}3.3.1). On the other hand, geminate forms became much more common in late Latin, although this could have been an orthographic representation of an old phonetic reality. The scope of spontaneous consonant gemination in classical scholarship has either been greatly exaggerated, as throughout DELL and Graur (1929), or virtually ignored as in LIV and Meiser (1998: 126). Giannini and Marotta (1989) provide a lengthy study of the phenomenon from the point of view that it was essentially semantically governed, and most scholars recognize that most instances can be semantically categorized (Carnoy 1917; Graur 1929: 65–79; Niedermann 1997: 113; Meillet 1948: 166–8; Sommer and Pfister 1977: 155–6). The best-defined of these categories are listed in (16)–(24). Some examples are re-evaluated in }3.4/the Appendix. (16)

Names cross-linguistically and particularly in short or familiar forms E.g. Varro: (cf. va: rus ‘bent’), Gracchus (cf. gracilis ‘thin’) See also Gk. Stráttis (cf. Strátippos), OHG Sicco (cf. Sigerich)

(17)

Pejorative nicknames E.g. cuppe: s ‘greedy’ (cf. cupere ‘want’), lippus ‘bleary-eyed’ (cf. Gk. liparós ‘greasy’) and matus : mattus ‘drunk’

56

Inverse compensatory lengthening

Some categories contain a remarkable number of forms with geminate consonants, without any indication that a simple-consonant form existed earlier. (18)

Onomatopoeic words cross-linguistically E.g. hinni: o ‘I neigh’, stloppus ‘smack’, battuo: ‘I hit’ (Graur 1929: 65–9) See also Gk. pippízo: ‘I squeak’, Skt. búkkati ‘he barks’

(19)

Children’s words cross-linguistically E.g. Lat. atta ‘father’, mamma ‘breast’, anna ‘nurse’ See also many IE forms based on such words as *papa, *atta, etc.

(20)

Plant names Numerous examples at Graur (1929: 72)

(21)

Terms to do with the body E.g. bucca ‘cheek’, guttur ‘throat’, pollex ‘thumb’ (Graur 1929: 75)

The following category contains many examples of words with a geminate (Graur 1929: 71), some of which show signs of gemination from a simple form. (22)

Animal names E.g. cattus ‘cat’ (cf. catulus ‘cub’), pecus : peccus ‘sheep’, pullus ‘chick’ (cf. Goth. fula ‘foal’; see }6.6.2)

Two final categories show signs of gemination, but are ill-defined. (23)

Expressive words or morphemes = ‘expressive gemination’ (note that a number of the other categories could also be classified as ‘expressive’, such as onomatopoeic and children’s words) E.g. the archaic Latin development of the superlative suffix *-isemo- > *-issimu-, late Latin to: tus > *to: ttus ‘whole’

(24)

Common object words, including words denoting ‘food and drink’, ‘metals’, ‘produce’, ‘habitation’, ‘military items’, ‘elements’, ‘clothing’, ‘liquid containers’, and ‘instruments’ (Graur 1929: 72–3)

The above groups suggest that spontaneous gemination occurred in an informal register, referring to the everyday and familiar, rather than pertaining to strict semantic categories. Informal speech among peers, encompassing insults and slang, might also be expected to show geminate forms, perhaps illustrated by futuere : futtuere ‘have sexual intercourse’. However, semantic categories are still a useful way of determining the register in which a given word may have been used.

Evaluating the results

57

3.4 Examination of the forms In the Appendix, I identify all the Latin words in which the littera-rule may have occurred from the earliest attestations of Latin to imperial times (excluding late and ecclesiastical Latin). Eighty-nine such forms are found. The likelihood of the rule in each form is evaluated according to the sources of evidence discussed in }1.3, notably: (i) etymology based on Indo-European reconstruction, (ii) inscriptional spellings and conventions, (iii) alternative spellings in literary manuscripts, (iv) grammarians’ statements, and (v) the Romance languages. Each form is then briefly discussed, then classified under one of the following categories. Fuller discussion of each form can be found on the website. The results of the examination are reported in the next section. (25)

Categorization of littera-rule candidates a. Not littera-rule i. Insufficient evidence for the existence of either V:C or VCC. ii. VCC by analogy on another form, or borrowing. iii. VCC arising through other change (e.g. glide formation, spontaneous gemination). b. Diachronic development probable/possible i. Probable: There seems to have been a diachronic development V:C > VCC which cannot be otherwise explained. ii. Possible: There may have been a diachronic development V:C > VCC, but there are also other possible explanations, or some source of uncertainty regarding the form. c. Synchronic variation possible i. There is evidence of variation between a V:C and VCC form at a given period, but little evidence of a development from one to the other. d. Replacement of V:C suffix with VCC suffix i. The form shows a change from V:C to VCC, but this might be due to the replacement of the suffix.

3.5 Evaluating the results We observe from the examination in the Appendix that there are 41 forms in Latin which could show a diachronic development, synchronic variation, or replacement of a V:C suffix by a VCC one. Thirteen forms could show a diachronic development (without evidence of variation), although even the 4 ‘probable’ forms have unclear etymologies, accompanied either by uncertain attestation within Latin, rendering it difficult to establish an original long vowel (littera), or by absence of any evidence within Latin for a long vowel form (narra: re, mittere, vitta). Most of the

58

Inverse compensatory lengthening

other possible forms all either have a credible alternative explanation or are too obscure to be certain of showing the littera-rule. The evidence (8 forms) for variation between V:C and VCC is slightly clearer, encompassing forms whose origin was either V:C, VCC, or unclear—a fact that suggests a genuine synchronic variation between V:C and VCC, perhaps separate from the sound change. Sixteen further forms could show either a diachronic development (i.e. both forms attested, but VCC appears to replace V:C), or simply synchronic variation between the two. There is no unambiguous evidence for a reverse diachronic development VCC > V:C, with ammentum, carrere, and mu: stella presenting the only possibilities. Finally, the 4 forms showing suffixal replacement possibly betray the influence of a perceived prosodic equivalence between V:C and VCC, perhaps corroborated by the reverse replacement in mu: stella. Table 3.1 presents the results of the examination, classifying the forms according to these criteria. In this section, patterns emerging from the data in phonological

TABLE 3.1 Forms showing a diachronic development, synchronic variation, or replacement of V:C with a VCC suffix Diachronic development probable or possible (‘diachronic’)

Diachronic development or synchronic variation possible (‘diachronic-synchronic’)

Synchronic variation possible; not diachronic (‘synchronic-notdiachronic’)

Replacement of V:C with VCC suffix (‘suffixal replacement’)

cella : *ke: la cippus : Ci: pus cuppe: s : *ku: pe: s garri: re : *ga: ri: re glittus : *gli: tus Iuppiter : Iu: piter lippus : *li: pus littera : li: tera (probable) mittere : *mi: tere (probable)

ammentum : a: mentum balbutti: re : balbu: ti: re cuppa : cu: pa fillius : fi: lius flamma : fla: ma futtilis : fu: tilis guttus : gu: tus littus : li: tus muccus : mu: cus

ammissam : a: missam carrere : ca: rere damma : da: ma lammina : la: mina mu: stella : mu: ste: la

camellus : came: lus crocodillus : crocodi: lus loquella : loque: la querella : quere: la

Evaluating the results narra: re : *gna: ra: re (probable) suppus : *su: pus vitta : *vi: ta (probable)

59

mutto: : mu: to: parret : pa: ret parrici: da : pa: rici: da puppa : pu: pa succus : su: cus

Rejected:

Rejected:

Rejected:

*betta : *be: ta

allium : a: lium vessi: ca : ve: si: ca

nummus : nu: mus pilleus : pi: leus suggilla: re : su: gilla: re

environment, semantics, stress position, and chronology are identified, forming the basis of the analysis in }3.6. Forms which do not conform to the robust patterns identified are listed at the bottom of each column, and it is conjectured that the alternative explanations identified in the Appendix, and not the littera-rule, should account for these. There are 6 such forms, resulting in a total of 35 remaining examples of a littera-rule phenomenon. In the following sections, each word is identified only by its VCC form, although the discussion applies to the word itself, not a specific shape, unless otherwise specified. 3.5.1 Phonological environment 3.5.1.1 Consonants The consonant is never a voiced stop, with the exception of suggilla: re, which we concluded could well be an example of false composition. Voiceless stops present the best possibilities for a diachronic development, including 19 of the 29 forms in the first two columns (‘possibly diachronic’). None of the 8 synchronic-not-diachronic forms has a voiceless stop. Regarding place of stop articulation, out of the possibly diachronic forms, 10 have coronal /t/, 7 have labial /p/, and 2 have dorsal /k/, suggesting that place was not a factor. Only ammentum and flamma of the 29 possibly diachronic forms contain a nasal, both words which also show synchronic variation, with both forms apparently in use up to the Augustan period. Corroborating this position, 4 of the 8 synchronic-notdiachronic forms (3 of 5 after rejections) have /m/. /n/ does not appear in any of the forms under consideration.

60

Inverse compensatory lengthening

The consonant is /r/ in 4 of the 29 possibly diachronic forms, and of these narra: re and garri: re show clear evidence of a diachronic development, the others also plausibly showing synchronic variation. Of the 8 synchronic-not-diachronic forms, only carrere has /r/. Forms with /l/ constitute 3 of the 29 possibly diachronic forms. Two synchronicnot-diachronic forms have /l/: pilleus/m, which can be explained easily in other ways (borrowing or spontaneous gemination), and mu: stella, which appears to show a reverse suffixal replacement VCC > V:C. All 4 forms which show V:C > VCC suffixal replacement have /l/, clearly owing to /ll/ in the Latin diminutive suffixes -illus, -ellus. The only remaining consonant is /s/ in vessi: ca, a synchronic-diachronic form. Given its isolation and likely slang usage (}3.5.2), we discard this form from the discussion, preferring spontaneous gemination as an explanation. 3.5.1.2 Vowels Out of the 19 possibly diachronic forms which also have a voiceless stop, the relevant vowel is a high vowel /i u/ in 18 instances, the exception being reconstructed *betta where spontaneous gemination is very plausible (}3.5.2). Of the 6 forms with /m/, all of which could show synchronic variation, 5 have preceding /a/. We could conclude very little about the exception, nummus, save that it was probably a borrowing. All five forms with /r/ also have preceding /a/. Before /l/, among non-suffixal replacement forms, we find the high vowel /i/ in 2 instances (one being the dubious pilleus/m), /e/ in two (cella, mu: stella), and /a/ in one (allium, which could be explained by spontaneous gemination; }3.5.2). Three of the forms with suffixal replacement have /e/ preceding /l/ and the third, crocodillus, has /i/, although the long vowel in crocodi: lus could have been between [i:] and [e:] < *[ei] at the time of the replacement (see }1.3.2), given that the form was borrowed from Gk. krokódeilos. 3.5.1.3 Generalizations ‘High vowel + voiceless stop’ presents a robust pattern for the diachronic development, and ‘/a/ + sonorant consonant’ for synchronic variation. A third pattern is ‘front vowel + /l/’, which is commonly found in suffixal replacement, and could also partake in a diachronic development, given its absence from the synchronic-not-diachronic column.9 3.5.2 Semantic categories In }3.3.2.4, we concluded that spontaneous gemination was a feature of an informal register, and that semantics is a convenient, if not wholly accurate, way of categorizing lexical items into likely registers ((16)–(24)). In this section, the forms are discussed 9 Weiss (2010) independently identifies and labels patterns similar to the first two, describing them as ‘two parallel but separate’ rules: the ‘littera rule’, whereby a long, high vowel followed by a singleton voiceless stop may be reanalysed as a short vowel followed by a geminate voiceless stop, and the ‘narro rule’, whereby a long, low vowel followed by a single /r/ may be reanalysed as a short vowel followed by a geminate /rr/. Weiss denies that there is any evidence for a variation in /a/ + nasal, or any good evidence involving /l/. Our examination suggests that these environments need consideration.

Evaluating the results

61

under these categories to evaluate the likelihood of gemination as the explanation for VCC forms. Every likely form identified here was also suspect on the phonological grounds above, lending weight to the conclusion that gemination is the preferred explanation. References in headings are to the numbered sections in which each category was discussed. 3.5.2.1 Onomatopoeic words See (18). As it is unlikely that the suffix had any onomatopoeic force in balbutti: re, spontaneous gemination is rejected. 3.5.2.2 Children’s words and the body See (19) and (21). Pa: rici: da certainly does not fit the register of familiar or children’s speech, and it is also difficult to see how fi: lius does. There exist numerous ‘body-part’ words containing a geminate (Graur 1929: 75), which might belong to a familiar or slang register, as exemplified by the regular appearance of words such as auris ‘ear’ and genu ‘knee’ in the diminutive in vulgar Latin. Therefore, vessi: ca, attested in slang, can easily be discarded as showing spontaneous gemination. Mutto: could plausibly be in slang usage or part of children’s speech, although evidence to this effect is not strong enough to rule out the littera-rule. Muccus is difficult to categorize as slang, as it seems to be the standard word for ‘mucus’ or ‘mould’. The fact that there seems to have been semantic specialization according to the V:C or VCC form of the word could indicate a conservative and a popular use, although there is insufficient evidence for this interpretation. 3.5.2.3 Plants and animals See (20) and (22). Plants and animals are fairly wellestablished categories of words showing geminates in Latin, inviting us to discard allium and *betta from the investigation, given the plausibility of spontaneous gemination. However, damma ‘deer’ survives as (i) there is no evidence for a singleton to geminate development, (ii) Germanic might have borrowed a V:C form, and (iii) Romance continues a form without a geminate. Synchronic variation seems a preferable explanation. 3.5.2.4 Expressive words and nicknames See (23) and (17). Although spontaneous expressive gemination could account for Iuppiter, it is without parallel among god names and remains a tentative explanation. A diachronic development seems preferable given the etymological evidence, stress position, and ‘high vowel + voiceless stop’ pattern (}3.5.1.3). Cuppe: s could be the result of expressive gemination, giving rise to its use as a cognomen, but the early derivatives (e.g. cuppe: dia, cf. the market of delicacies Forum Cuppe: dinis (Var. L. 5.146)) could also indicate that VCC arose independently of the word’s use as a nickname. The littera-rule therefore cannot be rejected.

62

Inverse compensatory lengthening

3.5.2.5 Common object words See (24). Few of the sub-categories within ‘common object words’ identified by Graur (1929: 72–5) are convincing due to the paucity of terms they contain. On this basis, we should reject ‘food and drink’; ‘metals’, supported only by acciarium, brattea, balluca, and lammina (note lammina, which can be explained by synchronic variation); ‘produce’, supported by glutten, cerussa, succinum, succus, and *tannum (note succus); ‘habitation’, supported by 8 forms of very different meaning such as cella, horreum, villa, and oppidum (note cella); ‘military items’, as some of the handful of forms contain a geminate certainly not by gemination, such as classis, pinna, and sagitta; and ‘elements’, containing few forms of very different meaning. As for ‘clothing’, even if the category were clearer, it would be difficult to admit pilleus and vitta, both of which could be ceremonial items, appearing in a different register. With ‘containers for liquid’, however, we seem (bizarrely) to be on slightly firmer ground; Graur (1929: 72–3) lists 33 forms for this narrow semantic category alone. It is tempting to discard cuppa, futtilis (from futtis), and guttus on this basis, and it is certainly plausible that such words belonged to an informal, everyday register. However, the etymological evidence, stress position, and ‘high vowel + voiceless stop’ pattern (}3.5.1.3) in these words indicate that we cannot altogether reject a phonological explanation. We must bear in mind that it is only a handful of words in the very large vocabulary of the informal register that show gemination. We might attempt to ascertain whether gemination was sensitive to word frequency, although the fact that our corpus would have to be mainly literary would be a significant shortcoming. 3.5.3 Stress Latin underwent a change in the position of primary stress from the initial syllable to the penult/antepenult according to the Penultimate Law (= ‘penultimate stress’) probably some time in the 4th century bc (i.e. late archaic). The littera-rule phenomenon occurs in the stressed syllable of early, classical, and later Latin in most of the forms, but as this syllable was often the initial, it would also have been stressed in archaic Latin in those words. However, the persistence of V:C and first appearance of VCC forms in classical Latin suggests that the phenomenon could not have ceased in archaic times. Three non-verbal forms show an initial-syllable effect where this would not have been stressed in classical Latin: parrici: da, ammentum, and ammissam.10 However,

10

In addition to the rejected vessi:ca and suggilla: re.

Evaluating the results

63

two have classical and later attestations of V:C forms, and could be analysed as showing synchronic variation in classical Latin, not a change in archaic times; the exception, parrici: da, must have developed after rhotacism in the 5th/4th century bc (}3.5.4, }4.2.2.1). All three forms show the ‘/a/ + sonorant’ pattern, which we concluded showed more evidence for synchronic variation than a diachronic development, in turn suggesting that stress played a lesser role in this variation than in the sound change. All these words could also plausibly have had secondary stress on the initial heavy syllable in classical Latin, given the quantity sensitivity of the language. The verbs apparently showing initial gemination without initial stress in the infinitive all had initial stress in most of the present tense of the paradigm, e.g. nárro: rather than narrá: re. Conversely, there are 5 non-verbal forms showing an effect in a non-initial stressed syllable under the Penultimate Law, and it is noteworthy that these are the 4 suffixal replacement words and the reverse suffixal replacement mu: stella. Among the verbs, a similar pattern is seen in balbúttio: (rather than the infinitive balbuttí: re), a form where again the suffix was altered, and where there are parallels for the VCC termination. An interesting observation is that the developing/varying syllable never fell in penultimate position in polysyllabic words (expect in suffixal replacement), and therefore stress position under the Penultimate Law was never determined by the fact that this syllable was heavy. Therefore, that syllable would have been stressed even if it were light, e.g. lít.te.ra, but similarly hypothetical {lí.te.ra. Perhaps the fact that the weight of the syllable was not of great prosodic significance allowed that weight to be expressed more freely. We might conclude that (i) the diachronic development could have occurred from the archaic to penultimate stress periods, or under penultimate stress alone, (ii) the synchronic variation probably occurred under penultimate stress, but was not obviously stress-sensitive, and (iii) suffixal replacement occurred under penultimate stress. In sum, the phenomenon was certainly alive and well in classical times. 3.5.4 Chronology We can propose chronologies for the diachronic development and synchronic variation, on the basis of our conclusions on stress, attestations of the forms, and the relative chronology of sound changes, notably the monophthongization of diphthongs and rhotacism. The monophthongizations */ei/ > /i:/ and */ou/ > /u:/ were completed by the middle of the 2nd century bc, via [e:] and [o:] respectively in the 3rd century (}1.3.2). The littera-rule developments where long /i: u:/ from original /ei ou/ shortened to /i u/ (and not {/e o/) therefore provide a terminus post quem of

64

Inverse compensatory lengthening

the mid-2nd century bc for the sound change, although the change may have been active for several centuries, with these being late examples. (26)

Diachronic development after monophthongization Original /ei/ leitera > li: tera > littera *meito: > *mi: to: > mitto: Original /ou/ *Dioupater > Iu: piter > Iuppiter

Rhotacism (VsV > VrV) occurred in the 5th/4th century bc (}}4.2.2.1, 4.3.1). The development *pa: sokaida: > parrici: da strongly suggests that rhotacism pre-dated the littera-rule, although there are perhaps phonetic indicators (}3.6.2.2) that /r/ was still an approximant and not a tap/trill at the time of the development, possibly indicating a late archaic or early Latin process in the 4th–2nd centuries bc. Aside from *ke: la, *ku: pe: s, *ga: ri: re, *gna: ra: re, and *mi: tere both V:C and VCC are attested in all the words, and there is usually evidence for both at least as early as classical Latin. The relatively early appearance of virtually all the VCC forms implies that any diachronic development occurred in early Latin, but the persistence of earlier V:C forms suggests that variation was still active entering imperial times. The reconstructed forms, notably two of which are relatively common verbs, suggest an archaic development in these particular words, in the 4th–3rd centuries bc. There is conversely scant evidence to indicate that the development was still active in later imperial Latin. This can be explained by the erosion of vowel-length contrasts, which probably began in the imperial period (}1.3.5), rendering a compensatory process less likely under any analysis (see }3.6). The retention of consonant-length distinctions allowed a late increase in forms showing spontaneous gemination, a phenomenon which appears to have existed throughout Latin history. In combination, these facts often cloud the evidence for the V:C/VCC variation, but suggest a rather broad terminus ante quem for both the diachronic development and synchronic variation of some time around the middle of the imperial period, perhaps early in the 2nd century ad. In conclusion, there appears to have been a V:C > VCC diachronic development as early as the 4th century bc, possibly towards the end of the initial-syllable stress period, but probably no earlier given the persistence of V:C forms as variants. Not all forms were affected at that archaic stage, as shown by the words where a diachronic development occurred in the 2nd century bc, after monophthongization to high vowels. In addition, the replacement of a V:C by a VCC suffix in some forms must have occurred under penultimate stress. This might fit a lexical diffusion model where lexical items are affected one at a time (or not affected), not simultaneously, also providing the basis for an explanation of the numerous counterexamples where the change did not occur at all. Synchronic variation, both in forms which show no evidence for a diachronic development and in those which might, shows a similar time-

Phonological analysis

65

scale, with the apparent irrelevance of primary stress in some forms possibly indicating that the diachronic change and the synchronic variation had distinct criteria.

3.6 Phonological analysis Three phonological patterns emerged from the evaluation of the results. Most of the forms which are better explained by a diachronic development V:C > VCC have ‘high vowel + voiceless stop’ (V[+high]T[–voice]) as the relevant sequence. Forms more likely to result from synchronic variation have ‘/a/ + sonorant consonant’ (/a/Son). A third category has ‘front vowel + /l/’ (V[–back]/l/), the evidence for which leans towards a diachronic development, rather than synchronic variation (e.g. cella and the suffixal replacement forms). Table 3.2 categorizes the 35 forms remaining under consideration along these lines. TABLE 3.2 Forms categorized according to the three phonological patterns Diachronic development: V[+high]T[–voice]

Synchronic variation: /a/Son

Diachronic development? V[-back]/l/

balbutti: re : balbu: ti: re cippus : Ci: pus cuppa : cu: pa cuppe: s : *ku: pe: s futtilis : fu: tilis glittus : *gli: tus guttus : gu: tus Iuppiter : Iu: piter lippus : *li: pus littera : li: tera littus : li: tus mittere : *mi: tere muccus : mu: cus mutto: : mu: to: puppa : pu: pa succus : su: cus suppus : *su: pus vitta : *vi: ta

ammentum : a: mentum ammissam : a: missam carrere : ca: rere damma : da: ma flamma : fla: ma garri: re : *ga: ri: re lammina : la: mina narra: re : *gna: ra: re parret : pa: ret parrici: da : pa: rici: da

camellus : came: lus cella : *ke: la crocodillus : crocodi: lus fillius : fi: lius loquella : loque: la mu: stella : mu: ste: la querella : quere: la

3.6.1 Compensatory lengthening: phonological weight analysis Numerous cross-linguistic examples of compensatory lengthening (CL) (Hayes 1989) provide evidence that phonological length or weight need not be linked to a given segment (e.g. the feature [ long] in earlier generative theories), but has independent

66

Inverse compensatory lengthening

existence as an element on a phonological ‘timing’ or ‘weight’ tier distinct from the segmental, e.g. CV-phonology (Clements and Keyser 1983; McCarthy 1985), X-theory (Levin 1985; Lowenstamm and Kaye 1986), and notably moraic theory (Hyman 1985; Hayes 1989). In compensatory lengthening, the deletion, or delinking, of any segment associated with such a unit leaves an unlinked length/weight unit which can then, by associating to another segment, lengthen it in compensation; the length/weight unit count remains the same. Adopting moraic theory, we might say that compensatory lengthening is weight- or mora-preserving. Languages where closed syllables are heavy, such as Latin, assign one mora (μ) to coda consonants, as well as to all vowels, but two moras to long vowels. Onset consonants remain non-moraic, as demonstrated by their lack of contribution to syllable weight. Thus, archaic Lat. cosmis (CIL 12.4) > co: mis ‘friendly’ can be represented as /koμsμ.miμsμ/ > /ko: μμ.miμsμ/ (4 moras before and after). Hayes (1989) labels such a lengthening of a vowel triggered by the deletion of a following coda consonant ‘classical compensatory lengthening’, presumably due to its common occurrence cross-linguistically, in comparison with other compensatory phenomena. The littera-rule is logically the opposite of this, but can straightforwardly be captured in any representational model of length, and also has parallels. Hayes (1989: 279–80) recognizes the existence of this ‘inverse compensatory lengthening’, whereby ‘a vowel deletes or shortens, with concomitant lengthening of the following consonant’. He states that it occurred in the history of Luganda, and was a sporadic development in Pāli, a phenomenon also noted by Hock (1986: 441), who compares the Middle-Indo-Aryan Pāli to the earlier Sanskrit (Table 3.3). TABLE 3.3 The development V:C > VCC from Sanskrit to Pāli Sanskrit

Pāli

ni: d ̣a sthu: lapu: jya*kars ̣ya: m(i) (-)hartum

ni: lạ beside nid ̣d ̣a- ‘abode, nest’ thu: la/thulla- ‘big’ pu: ja/pujja- ‘to be worshipped’ kassa: mi/ka: saṃ ‘I will/would do’ -ha: tuṃ/hattuṃ ‘to hold’

Such theories predict the possibility of a littera-rule development, or synchronic variation, since the transfer of a length/weight unit from a vowel to a following consonant achieves the correct result: /li: μμ.teμ.raμ/ > /liμtμ.teμ.raμ/. The change in the relevant portion of the word is illustrated autosegmentally in Figure 3.1.

Phonological analysis σ μ

i

67

σ μ

μ

t

e

Figure 3.1 Inverse compensatory lengthening: moraic analysis

3.6.2 Compensatory lengthening: phonologization analysis Analyses based on weight preservation cannot, however, account for the three different phonological environments identified above—high vowel + voiceless stop, /a/ + sonorant, and front vowel + /l/—nor can they predict a direction of diachronic change, since weight would be preserved in both V:C > VCC and VCC > V:C. Kavitskaya (2002) addresses precisely these issues, arguing that CL occurs as a result of the phonologization of phonetic duration when the listener is no longer sensitive to the phonetic cause for that duration. Kavitskaya analyses two CL processes, both of which involve vowel lengthening: ‘CVC CL’, the ‘classical’ CVC > CV: where a consonant is lost, and ‘CVCV CL’, a type triggered by vowel deletion, where CVCV > CV:C. The phonologized length of the vowel has its roots in the relatively long phonetic duration found in specific contexts, such as before a consonant with long transitions (e.g. glides) or before nasal consonants in CVC CL, and where the vowel is in an open rather than a closed syllable in CVCV CL. The cause of this non-contrastive phonetic duration might cease to be felt by the listener if the perceptual cues for the relevant context were weakened, leading to its nonperception and deletion. For example, in CVC CL, the coda consonant becomes perceptually weak, but its long VC transitions lead to the perception of long duration in the vowel, interpreted as phonological length. Figure 3.2 illustrates the two processes, comparing contexts of long phonetic duration with hypothetical ones without, to illustrate why lengthening only occurs in the former. The forms where lengthening has occurred are indicated in bold, and ‘.’ denotes a syllable boundary. Kavitskaya (2002) argues that predictions made by the phonologization analysis regarding sensitivity to phonological environment are borne out by a typological survey. Consonants which might have poor perceptual cues are predicted to be common candidates for deletion in codas, such as glides misheard as vocalic transitions, nasals which are often lost before fricatives or voiceless stops, and [h] which might be misheard as part of the vowel. Furthermore, deletion does not entail lengthening, as the loss of only a subset of consonants is predicted to trigger CVC CL, through their phonetic lengthening of a preceding vowel, such as glides (long vowel-to-glide transitions with formant structure) and nasals (longer vowels before

68

Inverse compensatory lengthening (i) CVC CL

Stage 1

Stage 2

C perceived

C not perceived

(a) CVC. (long transitions) Speaker produces

V

Listener interprets

CVC.

C

V

C CV.

(b) CVC. (other) Speaker produces

V

C

V

C

Listener interprets

CVC.

CV.

(i) CVCL CL

Stage 1

Stage 2

V2 perceived

V2 not perceived

(a) CV.CV (open > closed syllable) Speaker produces

V

Listener interprets

CV.CV2

C

V

C CVC.

(b) CVC. (closed syllable; no V2) Speaker produces Listener interprets

V CVC.

C

V

C

CVC.

Figure 3.2 CVC and CVCV compensatory lengthening: phonologization analysis (adapted from Kavitskaya 2002: 9–10)

nasals consonants). Similarly, CVCV CL is predicted not to occur in settings where the first vowel is likely to be relatively short, such as when the intervocalic consonant is a voiceless obstruent, or the syllable is unstressed, as in Friulian (Kavitskaya 2002: 112). In harmony with such an account, archaic Latin shows two types of CVC CL which are both context sensitive: the loss of coda nasals and /s/ (> [z] > [ɦ]) (Kavitskaya 2002: 60–61, 74–5). (27)

Nasal loss (Meiser 1998: 78, 94) *kom.sol > con.sol > co: .sul ‘consul’11 (e.g. CIL 12.8 cosol cesor in the 3rd century bc, for classical co: nsul ce: nsor ‘consul censor’)

11 The regular classical form is co:nsul as the nasal in this type of compensatory lengthening was consistently reintroduced by analogy, conservative pronunciation, or simply spelling. However, the vowel remained long.

Phonological analysis (28)

69

/s/-loss (Meiser 1998: 79, 118)12 a. Before voiced obstruent: *nis.dos > *[nizdos] > ni: dus ‘nest’ b. Before nasal: *kos.mis (CIL 12.4 cosmis, from the second half of the 6th century bc) > *[kozmis] > co: .mis ‘friendly’ c. Before liquid: *pres.lom > *[prezlom] > pre: lum ‘wine-/oil-press’

In nasal loss CL, the longer duration of vowels before nasals was presumably phonologized, while the nasal quality was attributed to the vowel before the fricative (Ohala and Ohala 1993: 240). Compensatory lengthening through /s/ loss occurred only before voiced obstruents and sonorants, via the voicing of /s/ to [z] and thence a voiced glottal approximant [ɦ] (de Chene and Anderson 1979: 512). The vowel preceding the voiced approximant was interpreted as phonologically long due both to the interpretation of the approximant noise as the vowel itself and to its longer duration before a voiced approximant than before a voiceless obstruent. This type of analysis relies solely upon phonetic motivations, without recourse to phonological structure as a constraining influence on sound change, as in the weightpreservation account. However, in order to account for the littera-rule (V:C > VCC) without appealing to mora count, not only the phonologization of perceived shortvowel duration needs to be explained, but also the concomitant phonologization of perceived long-consonant duration. The three phonological contexts identified present different challenges to such an analysis, but all show plausible environments for the phonologization of vowel length. A further observation—that vowels in closed syllable in Latin were phonetically longer than vowels in open syllables, contrary to the near-universal opposite pattern (Sen 2012b)—is required to explain the consonant lengthening in the diachronic development. 3.6.2.1 High vowel + voiceless stop The sequence ‘high vowel + voiceless stop’ presents the best evidence for a diachronic development V:C > VCC, and the context is also amenable to a phonologization analysis which predicts this direction of change. First, the phonetic roots of the vowel shortening can be reconstructed. In most if not all languages, mid and low vowels are intrinsically longer than high vowels (Keating 1985: 118). Lehiste (1970) posits that lower vowels are longer because they require a greater articulatory movement (presumably from a neutral position), if movement velocity is comparable across vowels. Furthermore, Keating (1985: 120) notes that vowels are commonly (though not universally) shorter before voiceless obstruents than before voiced obstruents or sonorants, a short duration which is phonologized in some languages as pre-fortis clipping. Therefore, the phonologically long vowels which were phonetically shortest by nature (high vowels), in the environment where they were phonetically shorter still (before voiceless stops), were 12

}6.6.

The implications of /s/-loss for reconstructing the voice specifications of sonorants is discussed in

70

Inverse compensatory lengthening

interpreted by the listener as phonologically short, by phonologization of that short phonetic duration, relative to other vowels and in other contexts.13 Secondly, the concomitant lengthening of the consonant (at first glance good evidence for weight preservation) can be explained by the hypothesis, supported by several Latin phenomena, that closed-syllable vowels in Latin were longer than their open-syllable counterparts (Sen 2012b), contrary to near-universal expectations (Maddieson 1985), but as paralleled in Anatolian Turkish (Jannedy 1995; KopkallıYavuz 2003), and languages which have longer vowels before geminate than singleton consonants, e.g. Finnish (Lehtonen 1970), Japanese (Smith 1991; 1995; Han 1994; Campbell 1999; Kawahara 2006; Idemaru and Guion 2008), and Tehrani Persian (Hansen 2004). Aside from the littera-rule, there are four indications that this typologically uncommon pattern obtained in Latin. (29)

Latin phenomena which indicate that closed-syllable vowels were longer than open-syllable vowels in Latin (Sen 2012b) a. Archaic Latin vowel reduction (}4.2) More extreme reduction in open syllables than in closed syllables, due to the shorter duration of vowels in the former (and not e.g. secondary stress on closed syllables). b. ‘Classical’ compensatory lengthening *CVC > CV: 14 Not only the consonantal environment, but also the longer duration in closed syllables provided phonetically longer vowels, reanalysed as phonologically long after the loss of the consonant (see above). c. Closed-syllable vowel shortening *CV:CV > CVC15 The first vowel, phonologically long and in an open syllable, was reinterpreted as a phonetically long, but phonologically short vowel in a closed syllable, e.g. *a.ni.ma: .li > a.ni.mal ‘animal’.16 d. Degemination in ‘superheavy’ syllables (}3.3.1, (4)–(6)) The shortening of the consonant is preferred to ‘closed-syllable vowel shortening’, the more common pattern (Maddieson 1985), presumably because there was sufficient duration in closed syllables for a robust length contrast, e.g. *se: ppara: re > se: para: re ‘separate’.

13 Weiss (2010) notes that the restriction of a V:C > VCC development to high vowels is paralleled in Cologne German Velarization (Ségéral and Scheer 2001), where MHG V:T > VKK > VK (sni:den > ʃnig@). However, the change in place suggests that the phonetic roots of the phenomenon were different from those in Latin. 14 Kavitskaya (2002) does not discuss the role of syllable shape in her analysis of CVC CL. The usual vowel-duration pattern, with longer vowels in open syllables than closed ones, would in fact legislate against such a process, but the pattern we argue was found in Latin would support it. 15 This is the opposite of Kavitskaya’s ‘CVCV CL’, whereby CVCV > CV:C, precisely because of the opposite vowel-duration pattern. 16 This could also be analysed as two independent sound changes of apocope of final /i/ followed by the shortening of all vowels in final syllables closed by /r l t/ (Sen 2012b: 497–8).

Phonological analysis

71

Returning to the littera-rule, the short phonetic duration of high vowels before voiceless stops resulted not simply in their shortening (they were presumably far too short to be interepreted as phonologically long) but also in their reanalysis from long vowels in open syllables to short vowels in closed syllables—a structural context to which their longer-than-expected phonetic duration (recall the speaker intended phonologically long vowels) could be attributed. The only segment which could have been causing the closure was the following consonant, which was therefore interpreted by the listener as a geminate (coda + onset). Realizing the stop as long in production was achieved with minimal phonetic difficulty, since maintaining voiceless stops presented no aerodynamic problems. Voiced obstruent geminates were uncommon in Latin, and the aerodynamics of voicing can account for their crosslinguistic scarcity:17 voiced stops generally have a shorter period of closure than voiceless stops (see Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 96), as the active oral tract expansion manoeuvres, implemented to maintain the airflow across the glottis required for voicing, cannot be continued indefinitely or controlled tightly (see Hayes and Steriade 2004: 8 regarding the effects of this on phonological systems). No comparable difficulty exists in voiceless stops or voiced sonorants. This analysis suggests that the preservation of syllable weight need not have been a structural diachronic constraint in this phenomenon, as might initially be suspected. The compensatory lengthening occurred by the reanalysis of perceptual information from one synchronic structure to another, the only structural constraint on the listener’s interpretation being the binary long/short distinction in both consonants and vowels. Note in particular that this account specifically supports a diachronic development V:C > VCC and not vice versa, as there would be no motivation for a listener to disregard perceptual cues to an original geminate consonant. Note also that there are very few unambiguous vowel-lengthening processes in archaic to classical Latin, whereas there are a handful of shortening phenomena (Meiser 1998: 75–80), suggesting that there was a greater likelihood of long vowels being interpreted as short than vice versa. This, therefore, is our diachronic littera-rule, illustrated in Figure 3.3.18

17 Lloyd (1987: 85–6) reports that voiced stops in Latin were significantly less common than voiceless stops, and hence the lack of littera-rule forms with voiced stops could be due to chance. Weiss (2010) notes that cross-linguistically, voiceless stops are the most common geminate consonant type, as there are more diachronic pathways to them than other sorts of geminate (Blevins 2004: 179–80). 18 Weiss (2010) proffers an alternative, but still phonetically based, account of the V[+high]T[–voice] pattern. High vowels before voiceless stops were diphthongized, like the apparent first step in the Great Vowel Shift, followed by assimilation of the resulting glide, which was ‘hyper-peripheral’ before a voiceless stop (Moreton 2004), to that following stop, similar to gemination in LuGanda (Clements 1986). The analysis is plausible and predicts the correct direction of change, explaining the restriction of the process to the environment. However, our account further offers a motivation for why this inverse compensatory lengthening should have occurred in Latin, based on expected durations in different syllable structures and phonological contexts. For example, although a glide element results in gemination in LuGanda, it is also

72

Inverse compensatory lengthening Stage 1

Stage 2

(a) CV[+high].T[-voice] Speaker produces

V

Listener interprets

CV.C...

C

V

C

CVC.C...

(b) CV.C (other) Speaker produces Listener interprets

V

C

CV.C...

V

C

CV.C...

Figure 3.3 The littera-rule: diachronic inverse compensatory lengthening V: VT:, contrasting (a) occurrence with (b) non-occurrence

[+high]T[–voice]

>

3.6.2.2 /a/ + sonorant In contrast, the sequence /a/ + sonorant seems conducive to synchronic variation between V:C and VCC, without any predictable direction of change. Again, phonetic accounts present themselves for each consonant manner and the vowel height. We saw above that low vowels have the longest intrinsic duration (Keating 1985: 118), and vowels are phonetically longer before sonorants than before voiceless obstruents (p. 120). A phonologization of this phonetic length where a short vowel was original accounts for the instances where V:C arose from original VCC. As low /a/ and /a:/ were both relatively long phonetically, the difference between them was presumably a smaller proportion of their whole duration than the difference in other vowels, resulting in plausible confusability between long and short /a/, particularly if the following context presented few robust cues to the termination of the vowel. Note for example the very early Latin shortening of wordfinal /a:/, but no other vowel (Sihler 1995: 78–9).19 A following sonorant consonant, notably /m r/, crucially contributed to the segmentation difficulty. The following consonant was frequently the nasal /m/. Vowels preceding nasals in Latin nasalized, and nasalized vowels are phonetically longer than their oral counterparts: consider Lat. co: nsul, where the length derives from the nasalization of the vowel (}3.6.2). Therefore, the long transitional period of nasality in V:C could be interpreted as either /m/ or /a/ (=[a~]), resulting in synchronic variation between /amm/ and /a:m/. often the root of vowel lengthening in compensatory lengthening (de Chene and Anderson 1979; Kavitskaya 2002). Meiser (1998: 77, 132) prefers to explain the short final vowel of a-stem nominative singulars (e.g. terra ‘land’) as an inherited variant of /a:/ < *ah2 rather than a phonological development, precisely because no other vowel underwent such a shortening. 19

Phonological analysis

73

We can confidently reconstruct Latin /r/ to have been a tap or trill in classical times (Allen 1978: 33). In the articulation of a trill, vowel formants are detectable between each closure (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 218). Any delay in the first tap-like closure of a trill could have resulted in the vowel being interpreted as longer and the consonant shorter (perhaps even short tapped /r/ as opposed to a long trilled /rr/); conversely, an early first closure could have yielded a shorter vowel and longer consonant. These two possibilities predict synchronic variation between /arr/ and /a:r/. However, at an earlier period, rhotacism (*/VsV/ > *[VzV] > /VrV/ in the 5th/ 4th century bc; }4.2.2.1) suggests that Latin had an approximant /r/, perhaps not dissimilar to Eng. [ɹ]. The variation which motivated relatively early changes such as *gna: ra: re > narra: re and *ga: ri: re > garri: re plausibly arose in archaic Latin, and can be attributed to interpretation of the long, slow transitions between vowels and approximants as either the end portion of the vowel or the beginning of the consonant. The low vowel /a/ would, as stated above, have remained relatively long under either interpretation. /a/ + sonorant is therefore an environment where we would expect synchronic variation between V:C and VCC rather than a diachronic development. All the phonetic evidence indicates the presence of a transitional period between V and C which could have been interpreted as either vocalic or consonantal. Where one form fell out of use, we can hypothesize that the reasons were sociolinguistic rather than phonological, as suggested by Festus’ censure of the form parret for pa: ret (Fest. p. 233M). 3.6.2.3 Front vowel + /l/ Finally, a reductionist account for compensatory lengthening in front vowel + /l/ is also forthcoming. Where a high, front vowel precedes a clear, palatalized /l/ (see }}2.3.4 and 2.3.5), it is notoriously difficult acoustically to pinpoint the moment at which the vowel ends and the /l/ begins (see Olive et al. 1993: 207–15), inviting the reconstruction of synchronic variation between /V:l/ and /Vll/, e.g. fi: lius ~ fillius.20 The mid-front vowel was phonetically higher when long /e:/ than when short (see }1.3.5), plausibly resulting in a similar segmentation difficulty for the listener, e.g. *[ke̝ :la] ~ [kella]. Although a relatively dark /l/ might be expected in the sequence /la/ (see }2.3.2), note that initial-syllable long /e:/ would not have been coloured and therefore plausibly had a perseverative palatalizing effect on the start of the lateral. This palatal quality might not only have resulted in a VC segmentation difficulty, but furthermore could have been interpreted by the listener as cue for a geminate /ll/, clear by surface specification (}2.4): /ke:la/ produced as [ke̝ :lʲ͡ lᵘa] was reanalysed as /kella/. The hypocorrect reanalysis of coarticulatory palatalization as

20

Recall also that /l/ was the only consonant permitted in Latin V:C: sequences, and note that the preceding vowel was very often /i/, e.g. mi: lle ‘thousand’ (see }3.3.1), perhaps indicating a segmentation difficulty.

74

Inverse compensatory lengthening

phonologically specified (i.e. geminate /ll/) could only be in the V:C > VCC direction of change, given that the opposite hypercorrect development—the specified palatal quality of the geminate being attributed to the environment—only occurred when both preceded and followed by /i/: mi: lle but mi: lia (}2.3.5). This diachronic prediction matches the evidence: *ke: la > cella, and the suffixal replacement forms. 3.6.2.4 Functional load I argue above that constraints invoking synchronic structure beyond a long/short distinction are unnecessary in a diachronic analysis of the littera-rule, and a reductionist account based in phonetics, whose predictions match the data well, is sufficient. However, a functional approach might additionally consider the status of the prosodic V:C versus VCC contrast, predicting greater variation the lower its functional load; that is, speakers felt that the two were somehow prosodically equivalent. A handful of pairs of words in Latin illustrate the functional load of the prosodic contrast. (30)

Unambiguous examples of V:C : VCC contrast a: nus ‘ring; anus’ : annus ‘year’ ca: rus ‘dear’ : carrus ‘wagon’ (the latter was rare) ca: sus ‘fall’ : cassus ‘empty’ i: lex ‘holm-oak’ : illex ‘enticer’ i: mo: ‘lowest (dat./abl.)’ : immo: ‘on the contrary’ mi: si: ‘I sent’ : missi: ‘sent (nom. pl.)’ mu: lus ‘mule’ : mullus ‘red mullet’ (mu: lus is also attested with the meaning ‘mullet’, suggesting confusion between the two) mu: to: ‘I change’ : mutto: ‘penis’ (see Appendix) pa: lor ‘I stray’ : pallor ‘paleness’ ve: lo: ‘I cover’ : vello: ‘I pluck’

(31)

Ambiguous examples of V:C : VCC contrast (see Appendix) ba: ca ‘berry’ : bacca ‘wine(?)’ Ci: pus ‘Cipus (a legendary Roman praetor)’ : cippus ‘post, stone’ cu: pa ‘barrel’ : cuppa ‘goblet’ Da: ma ‘Dama (a common male slave’s name)’ : damma ‘deer’ mante: lum ‘hand-towel’ : mantellum ‘cloak’(the latter is late and rare) pa: nus ‘spool, tumour, abscess’ : pannus ‘piece of cloth’ (pa: nus is late and probably a borrowing from Gk. *pâ: nos, cf. Attic pê: nos, pe: níon ‘thread, spool’) va: ro: ‘bent (dat./abl.)’ : Varro: ‘Varro (a name)’

Although it is difficult to ascertain how many pairs would constitute a normal functional load, it seems clear that the prosodic contrast between V:C and VCC was used in some relatively common words. It is therefore difficult to claim that low functional load was a motivation for the littera-rule, and the phonetically based

Conclusions

75

motivations identified above remain the most robustly supported. Functional explanation based in frequency might be more fruitful in explaining the suffixal replacement forms, where the less common diminutive suffix -e: la was occasionally replaced by the more frequent -ella.

3.7 Conclusions on inverse compensatory lengthening The analysis of the hitherto elusive littera-rule presented in this chapter has implications for both Latin phonology and theories of sound change more generally. Although we found relatively few forms to corroborate a regular diachronic V:C > VCC, the words in which it occurred form a phonologically coherent group ‘high vowel + voiceless stop’, a context where the possibility of a listener-oriented diachronic change might be predicted based on phonetic information, combined with a basic structural constraint of a long/short distinction in vowels and consonants. The resulting data give the appearance of a minor sound change, which was brought to a halt before diffusing across all lexical items, rather than occurring in all words simultaneously. There is a little more evidence to suggest that there was synchronic variation between V:C and VCC, although the phenomenon was again phonologically constrained, in this instance to sequences of ‘/a/ + sonorant consonant’. Again, ambiguous phonetic cues to phonological structure explain why the phenomenon might occur here, and furthermore resulted in variation rather than unidirectional change. This prediction is borne out by the evidence, as the earlier of the varying forms could be either V:C or VCC. A third group, ‘front vowel + /l/’, was also identified, and again a phonetically based account was forthcoming; both the data and the predictions of the account indicate that a V:C > VCC direction of change was more likely here. The diachronic change and synchronic variation occurred from the 4th century bc, towards the end of the initial-stress period, at least until early imperial times, possibly ceasing in the 2nd century ad. The changing forms appear to have been more sensitive to stress than those that were only varying. The retention of unchanged words and the presence of major and minor variants fit a lexical diffusion model where lexical items are affected one at a time. A key consequence of the establishment of phonological and chronological constraints on the phenomenon is that we should treat appeals to the littera-rule in Latin with caution, notably if the claims do not coincide with the sequences identified in this study. Rix’s (1998) reconstruction of the future perfect marker *-a: s- > Lat. -ass- is difficult to retain, not least because the posited development occurred significantly earlier than our earliest examples of the littera-rule, but also because the sequence /a:s/ does not appear to have partaken in the diachronic development. As Rix’s

76

Inverse compensatory lengthening

appeal to the littera-rule is invalid in this instance, other accounts of the origin of the future perfect should be preferred (e.g. de Melo 2007). The littera-rule at first sight presents promising evidence in favour of synchronic structural constraint on diachronic change: the consonant lengthened in compensation for the shortening of the vowel to retain a mora and maintain syllable weight, thus preserving synchronic structure. However, on further investigation, a reductionist account based on the reanalysis of phonetic cues is not only forthcoming but makes more precise predictions regarding consonant and vowel quality, and the likelihood of a direction of change. We therefore have little motivation to include structural constraints involving moraic preservation in our model of diachronic phonology, although two elements of synchronic structure are involved in the reanalysis. Firstly, the listener has pre-existing expectations of vowel duration in open and closed syllables. However, although this motivates the change, it does not constrain it, as there is no reconstructible pressure to maintain syllable shape or weight, but rather simply to assign a phonological structure to the phonetic input: the structure is either a short vowel in a closed syllable or a long vowel in an open syllable. Secondly, the listener reanalyses the perceived segments as long or short; in contrast to the above, this appears to be a constraint on the diachronic change, referring to available contrasts in the language. However, Kavitskaya (2002: 23–7) presents evidence from Komi Ižma, Dinka, Ngajan, and Piro indicating that a preexisting contrast in neither vowel length nor syllable weight is a prerequisite for compensatory lengthening, but acknowledges that such structure preservation is a strong tendency, suggesting that basic elements of synchronic structure such as a long/short distinction may not be necessary elements of diachronic change, but could nevertheless exert an influence. Blevins (2004: 154) labels such influences ‘structural analogy’. The model of diachronic explanation we might develop is therefore akin to that found in our investigation of clear and dark /l/ in Chapter 2, with a crucial extension. We concluded that synchronic structure conditioned categorical variants (clear, dark, and underspecified /l/), which subsequently resulted in phonetically based, listener-oriented diachronic change (vowel colouring), where structural pressures beyond pre-existing vowel categories did not play a role. Inverse compensatory lengthening requires elements analogous to the above, with the further requirement that the listener has an expectation to perceive certain vowel durations in open and closed syllables, a consideration referring to syllable structure rather than simply segmental quality or length. Therefore, sound changes as disparate as conditioned vowel-quality developments and inverse compensatory lengthening, both involving categorical reanalysis, can be analysed as listener-oriented processes where synchronic phonological structure might motivate, but not necessarily constrain, the phenomenon. The elements of synchronic structure and diachronic explanation are therefore as below.

Conclusions (32)

77

The Speaker: Synchronic structure conditioning phonetic output a. Clear and dark /l/ Syllabic affiliation of segment and assignment of surface feature: onset underspecified, coda dark, geminate (doubly linked) clear b. Littera-rule Syllable shape: open versus closed Consonant and vowel length: long versus short

(33)

The Listener: Motivation for reanalysis based on speaker’s production a. Clear and dark /l/ Perception of non-intended vowel quality due to phonetic cues resulting from tongue back retraction, acoustically colouring preceding vowel b. Littera-rule Perception of non-intended vowel and consonant length due to phonetic cues resulting from juxtaposed vowels and consonants creating ambiguous durations with regard to phonological length and syllable shape

(34)

The Listener: Synchronic structural constraints on change, plausibly employed, but not absolutely required a. Clear and dark /l/ Vowel quality categories b. Littera-rule Long versus short vowel and consonant categories

The analysis presented in this chapter extends Kavitskaya’s (2002) reductionist account of compensatory lengthening, not only by demonstrating that it can apply to inverse compensatory lengthening, a variety not considered in her study, but also by showing how combining aspects of the explanations she presents for CVC CL and CVCV CL—the effects on duration of segmental quality in the former and of syllable shape in the latter—can yield further predictions, which are borne out in the data. Furthermore, this study considers how the recognition of typologically unusual phonetic implementations of phonological structure—Latin vowels were longer in closed syllables than in open ones—can predict ‘natural’ patterns grounded in phonetics (Blevins 2008), which might at first appear ‘unnatural’, such as inverse compensatory lengthening, or greater vowel reduction in open syllables (Sen 2012b). Blevins (2004: 192–3) cites as possible reasons for uncommon sound patterns ‘analogical change, rule inversion, rule telescoping, or accidental convergence on a particular surface regularity’; consistent with the spirit of Blevins’ Evolutionary Phonology, ‘phonetic implementation contrary to the norm’ might be added to these origins. If, for example, a language happened to mark phonological stress by decreased rather than increased intensity, a reductionist theory would unproblematically make a set of predictions contrary to those

78

Inverse compensatory lengthening

usually found for stressed syllables.21 A structure-based model of change dealing only in abstract, universal (but variously ranked) phonological constraints, such as constraints on vowel length in open and closed syllables, would be incapable of predicting patterns resulting from phonetic patterns contrary to the norm, without duplicating the phonetic reasons at the root of the issue (arbitrarily so in the absence of synchronic alternations). As demonstrated in the investigations in Chapters 2 and 3, not only can the understanding of recalcitrant phonological phenomena in Latin be fruitfully advanced by consideration of the phonological implications of their reconstructed phonetics, but the phenomena in turn can provide data to support predictions of debated phonological theories, both synchronic (e.g. equipollent features) and diachronic (e.g. reductionist explanation in uncommon sound changes).

21 Real languages where stress is marked by decreased rather than increased pitch, such as Welsh (Hannahs 2013: 42) and Chamorro (Chung 1983: 38), might yield interesting predictions.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

4 Syllabification Vowel reduction before TR 4.1 Introduction The previous chapters demonstrate how syllable structure conditioned synchronic surface variants in Latin—through categorical feature specification of /l/ and resultant vowel colouring, and gradient vowel duration in open and closed syllables— which consequently provided the tokens for phonological change through reanalysis. The principles of syllabification are therefore a necessary consideration; diachronic change might tell us where an /l/ appears to have been clear or dark, allowing us to infer its position within the syllable, but a complete account would explain when the lateral would have been in the onset and when in the coda. On the whole, Latin syllabification is uncomplicated (see Marotta 1999; Lehmann 2005). Internal single consonants were onsets, and falling- or flat-sonority consonant clusters (e.g. stop, nasal, /s/ + stop) were divided into coda + onset. This chapter investigates the syllabification of the rising-sonority cluster ‘stop (T) + liquid (R)’ in archaic Latin (7th–3rd centuries bc), focusing on how its syllabification—heterosyllabic coda + onset or tautosyllabic complex onset—conditioned surface variants of the preceding vowel that resulted in diachronic vowel reduction. A problem resides in the conflicting evidence for the syllabification of TR afforded by vowel reduction, since the preceding vowel sometimes behaved as if in an open syllable, raising to /i/ (tonitrus ‘thunder’), and sometimes as if in a closed one, raising to or retaining /e/ (genetri: x ‘mother’). We find that there are two relevant conditioning factors: the morphological structure of the word (alignment of morphological and phonological boundaries), and the quality of both preceding VC and following TR (‘r-conditioning’). Transparently morpheme-initial TR was tautosyllabic, and all other structures heterosyllabic, but the open-syllable vowel before tautosyllabic TR was subject to r-conditioning in specific environments, resulting in a vowel that (confusingly for our purposes) resembled the closed-syllable reflex. The analysis sheds light on the role of another element of synchronic structure on sound change: the alignment of phonological and synchronically transparent (not

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

80

Syllabification

opaque) morphological boundaries. We see that in this instance morphology plays a role one step removed from diachronic change, as morphology conditions synchronic phonological structure, which in turn conditions variants leading to change. Again, synchronic structure does not appear to guide or constrain sound change directly, merely providing the vowel tokens which might be reanalysed.

4.2 Archaic Latin vowel reduction Vowel reduction (or ‘weakening/raising’) in early archaic Latin is manifested by the raising of short vowels, leading to the total neutralization of contrasts in internal open syllables, and a lesser degree of raising and neutralization in closed syllables.1 For example, securely reconstructed *kekadai > cecidi: ‘I fell’ (cf. cado: ‘I fall’) in an open syllable, but *perfaktos > perfectus ‘completed’ in a closed one. Vowel reduction in internal syllables in Latin can be reconstructed to around the 6th–5th centuries bc, based on inscriptional evidence, supported by similar trends in Etruscan and syncope in the Sabellian languages (e.g. Oscan and Umbrian) allowing us to form a picture of areal phonological traits (Meiser 1998: 66), and clear indications of stress on initialsyllables, which show little or no modification, in contrast with reduction in all noninitial syllables. This archaic stress pattern persisted until the 4th century bc (Meiser 1998: 53), when it was replaced by the familiar Penultimate Law found in classical Latin. Most evidence for unreduced forms comes from secure etymologies, based on comparative Indo-European evidence, and morphologically related forms where the vowel is in the initial, stressed syllable, thus cado: ‘I fall’ versus cecidi: ‘I fell’, and factus ‘made’ versus perfectus ‘completed’. The earliest inscriptions show unreduced vowels (e.g. numasioi for classical Numerio: ‘for Numerius’ in CIL12.2, the ‘Fibula Praenestina’; see }4.2.2), whereas reduced internal vowels are very settled by early Latin (3rd–1st centuries bc), to judge from inscriptions and the reconstructed autographs of literary texts (e.g. Plautus’ comedies) dating from that period. Vowel reduction affected only short vowels and the first element of diphthongs; long vowels were immune.2 The phenomenon was sensitive to syllable structure (}4.2.1) and surrounding segments, in particular the post-vocalic consonant (}4.2.2). Consequently, archaic Latin vowel reduction has proved one of the most enlightening processes in reconstructing the phonology of Latin, affording us evidence for stress placement, syllabification, consonantal allophony (clear and dark /l/), and

1 This investigation focuses upon internal (i.e. non-initial, non-final) syllables in Latin, setting aside the complications of the final-syllable effects, as they are not relevant for understanding the syllabification of TR. 2 This observation suggests that diphthongs were vowel + consonant sequences in archaic Latin, a position espoused by Cser (2001), and accepted here.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

Archaic Latin vowel reduction

81

other VC coarticulatory effects. Perhaps the most startling inference from the reduction pattern is that vowels in closed syllables in archaic Latin appear to have been of longer duration than their open-syllable counterparts, contrary to nearuniversal expectations (see Sen 2012b for detailed motivation for this conclusion). Some of the far-reaching implications of this are discussed in }3.6.2.1. 4.2.1 Unconditioned developments The neutralized vowel resulting from reduction in Latin was as high as the consonantal environment permitted: thus in the absence of interfering phonetic conditions or analogical pressures, all vowel contrasts in internal open syllables were neutralized to /i/ (Meiser 1998: 67; Weiss 2009: 116). (1)

Open-syllable vowel reduction /i/: *aditus > aditus ‘way’ /e/: *e: legese > e: ligere ‘choose’ /a/: *kekadai > cecidi: ‘I fell’ /o/: *kupidota: ts > cupidita: s ‘desire’ /u/: *kaputes > capitis ‘head (gen.)’

In closed syllables, the reduction of short vowels was much constrained (Meiser 1998: 70; Weiss 2009: 117). Essentially, a back/front distinction remained, but the three vowel heights (high /i u/–mid /e o/–low /a/) were reduced to two by the neutralization of /a/ and /e/. As high vowels remained distinct, the vocalic contrasts in closed syllables were back versus front and high versus non-high, yielding an inventory of /i u e o/. In the back series (/o u/) the two height levels were later conflated, in the 3rd century bc (Weiss 2009: 121, 140), merging as the high /u/.3 (2)

Closed-syllable vowel reduction /i/: *praidiktos > praedictus ‘foretold’ /e/: *komspektus > co: nspectus ‘view’ /a/: *perfaktos > perfectus ‘completed’ /o/: *ejontes> euntis ‘going (gen.)’ /u/: *adduktos > adductus ‘led on’

4.2.2 Some conditioned developments In certain environments, short-vowel distinctions were totally neutralized, but the neutral vowel was not /i/. The following consonant in particular often had a conditioning effect, presumably by the phonologization of coarticulatory effects. Again,

3 The 3rd-c. raising of /o/ to /u/ accounts also for the vowels in the final syllables of praedictus, perfectus and adductus. The /u/ of the noun co:nspectus was original.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

82

Syllabification

syllable structure appears to have played a role, as some such total neutralizations occurred in both open and closed syllables, but others occurred only in open ones. 4.2.2.1 R-conditioning: before /r/ Before /r/, all short vowels in internal open syllables were neutralized as /e/ (Meiser 1998: 68; Weiss 2009: 117). ‘R-conditioning’ also occurred before the rhotic that came about through intervocalic rhotacism *VsV > VrV (Meiser 1998: 95; Weiss 2009: 150–52).4 (3)

R-conditioning /i/: *kinises > *kinires > cineris ‘ashes (gen.)’ /e/: *adgesese > aggerere ‘sow’ /a/: *peparai > peperi: ‘I brought forth’ /o/: *-foros > *-feros > -fer, e.g. fru: gifer ‘fruit-bearing’ /u/: *swekuros > socer ‘father-in-law’ (cf. Gk. hekurós ‘step-father’)

This conditioned development was in open syllables only, before onset /r/, not coda. As closed-syllable reduction also resulted in /e/ from original /a/, the evidence against r-conditioning in closed syllables comes from original /i o u/ + /r/ sequences. Examples come mainly from the adaptation of early loanwords. (4)

No r-conditioning in closed syllables Gk. amórga: à Lat. amurca, ‘olive-juice’,5 not {amerca Gk. kót=ornos à Lat. cothurnus ‘high boot’ *amp=orla: > ampulla ‘bottle’ (diminutive) *komfirma: se > co: nfirma: re ‘confirm’

We shall find that a constrained r-conditioning, sensitive to the preceding context, also occurred where /r/ was in second position in a TR onset, e.g. genetri: x ‘mother’. See }4.3.1 for discussion of the phonetic basis of r-conditioning.

4 Parker (1988) argues that r-conditioning did not occur in archaic reduction, but was the result of later r-lowering after regular open-syllable reduction. However, inscriptional evidence for the claim is dubious, involving two (falsely) archaizing inscriptions with other phonological peculiarities. Even placing rhotacism before r-conditioning is unproblematic for attributing r-conditioning to reduction. Cicero (Fam. 9.21.2) equips us with a terminus ante quem for rhotacism of the early 4th c. by relating that Papirius Crassus (dictator 340 bc) was the first to spell his name with an hri and not hpapisivsi. This suggests that the pronunciation was already well established by the mid-4th c. Furthermore, Pomponius (dig. 1.2.2.36) states that Appius Claudius (censor 312 bc) first used the letter hri to spell the names of the Valerii and the Furii, old family names. These indications suggest that rhotacism occurred in the 5th/4th c. bc, placing it within the time-frame of reduction. Separate waves of syncope (Sen 2012a) occurred before (*posinere > *posnere > po: nere ‘put’) and after rhotacism (*jousagiom > *jouragiom > iu:rgium ‘quarrel’). The awareness of unrhotacized forms in classical Latin (e.g. Var. L. 7.27; Paul. Fest. 76) can be attributed to their prestige in a religious or formal register (Festus states that the ancients called their religious public holidays fe:siae and not fe:riae), and support from morphologically related words: gero: ‘I bear’ ~ gestus ‘carried (perf. part.)’, genus ‘birth; kind’ ~ generis (gen.), and iu: s ‘law’ ~ iu:ris (gen.) ~ iu:stus ‘just’. 5 Even if Latin borrowed the word via Etruscan, as the devoicing of the stop suggests, the conditioned reduction in Latin should still have yielded /e/ if operative in closed syllables.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

Archaic Latin vowel reduction

83

4.2.2.2 Labial conditioning: before labial C Before a labial consonant (/p b f m w/), the open-syllable vowel was sometimes written consistently as hii (e.g. *adkapio: > accipio: ‘I receive’), sometimes consistently as hui (e.g. *de: pawi: se > de: puvi: re ‘beat thoroughly’),6 and occasionally showed variation between hii and hui (Leumann 1977: 87–90; Meiser 1998: 68; Weiss 2009: 118).7 (5)

Labial conditioning /i/: *pontifaks > pontifex/pontvfex (cil 12.1488) ‘high priest’ /e/: *opitemos > optimus/optumus ‘best’ /a/: *subrapese > surripere/surrupere ‘steal’ /o/: *awrofaks > aurifex/aurufex ‘goldsmith’ /u/: *obstupe: scese > obstipe: scere/obstupe: scere ‘be stupefied’

The reduced vowel was therefore plausibly realized sometimes as more front and/or unrounded and sometimes more back and/or rounded (possibly depending on the environment, e.g. the /i/ in the third syllable of accipio: had a fronting effect on the vowel of the second syllable, versus morphologically related occupo: ‘I occupy’), but otherwise as a high, slightly labialized vowel, plausibly similar to central rounded [ʉ] or lax front rounded [ʏ] (see Allen 1978: 59). The vast majority of examples of this treatment are found in open syllables. Leumann (1977: 87–8) identifies labial colouring as an open-syllable development, but proceeds to acknowledge that in closed syllables before a labial consonant, there is some variation between /u/ and the unconditioned /e/, the former presumably the result of earlier */o/ after the 3rd-century raising. (6)

Possible labial conditioning in closed syllables *komdamno: > co: ndemno: /co: ndumno: (e.g. CIL 12.582) ‘I condemn’ *subraptos > surreptus/surruptus ‘stolen’ Gk. t=ríambos à Lat. triump(h)us ‘triumphal procession’

However, there are few examples of such an effect in closed syllables, and these are in the extreme minority beside forms with /e/. This is certainly the case for co: ndumno: . There is better evidence for surruptus, amply attested in Plautus, but this participial form could have been built analogically upon present tense surrupio: seen in (5) above, in which the vowel was in an open syllable, or perfect tense surrupui: , with back, rounded vowels in both preceding and following syllables. Such an explanation is impossible for triumphus, in the absence of a synchronic closed/open syllable alternation. The vowel must either have arisen as a result of straightforward labial

6

Before /w/, the vowel was consistently realized as /u/. Leumann (1977: 87) notes that there are archaic spellings with hei and hoi in this environment, suggesting that reduction was a gradual process. 7

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

84

Syllabification

colouring in closed syllables, or occurred in Etruscan during the borrowing process from Greek, an intermediate stage betrayed by the devoicing of /b/ to /p/.8 In conclusion, labial colouring is much more likely to indicate the presence of an open syllable than a closed one, permitting us to infer tautosyllabic TR in forms such as manubrium ‘handle’. 4.2.2.3 L-conditioning: before dark /l/ A third colouring effect in vowel reduction, where the vowel was followed by a dark /l/, was discussed in detail in Chapter 2. Dark /l/ was found consistently in coda position (*ensalsos > i: nsulsus ‘unsalted; dull’), and onset /l/ was contextually darkened correlating with the backness of the following vowel (*konsel- > consolvervnt (CIL 12.581.1) > co: nsulue: runt ‘they took counsel’). Conditioning in both open and closed syllables sets it apart from the two other contexts above: the solely open-syllable r-conditioning, and the predominantly opensyllable labial conditioning. Recall that the effect is even seen in initial syllables, which would have been stressed in archaic Latin (*welo: > volo: ‘I want’). Dark /l/ therefore exerted a strong conditioning influence on preceding vowels. However, there is little evidence to indicate that l-conditioning occurred before TR across an intervening consonant, unlike r-conditioning, presumably because any anticipatory tongue retraction predominantly coincided with the immediately preceding consonant, either masking (labials) or blending (dorsals) the beginning of the gesture. Recall that the grammarian Pliny the Elder (reported by Priscian G.L. 2.29) states that ple: nus ‘full’ dark /l/ occurred in syllable-final position only, with exi: lis ‘thin’ clear geminate /ll/, and medius ‘middle; ambiguous’ contextually darkened /l/ elsewhere. Curiously, Pliny also reports ple: nus /l/ in complex onsets such as /fl/, but unlike syllable-final and simple-onset /l/, there is no phonological evidence such as vowel colouring to support this claim. On the contrary, Italian evidence seems to indicate that in late Latin, the lateral in Tl was clear and palatalized, given its development to palatal /j/ in Lat. pla: num ‘flat, level’, cla: rum ‘clear, bright’ > It. piano, chiaro, inviting us to hypothesize specified clear /l/ in complex Tl onsets at that late stage. However, the quality of epenthesized vowels in archaic and early Latin (Chapter 5) suggests that /l/ in Tl behaved exactly like medius simple onset /l/, contextually darkening before most vowels, but not before /i/, thus cubiclum > cubiculum ‘bedroom’, but *terriblis > terribilis ‘terrible’. We can therefore conclude that the lateral in Tl onsets was underspecified for [back], just as in simple onset /l/, and that the effects of any contextually conditioned anticipatory retraction, less extreme than in coda /l/ (}2.4, Figure 2.3), were masked by the immediately preceding consonant, resulting in unconditioned open-syllable reduction in the preceding vowel.

8

The aspiration of /p/ was a classical Latin innovation (DELL 703).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

Archaic Latin vowel reduction

85

4.2.2.4 V-to-V conditioning There is clear, albeit limited evidence for non-local, progressive vowel assimilation where the second-syllable vowel came to match the vowel of the stressed initial syllable, disobeying the regular rules of vowel reduction (Sommer and Pfister 1977: 89; Leumann 1977: 100; Weiss 2009: 118–19). As the phenomenon occurred between prehistory and attested Latin, since we must reconstruct the non-assimilated forms, it is reasonable to deduce that the conditioning occurred during archaic Latin vowel reduction, when vowel qualities were undergoing changes based on their phonological contexts. It is also clear that vowel assimilation continued to occur into imperial times, as seen in tonotru in the Appendix Probi for classical tonitrus ‘thunder’ (see }4.4.2). (7)

V-to-V conditioning a. Expected unconditioned open-syllable reduction alacer ‘quick’ (but see }4.4.9) anas, -atis ‘duck’ (cf. nom. pl. anite: s at Pl. Capt. 1003) geneti: vus ‘genitive’ hebes, -etis ‘blunt’ seges, -etis ‘field of corn’ sepeli: re ‘bury’ (cf. sepultus) vegetus ‘vigorous’ b. Expected r-conditioning barbarus ‘foreign’ (Greek loan bárbaros) Caesar, -aris ‘Caesar’ (= /kajsar/ in archaic Latin) camara ~ camera (variation) ‘arched roof ’ (Greek loan kamára) farfarus ‘coltsfoot’ fulgur, -uris ‘lightning’ c. Expected labial conditioning alapa ‘smack’ calamita: s ‘disaster’ cannabis ‘hemp’ (Greek loan kánnabis)

V-to-V conditioning was irregular and unpredictable, although the forms provide broad indications of when it might occur: (i) the vowel was almost always /a/ or /e/; (ii) there was usually only one consonant separating the vowels, but if two, the first was a liquid; (iii) the consonant was usually /l/ or a nasal, but if an obstruent was involved, it was either labial or dorsal, not coronal /t d/; and (iv), of greatest relevance for our investigation, the conditioned vowel was in an open syllable.9 Perseverative

9 Leumann (1977: 100) cites vi:ginti: ‘twenty’ and tri: ginta: ‘thirty’, which could be counterexamples where vowel assimilation occurred in a closed syllable (for {vi:centi: and {tri:centa:), but this pattern does

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

86

Syllabification

V-to-V conditioning is therefore likely to indicate the presence of an open syllable at the time of vowel reduction. 4.2.3 Summary Long vowels were immune to reduction. Short vowels in internal open syllables underwent ‘extreme reduction’ to /i/ (Figure 4.1), except in certain conditioning environments in which the quality of the vowel was entirely predictable from its environment (Figure 4.2), or came to match the vowel of the stressed initial syllable. Therefore, raising resulted in the neutralization of phonological contrasts in internal open syllables with short vowels.

/i/: aditus > aditus ‘way’ /e/: elegese > eligere ‘choose’ /a/: kekadai > cecidi ‘I fell’

u

i e

o

/u/: kaputes > capitis ‘head (gen.)’ /o/: kupidotats > cupiditas ‘desire’

a

Figure 4.1 Unconditioned open-syllable vowel reduction to /i/

Before /r/: All vowels neutralized as /e/ i

u

e

o

a

Before labial C (/p b f m/): A high, labialized vowel written 〈i〉 or 〈u〉 i

u

y

e

o

Before dark /l/ : /o/ or /u/ i

u

o

e

a

a

Figure 4.2 Conditioned open-syllable vowel reduction

not appear to have extended beyond this closed class of words, which also show other phonological peculiarities.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

Archaic Latin vowel reduction

praidiktos > praedictus

i

u

‘foretold’

e

o

perfaktos > perfectus ‘completed’

a

87

oqvoltod = occolto ‘in secret’ (CIL 12.581.15; 186 bc) Later merger as /u/: occulto, ejontes > euntis ‘going (gen.)’

Figure 4.3 Closed-syllable vowel reduction

In internal closed syllables, the reduction of short vowels was much constrained (Figure 4.3). High and mid vowels remained distinct, but the change */a/ > /e/ neutralized the contrast between low and mid-front vowels. In the back series, /o/ and /u/ remained unchanged at an early stage, merging later as the high /u/ in the 3rd century bc. Coda dark /l/ consistently resulted in preceding /u/. 4.2.4 The problem: conflicting evidence for the syllabification of TR Evidence from vowel reduction reliably informs us how a consonantal sequence was syllabified in archaic Latin, an era preceding the availability of more secure evidence for syllabification from verse metrics, first found in early Latin. Reduction is particularly useful in establishing the word-internal syllabifications of sequences that could appear word-initially. For example, closed-syllable reduction allows us to reconstruct heterosyllabicity of internal /s/ + consonant sequences, thus *enkastos > incestus ‘unholy’ (cf. sta: re ‘stand’), which is corroborated by later verse metrics and stress placement. The standard account of archaic TR, based on seemingly straightforward evidence, posits that the sequence placed the preceding vowel in a closed syllable, and was therefore heterosyllabic like all other consonantal sequences (Lindsay 1894: 191–2; Allen 1973: 138; Maniet 1975: 30; Sommer and Pfister 1977: 84, 90; Leumann 1977: 83; Sihler 1995: 77, 240; Meiser 1998: 70; and Weiss 2009: 69, who acknowledges conflicting evidence). (8)

Evidence for closed-syllable reduction before TR *entagrom > integrum ‘whole (acc.)’ (cf. Umb. antakres without reduction) *genatri: ks > genetri: x ‘mother’ (cf. open-syllable genitor ‘father’) *temasra: i > tenebrae ‘darkness’

However, there are numerous difficulties with this account. First, whereas stop + /r/ sequences (Tr) offer several examples of closed-syllable reduction, stop + /l/ sequences (Tl) seem to show only open-syllable reflexes (e.g. /i/).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

88 (9)

Syllabification Evidence of open-syllable reduction before Tl *kubeklom10 > cubiclum (> classical cubiculum)11 ‘bedroom’ *pro: stablom > *pro: stiblum (> classical pro: stibulum) ‘prostitute’

Secondly, we also find some Tr forms which apparently show unconditioned opensyllable reflexes. (10)

Evidence for unconditioned open-syllable reduction before Tr calcitra: re ‘kick’; lu: dicra ‘about sport/the stage (fem. adj.)’; pullitra ‘young chicken’; reciprocus ‘moving backwards and forwards’; ta: litrum ‘hit with the knuckle’; tonitrus ‘thunder’, etc.

Thirdly, some Tr forms appear to show conditioned open-syllable reflexes. (11)

Evidence for conditioned open-syllable reduction before Tr a. Labial conditioning: manubrium/manibrium ‘handle’ b. V-to-V conditioning: alacris ‘quick’, possibly genetri: x ‘mother’

There are therefore difficulties to be resolved if we are to maintain that TR was heterosyllabic in archaic Latin.12

4.3 Proposed explanations of reduction before TR Two main explanations for the conflicting evidence have been put forward. Bernardi Perini (1974: 56–70) posits that TR was tautosyllabic, and that /e/ before TR was due to open-syllable r-conditioning (}4.2.2.1), which could occur across an intervening stop. Hoenigswald (1992: 83) argues that TR was tautosyllabic when morphemeinitial, resulting in open-syllable reduction, but heterosyllabic when heteromorphemic, yielding closed-syllable reflexes. Neither account successfully explains all the evidence above—r-conditioning could not explain (10) or (11), whereas morphemesyllable alignment would face difficulties with some forms in (8)—but both have considerable merit. Furthermore, as the two accounts are compatible, we posit that a hybrid analysis, incorporating reconstructions of synchronically perceived

The morphological composition of the forms will be discussed in }4.4. The regular insertion of an epenthetic vowel in some stop + /l/ sequences in early Latin will be investigated in Ch. 5. However, it is important to note here that this phenomenon dates from later than vowel reduction, to judge from the appearance of both epenthesized and non-epenthesized forms in early Latin poetry, some centuries after the action of vowel reduction. 12 A final difficulty with the standard account might be that our earliest metrical evidence for Latin prosody—the works of the early playwrights—indicates that TR sequences were universally tautosyllabic, except at prefix + root boundaries (}4.3.2). The syllabification must therefore have changed between the time of vowel reduction in the 6th–5th c. bc, and the second half of the 3rd c. bc. See Weiss (2009: 67–70) for an overview of the arguments and evidence, and a clear statement of the chronological fluctuation in TR syllabification. 10 11

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

Proposed explanations of reduction before TR

89

morpheme boundaries, and a newly formulated vowel-conditioning context involving both r- and V-to-V conditioning (}4.2.2.4), will yield the greatest success. 4.3.1 R-conditioning before Tr The position expounded by Bernardi Perini (1974: 56–70) is based upon the observation by Juret (1921: 94; 1938: 77) that */a e i/ became /e/ not only immediately before /r/ (}4.2.2.1), but also before the syllable-initial groups /pr br kr gr tr/. If, therefore, the quality of the vowel preceding Tr was conditioned by the /r/ in the sequence and not by a closed syllable, the divergence in quality of the vowel preceding Tr and Tl (} 4.2.4) could be explained: the syllable preceding TR would be open in both cases, but would result in the unconditioned development to /i/ before Tl, and r-conditioned /e/ before Tr. Thus, im.pe.tra: re ‘obtain by request’ developed in the same way as im.pe. ra: re ‘order’. Bernardi Perini posits a greater degree of coarticulation of stop + /r/ than stop + /l/, with the earlier articulatory preparation for /r/ resulting in conditioning of the preceding vowel, much in the same way as /l/ conditioned an immediately preceding vowel (}2.4, Figure 2.3). Open-syllable r-conditioning is a potential explanation for any form with /e/ before TR, but faces difficulties with any other preceding vowel. The counterexamples fall into the following, mainly morphological groups. (12)

Counterexamples to r-conditioning before TR a. /i/ before -trum (ta: litrum ‘flick’) b. /i u/ before -crum (lu: dicra ‘connected with sport/the stage’, molucrum ‘millstone brush’) c. /a u/ before -cris (alacris ‘quick’, volucris ‘flying’) d. /i u/ before -brium (lu: dibrium ‘toy’, manubrium ‘handle’) e. Apparent closed-syllable retention of a back vowel (lu: gubris ‘mournful’, lu: cubra: re ‘work by night’)

I argue in }4.5 that we can isolate environmental constraints on r-conditioning across an intervening stop in TR onsets, which were not present before simple onset /r/, explaining some of the counterexamples. Here, we evaluate and reject Bernardi Perini’s approach to them, based on the relative chronology of sound changes. The failure of r-conditioning in several of the counterexamples in (12) could be explained by hypothesizing that the dissimilation of laterals occurred after r-conditioning, and therefore the liquid in the suffixes was */l/ not /r/ at the time of reduction. Non-local, progressive lateral dissimilation */l . . . l/ > /l . . . r/ (Leumann 1977: 231) occurred in the PIE suffixes *-tlo-m/-a: , *-tli-s after roots containing /l/. These initially developed to *-klom/-kla, *-klis by the very early (possibly Proto-Italic) change */tl/ > /kl/ (}4.4.4), and thence via lateral dissimilation to -crum/-cra, -cris (}}4.4.5, 4.4.9). Without exception, every form in -crum has /l/ in the stem, usually at

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

90

Syllabification

the start of the pre-suffixal syllable (e.g. ambula: crum ‘promenade’), once at the end (sepulcrum ‘tomb’), and twice at the start of the word, two syllables before the suffix (lava: crum ‘bath’ and lu: dicrum ‘connected with sport/the stage (adj. acc.)’, the latter being our example of failed r-conditioning). Lateral dissimilation therefore has a very early terminus post quem, after */tl/ > /kl/, and a terminus ante quem of late archaic/ early Latin vocalic epenthesis /kl/ > /kVl/ (see Chapter 5), as dissimilation of */kl/ to /kr/ must have occurred prior to, and instead of, epenthesis to /kVl/. This very broad chronological window renders feasible the position that the liquid in TR was /l/ at the time of reduction. Dissimilated forms of the suffixes ceased to be productive by the classical period, as new formations containing /l/ in the stem were formed simply with the productive non-dissimilated suffix -culum, thus subliga: culum ‘loin-cloth’ (Var. L. 6.21), lia: culum ‘tool for smoothing stone’ (Vitr. 2.4.3). This lack of productivity, plausibly from the start of the literary period given the paucity of such forms, could indicate an archaic or prehistoric dissimilation. However, this explanation fails to explain the counterexamples in (10) without preceding /l/ (e.g. reciprocus, tonitrus), and those which appear to be built on the suffix *-tro-m/-tra: - (e.g. calcitra: re, ta: litrum), a form of the ‘mediative’ suffix (}4.4) which seems to have been selected at an early stage in Latin prehistory, and which sometimes occurred after roots with /l/ (possibly to avoid nearby laterals), but also after roots without /l/ (e.g. ara: trum ‘plough’). This suffix cannot have been *-tlo-m/-tla: in archaic Latin (even if this is its ultimate origin), as it would otherwise have undergone */tl/ > /kl/, resulting in -crum/-cra as above, and not -trum, etc. We cannot deny the presence of Tr in these forms at the time of vowel reduction, and would therefore require another account for the failure of r-conditioning. Furthermore, postulating lateral dissimilation after r-conditioning encounters insurmountable obstacles when accounting for s-stems before liquid-initial suffixes, such as lu: gubris < *leug-os-lis ‘mournful’ (}4.4.10). Inherited */sr/ became /br/ at an earlier stage of Latin than we can recover, whereas */sl/ survived throughout archaic Latin, until the /s/ was lost with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel in early Latin.13 If *leugoslis survived until vowel reduction, not only would lateral dissimilation have to post-date r-conditioning in reduction (otherwise {lu: gebris), but so would */sr/ > /br/ (otherwise {lu: gosris)—a change which, in contrast, appears to have occurred before our earliest written evidence for Latin. Even if we continue to pursue such an account, we still encounter problems. All intervocalic */sC/ sequences were heterosyllabic at the time of reduction (e.g. *en.kas. tos > in.ces.tus ‘impure’), and therefore internal /u/ in lu: gubris would have to be explained by closed-syllable retention of */o/ in *leugoslis and subsequent regular 13

Compensatory lengthening */Vsl/ > /V:l/ seems to have been an early Latin phenomenon, as the raising */o/ > /u/ appears to pre-date it, thus *edos-li-s > *eduslis > edu:lis ‘edible’, and not *edoslis > {edo:lis. See }6.6.1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

Proposed explanations of reduction before TR

91

raising to /u/ (}4.2.1), rather than by labial conditioning in an open syllable (}4.2.2.2).14 Open-syllable reduction before lateral dissimilation (and therefore r- or labial conditioning) would incorrectly predict {leugislis. By the same token, */sr/ (before > /br/) would also have been heterosyllabic (see also }6.6.1). Before fortition to /b/, we might expect /s/ to have been a voiced fricative such as [z] or [ð], at which stage it merged with the reflex of the PIE voiced aspirates */b= d=/, which both also went through such a voiced fricative stage (at least word-internally), before merging and strengthening to /b/ or /d/ according to a distributional rule which was blind to it etymological origin (Stuart-Smith 2004: 207).15 If */s/ before */r/ was still therefore [z] or [ð] at the time of reduction, then so too were the voiced aspirates.16 This would mean that the suffixes *-d=lo- and *-d=li- did not contain Tl sequences, but rather fricative + /l/ sequences at the time of reduction. However, it is precisely in the reflexes of these suffixes, -bulum, -bilis, that we have the best evidence for opensyllable reduction, e.g. patibulum ‘gibbet’ (}}4.4.3, 4.4.7). But the r-conditioning account explicitly has to claim that */sl/ sequences were heterosyllabic in archaic Latin, and by extension any fricative + /l/, as was the case in classical Latin to judge from verse scansion, thus ci.nif.lo: .ne: s ‘heater of curling-tongs (pl.)’ at Hor. S. 1.2.98 (Allen 1973: 137). As it is unlikely that these suffixes contained fricatives (*-blom, *-blis), and given that */sr/ merged with */d=r/ before fortition, */sr/ > /br/ must have occurred by the time of reduction. Therefore, lateral dissimilation also cannot have occurred after reduction, as it preceded */sr/ > /br/, yielding forms that underwent the latter process: *leugoslis > *leugosris > *leugobris > lu: gubris. As a result, we cannot invoke */l/ as the liquid in the suffixes to explain the failure of r-conditioning. Example (13)shows the resulting chronology of changes. (13)

Relative chronology of sound changes a. */tl/ > /kl/ (*loidetla : > *loidekla) b. Lateral dissimilation */l . . . l/ > /l . . . r/ (*loidekla, *leugoslis > *loidekra, *leugosris) c. Fortition */sr/ (and */b=r d=r/) > /br/ (*leugosris > *leugobris) d. Vowel reduction (*loidekra, *leugobris > lu: dicra, lu: gubris)

However, if other explanations for the counterexamples are forthcoming (}4.3.2), we cannot altogether discard r-conditioning in vowel reduction. The phonetic plausibility of r-conditioning in VTr, across an intervening consonant, is supported by Heid and Hawkins (2002), who detected anticipatory resonance effects in Southern British English in as many as five syllables before a conditioning /r/, passing through up to two stressed syllables. Furthermore, effects were found whether /r/ was a simple 14

*/sl/ would certainly have to be heterosyllabic if we were to adopt a mora preservation theory of compensatory lengthening (Hayes 1989), but see Ch. 3. 15 *[ð] > /b/ after /u/, before /l/, before or after /r/; > /d/ elsewhere. 16 They cannot still have been voiced aspirated stops at this stage, as the development to fricatives was Proto-Italic (Stuart-Smith 2004).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

92

Syllabification

onset or part of complex Tr. The short-range effect, up to one intervening syllable, was greater than the long-range effect (from one to five intervening syllables), but more sensitive to segmental context, such as the stop in Tr, and notably greatly reduced by a velar stop. We argue below that this local consonant perturbation explains the failure of r-conditioning in forms with velars such as molucrum ‘millstone brush’ beside related moletri: na ‘mill’ (}4.5.3). Although Heid and Hawkins’ study concentrates on the effects of /r/ on the second, third, and fourth formants (F2, F3, and F4), there is evidence that liquid resonances can also be seen in the first formant (F1), inversely correlated with vowel height and therefore of greater relevance in Latin r-conditioning, where the realized vowel /e/ is lower than the unconditioned development /i/. It is uncontroversial that vowels before (or after) /r/ tend to lower (Lindau 1985: 158), an effect clearly seen in the Latin data, despite the fact that the precise nature of Latin /r/ at the time of reduction is difficult to gauge: rhotacism suggests a fricative or approximant (perhaps not dissimilar from English [ɹ]), intervocalically at any rate, rather than the trill described by later writers (Allen 1978: 33). Sproat and Fujimura (1993: 292) and Carter and Local (2007: 184) note that a secondary correlate of /r l/-darkness, after F2, can be F1 (see }2.3): dark liquids can have a relatively high F1 compared to clear ones, presumably because the retraction of the tongue narrows the pharynx.17 Similarly, Recasens et al. (1995: 41) use the measure F2 minus F1, which increases as darkness decreases. Finally, West (1999: 412–13) found that some Southern British English speakers showed significantly higher F1 in rhotic contexts than in lateral ones. To conclude, /r/ may have conditioned a vowel in the preceding syllable whether in a simple onset or in a complex Tr, although the intervening consonant could have had the effect of reducing the effect, notably when a velar. R-conditioning is therefore a plausible explanation of /e/ before Tr in Latin, although it need not indicate that Tr was tautosyllabic, as the /r/ would be in onset position in either case. However, environmental conditioning effects were much more common in open than in closed syllables in Latin (}4.2.2), rendering r-conditioning more likely in the former. 4.3.2 Morpheme–syllable alignment Hoenigswald (1992: 83) suggests that the quality of the vowel preceding TR was indeed determined by whether or not the syllable was open or closed, but that syllable boundaries in TR were aligned with morphological boundaries, rather than uniformly preceding or bisecting the sequence. Reflexes of the PIE morphemes *-tlo-, *-tro-, *-tli-, *-d=lo-, *-d= ro-, *-d=li-, and others beginning with TR, should yield a 17 Implying that Latin onset /r/ was dark, a theory consistent with (i) r-conditioning only before onset /r/, (ii) specified dark coda /l/ and underspecified onset /l/ (Ch. 2), and (iii) the phonological relationship between syllable position, liquid variety, and darkness proposed by Carter (2003) and Carter and Local (2007).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

Proposed explanations of reduction before TR

93

preceding open syllable, whereas PIE *-ro-, *-ri-, *-lo-, *-li- etc., preceded by a stem ending in vowel + stop, should result in a closed syllable. Therefore, *en-tag-ro-m > in.teg.rum ‘whole (acc.)’ shows heteromorphemic and consequently heterosyllabic TR, but *ta: lo-tro-m > ta: .li.trum ‘a hit with the knuckle’ had tautomorphemic and tautosyllabic TR. Perhaps the strongest evidence in support of this theory is that morphologically governed syllabification of TR is an unambiguous feature of Latin in the literary period. Scansion of early and classical Latin verse clearly indicates that TR was heterosyllabic when found across a prefix + root boundary, as the preceding syllable was scanned long, hence was heavy due to closure (Allen 1973: 140). (14)

Heterosyllabic TR at prefix + root boundary ab-ripio: = /ab.ri.pi.o:/‘I abduct’ ab-rumpo: = /ab.rum.po:/ ‘I break off ’ ob-lino: = /ob.li.no:/ ‘I smear’ ob-ligo: = /ob.li.go:/ ‘I bind’

Only synchronically transparent and arguably free morphemes, pre-verbs such as ab and ob, demanded the alignment of morpheme and syllable boundaries, resulting in heterosyllabic TR. Contrast words which were similar in shape, but had a morpheme boundary before the sequence, resulting in initial light syllables, thus re-clu: do: ‘I lay open’, re-traho: ‘I drag back’. Latin at these stages therefore knew a twofold syllabification of TR sequences.18 Allen (1973: 140) notes that the syllabification of TR was ‘strongly influenced by grammatical boundaries, and generally speaking does not distinguish between word boundaries and morph boundaries within the word’. Niedermann (1997: 130–31) discusses the earlier situation, when the prefixes were felt to be separate words: Festus (pp. 206M, 402M) reports the archaic Latin collocations ob vo: s sacro: , sub vo: s placo: , tra: nsque dato: and endoque plo: ra: to: , equivalent to classical obsecro: vo: s ‘I implore you’, supplico: vo: s ‘I make petition to you’, tra: dito: que ‘and handed over (dat./abl.)’, and implo: ra: to: que ‘and invoked (dat./ abl.)’. Similarly, Enn. Ann. 381 has de: me: hor(i)ta: tur for classical de: horta: tur me ‘he dissuades me’. It is therefore plausible that such a phenomenon was more widespread at an earlier stage of the language. However, unlike the pre-verbs, which could function both as prefixes and separate words, suffixes such as *-tro-, *-klo- were bound morphemes. This is perhaps not a major difficulty with the theory, given that the alignment of bound morphemes and syllable boundaries is a well-attested linguistic phenomenon (McCarthy and Prince 1993), and that later Latin shows alignment in some form. 18 Classical verse authors furthermore had the option of treating any TR as heterosyllabic, imitating Greek epic. This practice can already be found in Ennius and Lucilius, in early Latin, with a stricter restriction to Greek words and words that would otherwise not fit the hexameter. See Weiss (2009: 68) for a summary.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

94

Syllabification

A crucial consideration is whether speakers of Latin were actually sensitive to the relevant morpheme boundaries at the time of vowel reduction. It is feasible that formations with clear stems and suffixes could be analysed as such by the speaker (e.g. cubiculum, genetri: x), but can the same be said about forms such as co: nsecra: re ‘consecrate’ and cerebrum ‘brain’, both originally with the suffix *-ro-? The synchronic grammars of speakers could not align syllables to morpheme boundaries to which they were insensitive at the time of vowel reduction.19 We therefore predict a three-way behaviour: tautosyllabic TR when morpheme-initial, heterosyllabic TR when across a morpheme boundary, and a default syllabification in the absence of transparent morphology. The most problematic cases for an alignment theory in Latin are the forms in -bra (e.g. latebra ‘hiding place’) and -tri: x (e.g. genetri: x ‘mother’), both of which seem to show heterosyllabic TR. The former can be explained neatly by a chronologically sensitive alignment hypothesis if we posit that the default syllabification of TR was heterosyllabic, as the suffix -bra arguably ceased to exist in the linguistic consciousness of Latin speakers from the very beginning of the literary period (Serbat 1975: 126). We consider which suffixes were synchronically transparent at the time of reduction in }4.5.2. The latter group in -tri: x, a synchronically transparent suffix, fits well into a much-constrained r-conditioning (}}4.3.1, 4.5.3), based upon patterns in a comprehensive examination of the Latin evidence, to which we turn next. To summarize, we hypothesize the following. (15)

Hypotheses regarding the archaic syllabification of TR a. Alignment of synchronically transparent morpheme boundaries with syllable boundaries, resulting in b. open-syllable reduction before morpheme-initial TR, hence displaying sensitivity to environmental context (e.g. r-conditioning), c. closed-syllable reduction before heteromorphemic TR, and d. a single, consistent default syllabification of TR in morphologically opaque forms (apparently heterosyllabic).

4.4 Examination of the forms Any analysis of vowel reduction before TR in archaic Latin must account for words contained in a well-defined set of morphological structures and a few other isolated forms, listed in (16). However, the precise morphological constituency of some of the structures is unclear, notably regarding the pre-suffixal vowel. 19

This does not entail that such forms were utterly morphologically opaque and the boundaries completely inaccesible—when questioned, a speaker may have been able to identify the suffix by a process of analysis—but rather that words were single lexical entries, not synchronically compositional.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

Examination of the forms (16)

95

Formations yielding internal VTR a. Forms in -bra < PIE *-d=ra: 20 e.g. e: -/il-/pel-lecebra ‘enticement’, latebra ‘hiding-place’ b. Forms in -trum/-tra < PIE *-tr-o-m/-a: e.g. fulgetrum ‘flash of lightning’, ta: litrum ‘flick’ c. Forms in -bulum < *-blom < PIE *-d=lo-m21 e.g. patibulum ‘gibbet’, vestibulum ‘forecourt’ d. Forms in -culus/-a/-um < *-klos/-a/-om < PIE *-tlo-s/-tla: /-tlo-m e.g. ri: diculus ‘laughable’, verticula ‘joint’, cubiculum ‘bedroom’ e. Forms in -crum < PIE *-tlo-m (after lateral dissimilation) e.g. molucrum ‘millstone brush’, etc., lu: dicra ‘about sport/the stage’ f. Forms in -tri: x < PIE *-trih1-k-s e.g. genetri: x ‘mother’, ia: nitri: x ‘female door-keeper’ g. Forms in -bilis < PIE *-d=li-s e.g. patibilis ‘able to feel’, terribilis ‘terrible’ h. Forms in -bris < PIE *-d=li-s (after lateral dissimilation) e.g. alebris ‘nutritious’, celebris ‘busy, celebrated’? (see (k)) i. Forms in -cilis < PIE *-tli-s22 no examples j. Forms in -cris < PIE *-tli-s (after lateral dissimilation) e.g. alacer, -cris, -cre ‘quick’, volucer, -cris, -cre ‘flying’ k. Forms in -brum/-a, -bris < PIE *-s-ro-m/-a: , *-s-ri-s e.g. cerebrum ‘brain’, tenebrae ‘darkness’, fu: nebris ‘funereal’, celebris ‘busy, celebrated’? (see (h)) l. Forms in -Trum/-ra, -Tris (i.e. stop + -rum etc.) < PIE *-T-ro-m/-ra: , *-T-ri-s e.g. integrum ‘whole (acc.)’, co: nsecra: re ‘dedicate’ m. Forms in -Tlum/-la, -Tlis < PIE *-T-lo-m/-la: , *-T-li-s23 no examples n. Other formations resulting in internal TR e.g. lu: dibrium ‘toy’, reciprocus ‘moving backwards and forwards’, impetra: re ‘obtain by request’, colubra ‘snake’, mediocris ‘of medium size’

20 Forms in -brum preceded by an internal short vowel are not attested until after classical Latin (Serbat 1975: 111). 21 Forms in -bla preceded by an internal short vowel are not attested until after classical Latin (Serbat 1975: 35). 22 We might expect adjectives in -cilis < *-tli-s beside mediatives in -culum. However, the standard grammars report no such formations (aside from perhaps facilis; see Ch. 5, fn. 13), and Leumann (1977: 348) suggests a regular retention of *-s-tli-s (later regularly > -s-tilis), thus textilis ‘woven’, blocking the regular */tl/ > /kl/. 23 According to Zucchelli (1970: 29–31) and Leumann (1917: 3), there are no forms containing an internal short vowel followed by a stop, before the nominal and adjectival suffixes *-lo-/-la:/-li-. Therefore, we do not have any evidence for vowel reduction before heteromorphemic Tl.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

96

Syllabification

To maximize the likelihood that the words existed at the time of vowel reduction, the forms considered in this examination are those attested in the archaic, early, and classical periods, as defined in }1.3, with the further inclusion of forms reported or suggested by Festus (late 2nd century ad), or in Paulus Diaconus’s commentary on Festus (8th century ad), on the basis that they are plausibly early forms, attributable to the Augustan grammarian Verrius Flaccus (Serbat 1975: 12, 286). Serbat (1975) provides a helpful analysis of the forms in (16a-e), identifying their time-periods. The suffixes *-bro-, *-tro-, *-bulo-, *-culo- (*-cro-) < PIE *-d=ro-, *-tro-, *-d=lo-, *-tlo-, traditionally labelled ‘tool’ or ‘instrumental’ suffixes, are renamed by Serbat ‘les suffixes médiatifs’, a term that will be employed in this examination as the English ‘mediative’. Serbat’s motivation is that this class of suffixes, even in origin, did not have a straightforward instrumental or locative function, but rather indicated ‘the medium through which a process operated’, or ‘something which permitted the realization of a process’ (my translations). From this core meaning, Latin developed a spectrum of mediative values ranging from agent nouns to action nouns (Serbat 1975: 14). This examination will consider each of these word formations in turn, systematically identifying the result of vowel reduction, and potentially influential parameters such as the position of the morpheme boundary, and the natures of the liquid (/r/ or /l/), the stop consonant (place and voice), and the vowel in the preceding syllable. Each section will consist of a general discussion and conclusion. Further detailed discussion of both the formation types and individual forms, crucial for establishing the evidence base, can be found on the website. 4.4.1 Forms in -bra < archaic *-bra < PIE *-d=r-a: Only a handful of these forms are attested before the end of the Augustan age. (17)

Forms in -bra e: -/il-/pel-lecebra ‘enticement’ latebra ‘hiding place’ palpebra ‘eyelid’ scatebra ‘bubbling spring’ terebra ‘drill’ vertebra ‘vertebra’

Stop in TR: /b/ Liquid in TR: /r/ Vowel preceding TR: /e/ Morpheme boundary: V-TR Consistent /e/ before TR implies that it was in a closed syllable, and the etymologies of palpebra, scatebra, terebra, and vertebra support closed-syllable retention of an

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

Examination of the forms

97

original pre-suffixal thematic vowel /e/. The /e/ before TR in e: -/il-/pel-lecebra is likely to be by analogy on the other formations. Latebra might also reflect an earlier short /e/, from a reanalysed stem *late-, based on the perceived equation ‘present stem in /e:/ ~ perfect stem in /e/’, thus late: re ‘lie hidden’ ~ late-bra ‘hiding-place’. There are two potential sources for this equation: (i) morphological reanalysis resulting from the blurring of two types found in the Latin 2nd conjugation (Sihler 1995: 531), statives in *-eh1-je/o- > -e: - (e.g. late: re) and denominative factitives in *-je/ o- after a thematic stem ending in *-e- (*lewke-je/o- > early Lat. lu: ce: re ‘ignite, light’),24 resulting in *late-, after etymologically incorrect analysis once the original morphology had become opaque;25 (ii) the replacement of regular perfect and perfect participial stems in *-e: - with a short-vowel form *-e-, under the influence of another common second conjugation formation, the causative/iteratives with an o-grade (or zero-grade) stem and a suffix *-eje/o- (Meiser 1998: 189–90; Weiss 2009: 403–4). This suffix was reanalysed as *-e-je/o- with the first vowel forming part of the stem, due to the independent existence of the suffix *-je/o-, and the new stem in short /e/ used to form the perfect indicative and passive participles (e.g. mone: re ‘warn’, but *monewai > monui: ‘I warned’, and *mone-to-s > monitus ‘warned’). Furthermore, the relation ‘present in /e:/ ~ perfect in /e/’ appears to have spread to the stative formations (e.g. tace: re ‘be silent’, but tacui: ‘I was silent’, and tacitus adj. ‘silent’, probably from *take-wai and *take-to-s), where a simple reanalysis could not have been possible, given the presence of /e:/ (< *-eh1-) after the final consonant of the stem.26 S-stem forms before the suffix *-ro-/-ra: always show a closed-syllable reflex, which also resulted in the sequence /ebr/ (}4.4.10). This regularity could have influenced the formations in -bra, but there is little evidence to support this analogical account over a simple phonological one.27 A V-to-V conditioning account can be ruled out on the basis that the vowel in the syllable preceding /ebr/ was of varying qualities (/a/ or /e/), and also appears itself to have been conditioned by the presuffixal vowel in e: -/il-/pel-lecebra. However, as the forms all contain /r/ as the liquid in TR, r-conditioning of the preceding vowel to /e/ is a possible explanation. In

24 *lewkos ‘bright’ also yields a denominative stative, homophonous to the factitive: *lewk-eh1-je/o- > lu: ce:re ‘be bright, shine’. 25 A difficulty with this account is that factitive formations were very rare in Latin (unlike in Greek), with lu:ce:re providing one of the very few plausible examples. In contrast, stative formations were relatively common. 26 A relic of the expected formation in long /e:/ can be found in the lexicalized participle ace:tum ‘vinegar; sourness of disposition’, originally built on the verb ace:re ‘be sour’. 27 Hoenigswald (1992: 83) suggests that -bra forms arranged themselves around inherited s-stem tenebrae ‘darkness’ < *temH-s-ra:-i, based on the association of tenebrae to tene:re ‘hold’ by folk etymology, motivating the equation teneo: : tenebrae = lateo: : latebrae. However, Serbat (1975: 62) comments that the regularly invoked proximity between tenebrae and latebrae (e.g. DELL 343) is difficult to support on the basis of textual evidence.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

98

Syllabification

conclusion, this class of forms provides evidence for closed-syllable vowel reduction before the suffix *-bra in archaic Latin, suggesting that TR in the suffix was heterosyllabic despite being tautomorphemic, although tautosyllabic TR with r-conditioning is also possible. It is difficult to reconstruct with any precision when the forms in -bra came into being. However, it is clear that the suffix ceased to be productive in imperial Latin: all of the derivatives, both root and secondary formations, are attested before the end of the Augustan period,28 and all those in -ebra appear in early Latin, aside from Augustan vertebra. As a result, Serbat (1975: 126) concludes that the suffix ceased to exist in the linguistic consciousness of Latin speakers from the beginning of the literary period. We can at the very least claim that the suffix ceased to be productive by classical Latin, rendering the forms in -ebra good candidates to have existed in archaic Latin when reduction occurred. Possible closed-syllable reduction before tautomorphemic TR (*-bra). Possible open-syllable reduction before tautomorphemic TR (*-bra), with r-conditioning. 4.4.2 Forms in -trum/-tra < archaic *-trom/-tra < PIE *-tr-o-m/-tr-a: Few forms attested before the end of the Augustan age contained this suffix with any degree of certainty. (18)

Forms in -trum/-tra a. Probable forms calcitra: re ‘kick’ fulgetrum ‘flash of lightning’ palpetra ‘eyelid’ ta: litrum ‘flick’ b. Other possible forms arbiter ‘witness; judge’ feretrum ‘bier’ pullitra ‘young chicken’ tonitrus ‘thunder’ veretrum ‘sexual organ (of a man)’

Stop in TR: /t/ Liquid in TR: /r/ Vowel preceding TR: /i/ or /e/ Morpheme boundary: V-TR

28

Aside from the late Latin neuter forms of earlier feminines: palpebrum, terebrum, and vertebrum.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

Examination of the forms

99

Of the probable forms with the suffix -trum/-tra, calcitra: re (based on an unattested denominative *kalkitrom) contains an original pre-suffixal /i/ and therefore tells us little about vowel reduction before TR. However, it provides morphological support for a denominative use of the suffix -trum (cf. calx ‘heel’), so corroborating the reconstruction of denominative *ta: lo-trom > ta: litrum with open-syllable reduction (cf. ta: lus ‘knuckle; heel’). Fulgetrum and palpetra may originally have been *fulgebra and palpebra (the latter being the more common form) and so should probably be classed with the forms in -bra discussed in }4.4.1, showing closed-syllable reduction before the suffix -bra (and labial dissimilation to yield -tra). However, they could also provide evidence for closed-syllable reduction before deverbative -trum/-tra, in contrast with open-syllable reduction in denominative formations. Regarding the other possible forms, feretrum appears to have been a direct, unaltered borrowing from Greek, pullitra has too unclear a history and probably originally contained a vowel between TR, and tonitrus and veretrum are uncertain formations from which little can be concluded, although the latter could again provide evidence for closed-syllable reduction before deverbative -trom (if from vere: ri: ‘show respect for; fear’), or alternatively V-to-V conditioning, more likely in open syllables (}4.2.2.4), before denominative -trum (if from veru: ‘spit, spike’). To conclude, /tr/ in -trum/-tra seems to have been tautosyllabic in denominative formations, but possibly heterosyllabic in deverbatives. Regarding the chronology of the forms, Serbat (1975: 347–8) concludes that formations in *-tro- are all inherited from the parent language and are fossilized forms. His conclusion is based upon the following observations: (i) root formations predominate, an unusual situation among mediative formations; (ii) there is an abundance of consonantal stems, especially s-stems; and (iii) deverbative formations take adjectives in *-to- as their base rather than the present stem (much more common in historical times). Serbat denies the existence of denominative formations using this suffix, such as *kalkitrom and ta: litrum; but these could in fact provide evidence for its limited vitality in archaic Latin with a newer, innovated denominative function—a role which ended before the start of the classical period and probably earlier, given its lack of visible productivity. It is instructive that it is precisely the forms where the suffix was used innovatively that show open-syllable reduction in archaic Latin. Open-syllable reduction before tautomorphemic TR (denominative *-trom/ -tra), possibly with environmental (V-to-V) conditioning. Closed-syllable reduction before tautomorphemic TR (deverbative *-trom/-tra). 4.4.3 Forms in -bulum < archaic *-blom < PIE *-d=l-o-m Latin has a well-defined class of words in -bulum, with attestations from an early period. In archaic Latin at the time of vowel reduction, the suffix is likely to have been

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

100

Syllabification

*-blom, without an epenthetic vowel (see Chapter 5). Forms containing an internal short vowel attested in or before Augustan times are listed by Serbat (1975: 77–8), who divides them into five categories. (19)

Forms in -bulum a. Root formations: patibulum ‘gibbet’, pro: stibulum ‘prostitute’ b. Deverbatives: denti-/nuci-frangibulum ‘tooth-/nut-cracker’, infundibulum ‘funnel’ c. Denominatives: sessibulum ‘seat’, vestibulum ‘forecourt’, tu: ribulum ‘censer’ d. Doublets of words in *-d=ro- and *-tlo-: latibulum ‘lair’ e. Words of obscure structure: cartibulum ‘pedestal table’, naustibulum ‘liquid container’

Stop in TR: /b/ Liquid in TR: /l/ Vowel preceding TR: /i/ Morpheme boundary: V-TR Of immediate note is that all the forms have /i/ preceding the suffix. The two root formations, and arguably deverbative infundibulum and denominatives sessibulum and vestibulum, show open-syllable reduction to /i/, while the remainder show a compositional vowel /i/, providing no evidence for syllabification. There is no evidence for closed-syllable reduction. The data afforded by this formation therefore point to regular open-syllable reduction before *-blom. Serbat (1975: 25) notes that Latin, like other Indo-European languages, indicates the great antiquity of the mediative suffix *-d=lo-m more clearly than the other suffixes of this type, through the many root formations built in this way. He argues that deverbative formations using this suffix came about very early in the history of Latin, and denominatives much later, but still at an early stage. Therefore, these forms provide good evidence for the behaviour in archaic Latin of internal short vowels before tautomorphemic TR in a productive suffix. Open-syllable reduction before tautomorphemic TR (*-blom). 4.4.4 Forms in -culum/-cula < archaic *-klom/-kla < PIE *-tl-o-m/-a: PIE *-tlo-/-a: regularly developed to *-klo-/-a: possibly as early as Proto-Italic, as the languages related to Latin also show this change, thus *sak-ra: -tlom > Osc. sakaraklúm ‘shrine’. Etruscan pvtlvm-za (Ta 2.31 (Rix and Meiser 1991: 2.60); Tarquinia, c.300 bc) is a diminutive form of an early borrowing from an Italic language (*po: tlom > Lat. po: clum ‘cup), which perhaps reveals a trace of the time before the change in Italic. As with *-blom, the suffix was almost certainly *-klom, without an epenthetic vowel, at the time of vowel reduction (see Chapter 5).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

Examination of the forms

101

The suffix -culum (in one form or another) was productive throughout the history of Latin, with root formations, deverbatives, and denominatives all attested up to the end of the Augustan period. (20)

Forms in -culum/-cula a. Deverbatives based on the present stem of 3rd-conjugation verbs, hence with original stem-final thematic */e/: curriculum ‘race; race track; chariot; course of action’ (currere ‘run’) discerniculum ‘hairdressing needle’ (discernere ‘separate; distinguish’) di: vidiculum ‘water-tower’ (di: videre ‘divide, distinguish’) e: verriculum ‘pulling-thread; brush’ (e: verrere ‘sweep out’) incerniculum ‘riddle, sieve’ (incernere ‘sift on’) offendiculum ‘stumbling block, obstacle’ (offendere ‘strike’) praefericulum ‘bronze sacrificial vase’ (praeferre ‘carry in front as an offering’)29 tendicula, fem. ‘thread which one draws taut; trap (pl.)’ (tendere ‘stretch out’) vehiculum ‘cart, wagon’ (vehere ‘convey’) verticula, fem. ‘joint’, de: verticulum ‘by-road; digression; port of call’ ((de: )vertere ‘turn (away)’) b. Deverbatives based on a perfect/participial or other verbal stem with original stem-final thematic */e/: cubiculum ‘bedroom’ terricula (-culum), fem. (neut.) ‘someone/thing that provokes terror’ tudicula: re ‘crush with a small hammer’ c. Other forms adminiculum ‘prop, support, aid’30 apiculum ‘band with which priests veil their hat’ ri: diculus (-um), adj. (or masc. or neut. noun) ‘laughable, funny; silly’ (‘buffoon, jester (n. masc.); joke (n. neut.)’) de: ri: diculum ‘laughing stock; ridiculousness’

Stop in TR: /k/ Liquid in TR: /l/ Vowel preceding TR: /i/ Morpheme boundary: V-TR

29 Thematic and athematic forms were conflated in the paradigm of the verb fero:, ferre ‘bear’, but the supposedly athematic forms fers, fert, fertis can rather be interpreted as syncopated from thematic *feres etc.; hence the thematic stem was original (Leumann 1977: 530; Meiser 1998: 224). 30 Reconstructed *ad-mi-nu-tlom, with open-syllable reduction of */u/ > /i/, is satisfactory, but must remain tentative given the difficulty of establishing a semantic connection between adminiculum ‘prop’ and minuo:, -ere ‘reduce’ (Serbat 1975: 144–5; LEW 1.13; EDL 24).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

102

Syllabification

It is striking that whenever a short vowel in an internal syllable appeared before the suffix, that vowel was /i/. A few forms do not reflect a reduced vowel, but either original /i/ (apiculum, cf. apio: ‘attach’), or a compositional vowel /i/ (ri: diculus, de: ri: diculum). However, the remainder of the forms in *-klom/-kla provide firm and ample evidence for open-syllable reduction of the preceding vowel, usually a thematic vowel */e/, with no evidence for closed-syllable reduction in any form, e.g. vehiculum based on vehere ‘convey’, thus *weg=e-tlom > *wehiklom > vehiculum. The stem-final thematic vowel is straightforwardly reconstructible as part of the present stem in (20a). In (20b), cubiculum, terricula, and tudicula ‘olive press’ (the base of tudicula: re, but only attested after the Augustan period: Serbat 1975: 234, 293–4) appear to be based on verbal stems *kube-, *terre-, and *tude- (beside present stems *kumbe-, *terr-eje-, and *tunde-), all with stem-final thematic vowel /e/. *kubeand *terre- were probably the stems of the perfect indicatives and participles: *kubewai, *kube-to-s > cubui: , cubitus; *torse-wai, *torse-tos > *terre-wai, *terretos > terrui: , territus.31 The stem *tude- formed the base of the frequentative tudita: re ‘strike repeatedly’, attested in early and classical Latin (Enn. Ann. 135; Lucr. 2.1142). The vast majority of the forms in *-klom/-kla which comprise evidence for reduction are attested in early Latin. Forms ending in -iculum are in fact more numerous than those in -a: culum in this period, although the latter became significantly more productive from classical Latin onwards, while the former shows no new forms after Augustan times.32 Furthermore, all the forms in -iculum which Serbat attributes to Augustan times are (as he acknowledges) in fact only attested in Paulus Diaconus’s commentary on Festus (8th century ad, based on Festus, late 2nd century ad), but in each case, the authors indicate that these are old, traditional words, thus apiculum (Paul. Fest. p. 23M), di: vidiculum (Paul. Fest. p. 70M), and praefericulum (Paul. Fest. p. 248M). As stated earlier, Festus’ source for these words may have been the Augustan grammarian Verrius Flaccus (Serbat 1975: 286).33 Two final points indicate the antiquity of (some of) the *-klom formations. The absence of the present-stem nasal infix (tundere ‘beat’) in the stem *tude-, the base of tudicula and the frequentative tudita: re, appears to be very old; contrast the frequentative fundita: re ‘pour out continuously’ based on the present stem fundere ‘pour’. Secondly, Serbat (1975: 234, 283, 293–4) argues that the existence of several formations using either the root or another non-present stem (terricula, cubiculum, tudicula) as the base provides evidence for an early state of affairs, before the present stem became the standard base. See }4.4.1 for a motivation for the stem *terre- beside terre: re ‘terrify’, as with late-bra beside late: re. If we take tudicula to be earlier, as suggested by tudicula:re, and consider reverticulum ‘coming round again’ (from the 2nd c. ad; Apul. Fl. 18, Met. 3.11) to be a somewhat artificial creation (Serbat 1975: 235), possibly influenced by verticula and de: verticulum. 33 Late Latin appendiculum, tegiculum and verriculum can be ignored in this discussion, as they appear only after a very long dormant period for -iculum. 31 32

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

Examination of the forms

103

Forms in *-klom/-kla are therefore likely to have been in existence in the early archaic period at the time of reduction, and constitute good evidence for opensyllable reduction before TR in this suffix, as in *blom, but unlike in *-bra. Compare verticula with vertebra (}4.4.1), which contained precisely the same present stem *werte-, but showed closed-syllable reduction before *-bra, versus open-syllable reduction before *-kla. Open-syllable reduction before tautomorphemic TR (*-klom/-kla). 4.4.5 Forms in -crum < archaic *-krom < PIE *-tl-o-m All derivatives in -crum have the same origin as the forms in -culum (}4.4.4), the PIE suffix *-tlo-, arising through the dissimilation of laterals (}4.3.1). (21)

Forms in -crum lu: dicra, adj. fem. ‘connected with sport or the stage’34 molucrum ‘millstone brush; false pregnancy swelling (and other meanings)’

Stop in TR: /k/ Liquid in TR: /r/ Vowel preceding TR: /i u/ Morpheme boundary: V-TR Deverbative lu: dicra (cf. lu: dere ‘play’) provides evidence for open-syllable reduction before the suffix *-kra, thus *loide-kra > lu: dicra. The etymology of molucrum is unclear (Serbat 1975: 155–7; LEW 2.106; DELL 411), but it could also have undergone open-syllable reduction if internal /u/ was original, and retained due to environmental conditioning, a more common phenomenon in open syllables than in closed ones. A word of a similar shape, volucris, is considered in }4.4.9, for which we shall conclude an etymology *welu-klis > *wolukris, providing a parallel for a development *molu-klom > molucrum, with retention of original /u/ after a sequence ‘labial C – /o/ – dark /l/’ (see Chapter 2). Original /u/ would equally have been retained in a closed syllable, although this would leave lu: dicra unexplained; it is additionally possible that the vowel was long /u:/, which would not have reduced. Forms in -crum are good candidates to have been present at the time of vowel reduction, as lateral dissimilation occurred before vowel reduction (}4.3.1). Open-syllable reduction before tautomorphemic TR (*-krom/*kra), possibly with environmental conditioning.

34 The adjective is attested very early (e.g. ars lu: dicra ‘dance’, Pl. Aul. 626; to designate spectacles of dance in the Lex Iulia municipalis, CIL 12.593.123). The neuter substantive lu:dicrum is clearly a later formation. The nominative form of the adjective (*lu:dicer?) is unattested, with the back-formed lu: dicrus appearing only in the glosses (Serbat 1975: 166–7).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

104

Syllabification

4.4.6 Forms in -tri:x < archaic *tri:ks < PIE *-trih1-k-s The masculine agent-noun-forming suffix *-to: r > -tor has the feminine equivalent *-tri: ks > -tri: x with morpheme-initial TR. Many of the forms in -tri: x attested in Latin date from after the classical period, and both those and earlier forms could have been built by simple replacement of masculine -tor with feminine -tri: x, thus conditor ‘founder’ ~ conditri: x ‘female founder’, the latter first attested at Marian. poet. 4 (2nd century ad). These forms tell us nothing about archaic reduction as they were formed at a much later stage and/or simply reflect the open-syllable reduction expected before the masculine form of the suffix. However, there are some forms which are attested at an early stage or are likely to have been old words; these do not show an open-syllable reflex to /i/, but rather have consistent internal /e/, notably differing in the quality of their internal vowel from their masculine equivalents, where they exist, e.g. genitor ‘father’ ~ genetri: x ‘mother’.35 (22)

Forms in -tri: x domitri: x ‘tamer’ genetri: x ‘mother’ ia: nitri: x ‘female door-keeper’ meretri: x ‘courtesan’ obstetri: x ‘midwife’

Stop in TR: /t/ Liquid in TR: /r/ Vowel preceding TR: /i e/ Morpheme boundary: V-TR Genetri: x,36 meretri: x,37 and obstetri: x38 form a group showing internal reduced or retained /e/, which can be accounted for either by regular closed-syllable reduction or by r-conditioning, more likely in an open syllable, whereby /r/ in the onset of the following syllable conditioned an internal short vowel as /e/. This r-conditioning might have been further supported by perseverative V-to-V conditioning, given that the vowel of the preceding syllable was /e/ in two cases, and a mid vowel in all three. V-to-V conditioning alone cannot account for the pre-suffixal /e/, as we find masculine genitor with /i/ after the same word-initial sequence. As all three words are attested in early

35 The discussion of individual forms is based upon a March 2009 search of dictionary headwords ending in htrixi in Perseus. 36 < *genatri: ks < *genh1-trih1-k-s (LEW 1.591 s.v. genitor; DELL 270 s.v. geno:; EDL 260–61 s.v. gigno:). 37 Stem *mere- (cf. mere: re ‘earn (money)’). For such a stem from a 2nd conjugation verb, see }4.4.1, and related forms such as meretod (CIL 12.9, 12.32) > merito: ‘deservedly’. 38 ascendibilis (cf. scandere ‘climb’). Regarding the chronology of the formation, Umbrian faśefele and purtifele ‘suitable for sacrificing/presenting’ (Untermann 2000: 255–6, 617) indicate that the instrumental function of the suffix *-d=lis was inherited from Proto-Italic, making such forms good candidates as evidence for archaic reduction. Open-syllable reduction before tautomorphemic TR (*-blis). 4.4.8 Forms in -bris < archaic *-bris < PIE *-d=li-s Latin words showing the suffix -bris arose from the dissimilation of laterals (}4.3.1) in the same PIE suffix discussed in }4.4.7, *-d=li-, after stems containing /l/ (Leumann 1977: 348–9). In the three attested forms unambiguously with -bris (alebris ‘nutritious’, ancla: bris ‘sacrificial’, salu: ber, -bris ‘healthy’), the suffix was always used in instrumental function. The paucity of forms suggests its antiquity. (24)

Forms in -bris alebris ‘nutritious’ celebris ‘crowded; famous’?

Stop in TR: /b/ Liquid in TR: /r/ Vowel preceding TR: /e/ Morpheme boundary: V-TR Deverbative alebris (cf. alere ‘suckle, nourish’) had a short vowel, thematic */e/, preceding the suffix, thus < *ale-bri-s with closed-syllable retention of */e/, or rconditioning. Celebris could be interpreted as *keles-ri-s (}4.4.10), but could also have originally been *kele-bli-s also with retained pre-suffixal /e/. Lu: gubris ‘mournful’ is interpreted here as originating from *leugos-ri-s (}4.4.10) and not {leuge-bli-s. Possible closed-syllable reduction before tautomorphemic TR (*-bris). Possible open-syllable reduction before tautomorphemic TR (*-bris), with r- (and V-to-V) conditioning. 4.4.9 Forms in -cris < archaic *-kris < PIE *-tli-s The adjectival suffix *-tli-s developing regularly to -cilis provides no evidence for the reduction of internal vowels in archaic Latin. However, two continuations of original

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

Examination of the forms

107

*-tli-s survived in formations where the suffix developed to *-kris through regular */tl/ > /kl/ followed by lateral dissimilation (}4.3.1). (25)

Forms in -cris alacris ‘quick’ (Enn. scen. 127)42 volucris fem. adj. ‘flying, winged, swift’

Stop in TR: /k/ Liquid in TR: /r/ Vowel preceding TR: /a u/ Morpheme boundary: V-TR Despite etymological difficulties, we find indications that the vowel before this suffix showed environmental conditioning, more commonly an open-syllable reflex (}4.2.2), in both forms. Alacris < *al-a-kli-s shows perseverative V-to-V conditioning across a sonorant (cf. alapa ‘smack’, anas, -atis ‘duck’, calamita: s ‘disaster’), although this could have been analogically spread from the open syllable in the regular masculine nominative singular alacer, where there was no internal TR after syncope (which could have occurred before, after, or simultaneously with reduction: *alakris > *alakr̩ s > alacer). The adjective volucer, -cris (Serbat 1975: 199–201, 281–2; LEW 2.832 s.v. volvo: ; DELL 751 s.v. volo: , -a: re, 752 s.v. volvo: ; EDL 687–8 s.v. volo: ) is attested from early Latin as a poetic word meaning ‘flying’, whence substantivized ‘bird’, apparently connected to vola: re ‘fly’, a verb with no clear etymology, but with the stem *wola: - rather than *wolu-. The word appears to have undergone mutual influence with *welw-, the root found in the verb volvere ‘(cause to) travel in a circular course’, which provided the stem *wolu-, as seen in volucra ‘larva of a moth which infests vines’. The original initial-syllable */e/ coloured to /o/ under the influence of the following contextually darkened /l/ (}2.3.2). The -cris suffix variants of the same word, volucre (neut.) and volucre: s (plural) ‘insect; bird’,43 can be motivated by the influence of the original -cris derivative of vola: re, which in turn adopted their stem *wolu-, due to similarities of form and meaning, to yield *wolukris. Similarly to molucrum in }4.4.5, the word shows retention of or reduction to /u/ after an initial sequence ‘labial C–/o/–dark /l/’, and when followed by */kr/. There are likewise competing accounts for the quality of the internal vowel: regular closedsyllable reduction, or open-syllable reduction with environmental conditioning. On the basis of lu: dicrus and all forms with non-dissimilated -culum, all with preceding

42 Alacris is the masculine nominative singular form in this attestation. The regular classical masculine form is alacer. 43 These derivatives of volvere are not attested until imperial times and therefore do not fall within the window considered in this investigation. However, they are important here, as (i) comparative evidence suggests that they are old (Gk. élutron ‘covering, case’, Skt. varutra- ‘coat’), and (ii) they influenced volucer ‘flying’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

108

Syllabification

/i/, an open-syllable with conditioning account seems preferable. Lateral dissimilation and IE comparative evidence for *wolu-klo- suggests that the Latin form existed at the time of reduction, and so provides good evidence for an early archaic reflex. Open-syllable reduction before tautomorphemic TR (*-kris), with environmental conditioning. Possible closed-syllable reduction before tautomorphemic TR (*-kris). 4.4.10 Forms in -brum/-bra, -bris < archaic *-brom etc. < PIE *-s-ro-m/-a:, *-s-ri-s The sound change */sr/ > /br/ occurred at a very early stage in the history of Latin (}4.3.1), presumably after the merger before /r/ of */s/ and the voiced aspirates */b= d=/ to a voiced fricative, the eventual outcome being /b/ (Leumann 1977: 206; StuartSmith 2004). (26)

Forms in *-brum etc. < *-s-ro-m etc. celeber, -bris ‘crowded; famous’ < *kel-es-ri-s or *kele-d=li-s (}4.4.8) cerebrum ‘brain; understanding’ < *keras-ro-m < *kerh2s-ro-m fe: nebris/faenebris ‘usurious’ < *fe: n-es-ri-s fu: nebris ‘funereal; fatal’ < *foin/foun-es-ri-s lu: cubra: re ‘work by night’ < *leuk-os-ra: lu: gubris ‘mourning; mournful’ < *leug-os-li-s (lateral dissimilation) muliebris ‘feminine; effeminate’ < *molj-es-li-s (lateral dissimilation) tenebrae ‘darkness’ < *temasra: i < *temHs-ra: -i

Stop in TR: /b/ Liquid in TR: /r/ Vowel preceding TR: /e u/ Morpheme boundary: VT-R The words in this and subsequent sections differ from those above in that the original morpheme boundary bisected the stop + liquid sequence, rather than preceded it. The forms with internal TR arising from s-stems present consistent evidence for closed-syllable reduction, possibly indicating an alignment of morpheme and syllable boundaries. All forms show internal /e/, with the exception of lu: cubra: re and lu: gubris, both containing original */o/ which regularly raised to /u/ in a closed syllable, demonstrating the absence of r-conditioning (to /e/). V-to-V conditioning similarly fails due to the variety of vowels in the initial syllables. Given the failure of several of the simple s-stem nouns to survive into Latin, combined with IE comparative evidence for an exact cognate of tenebrae with a *-ra: suffix and plural ending (Skt. tamisra: ḥ ‘silent night’), it is likely that these forms are old creations, dating back at least to a period before vowel reduction in the archaic period.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

Examination of the forms

109

Closed-syllable reduction before heteromorphemic TR (*s-r > *-b-rom/-a, *-b-ris). 4.4.11 Forms in -Trum/-ra, -T-ris < archaic *-Trom etc. < PIE *-T-ro-m/-ra:, *-T-ri-s Latin inherited nouns and adjectives formed with the PIE suffixes *-ro-/-ra: , *-ri-. Evidence for vowel reduction before TR in such formations, where a stem-final stop (T) preceded the suffix, comes from prefixed and compound forms. (27)

Forms in *-Tro- etc. a. Simplex stem attested co: n-sec-ra: re ‘consecrate’, ob-sec-ra: re ‘beseech’, re-sec-ra: re ‘implore again’ (*sak-ro-s = sakros (CIL 12.1) > sacer ‘sacred’) de: -lib-ra: re ‘strip off bark’ (*lib-ro-s > liber ‘inner bark; book’) im-pig-er, -gra, -grum ‘active’ (*pig-ro-s > piger ‘sluggish’) per-eg-ri: /-re: ‘abroad’ (*ag-ro-s > ager ‘field’) b. Simplex stem not attested in-teger, -gra, -grum ‘untouched; whole’ < *en-tag-ro-s (cf. tangere ‘touch’)

Stop in TR: /k b g/ Liquid in TR: /r/ Vowel preceding TR: /e i/ Morpheme boundary: VT-R It is clear from these developments that a short vowel preceding heteromorphemic Tr was in a closed syllable, as */a/ reduced to /e/, whereas */i/ remained intact. R- and Vto-V conditioning cannot explain why inherited */i/ was not also realized as /e/. The retention of /i/ could be attributed to the analogical influence of the simplex forms piger and liber, but the apparent antiquity of the forms suggest otherwise. For example, there is no trace of a simplex verb {libra: re, and the semantics of de: libra: re are derived from the original meaning of liber ‘inner bark’, rather than the later more common meaning of ‘book’. Closed-syllable reduction before heteromorphemic TR (*-T-rom/-ra, *-T-ris). 4.4.12 Other formations resulting in internal TR Other TR sequences occurred in Latin where there was a morpheme boundary neither bisecting nor immediately before it. Detailed discussion of the etymologies and developments in this heterogeneous group can be found on the website; the forms are categorized below according to the conclusions reached there.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

110 (28)

Syllabification Other forms in TR a. Open-syllable reduction before tautomorphemic TR (TR-initial compound elements), with environmental conditioning manupretium ‘payment for workmanship’ reciprocus ‘moving backwards and forwards’ b. Possible open-syllable reduction before tautomorphemic TR (-brium) or heteromorphemic TR (*-hab-r-) lu: dibrium ‘toy; mockery; laughing-stock’ manubrium ‘handle (of a utensil)’ opprobrium ‘scandal, disgrace; reproach, taunt’ c. Possible closed-syllable reduction, or open-syllable reduction with environmental conditioning before tautomorphemic TR (*-tr-i: na) moletri: na ‘mill’ d. Possible closed-syllable reduction, or open-syllable reduction with environmental conditioning, before tautomorphemic, but non-morpheme-initial TR (*-patr-) im-/per-petra: re ‘obtain by request/complete’ e. Possible closed-syllable reduction before tautomorphemic (*-bra) or heteromorphemic (*-s-ra: ) TR colubra ‘snake’ f. Possible closed-syllable reduction before heteromorphemic TR (*-hab-r-) enubro: ‘restraining (dat./abl.)’ g. Possible closed-syllable reduction before heteromorphemic (*-ok-ri-) or tautomorphemic (*-okris unanalysable) TR (or analogy on the simplex ocris) mediocris ‘of medium size’

Manupretium and reciprocus in (28a) are both compounds attested in early Latin, with a vowel preceding morpheme-initial TR. Reciprocus < *rekʷe-+-prokʷe-+-os (Dunkel 1979; Hoenigswald 1992), or *reco-+-proco-s, or similar) clearly shows open-syllable reduction of */e/ (or */o/) to /i/, and manupretium (*manu- ‘hand’ + *-pretiom ‘reward, payment’) shows a variant manipretium (e.g. Cato Agr. 14.5), with the labial colouring variation expected in open syllables. This might indicate the alignment of morpheme and syllable boundaries at the time of vowel reduction. Example (28b) constitutes a small class of words in -brium in Latin, a suffix with no apparent etymological basis (Serbat 1975: 134–5). Whereas little can be gleaned from opprobrium, as the internal vowel was probably analogical, lu: dibrium could provide evidence simply for a compositional /i/ vowel, but could also show open-syllable reduction. This possibility might be supported by the barely attested variation in the vowel quality of manubrium/manibrium (possibly < *man-hab-r-jo-m) due to open-

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

Analysis

111

syllable labial colouring (}4.2.2.2).44 Moletri: na in (28c) is attested only once,45 but contains the paralleled element -tri: na after the root *melH-, also seen in molucrum (}4.4.5). Note the divergent development of the internal vowels in moletri: na and molucrum, the main difference being the quality of the stop in TR: we posit below that coronal /t/ permitted anticipatory r-conditioning in an open syllable, but dorsal /k/ blocked it, /u/ being conditioned by the preceding environment. Closed-syllable reduction could also straightforwardly explain the /e/. The derivatives of patra: re ‘accomplish’ in (28d), with morphological structures *en/per-patr-a: -, show reduction of the original */a/ to /e/, suggesting a closed syllable; but given /e/ in the preceding syllable, r- and V-to-V conditioning could also provide explanations. The etymology of colubra in (28e) must remain speculative given the obscure origin of the word (Serbat 1975: 132–3; EDL 126). The most likely interpretation seems to be closed-syllable retention of */o/ before heteromorphemic */br/ from *-s-ra: , but other accounts are possible. In (28f), we find /e ~ u/ variation before a labial in the forms enuber/ineber (Serbat 1975: 127; EDL 190–91), possibly indicating closed-syllable reduction (}4.2.2.2) before heteromorphemic TR (*en-habro-s). In any case, one should appeal to this word with caution given its scant attestation and the phonological peculiarities of its initial syllable (in- versus en-). Finally, although the retention of internal */o/ in the compound medi-ocris could have been due to its position in a closed syllable, it is difficult to explain its failure to raise to /u/ (cf. pius ‘dutiful’). The retention of /o/ therefore seems best explained by appeal to the barely attested simplex ocris ‘rugged mountain’, after the transparent *medi-. In conclusion, we find feasible evidence for open-syllable reduction in every case where a plausible synchronic morphological boundary immediately preceded TR, in compounds and before *-brium and *tri: na. The other forms are best explained by closed-syllable reduction.

4.5 Analysis 4.5.1 Results of the examination The results of the examination in }4.4 are tabulated below according to whether the vowel preceding TR showed open-syllable reduction (possibly with environmental conditioning) or closed-syllable reduction, before tauto- or heteromorphemic TR. Where there are competing explanations, the alternatives are presented with cross-references to the other interpretation, with the most straightforward alternative

44 45

manihbrioi in a fragment of Festus beside Paul. Fest. p. 349M manubrio. In a fragment of Cato (orat. 82) reported by Nonius (p. 63.22M).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

112

Syllabification

rated as 1 and the less straightforward as 2. Note that there is no evidence for closedsyllable reduction before Tl, nor any for evidence for reduction before heteromorphemic Tl, due to the absence of relevant formations. Patterns in the data are extracted in (29). TABLE 4.1 Open-syllable vowel reduction indicating tautosyllabic TR Heteromorphemic TR

Tautomorphemic TR Tr

Tl

2 -bra (palpebra) With r-conditioning Or 1 closed-syllable -trum denominative (ta: litrum) Possibly with environmental (V-to-V) conditioning -crum (lu: dicra) Possibly with environmental (C/V-toV) conditioning 2 -tri: x (genetri: x) With environmental (r- and V-to-V) conditioning Or 1 closed-syllable 2 -bris (alebris) With r- (and V-to-V) conditioning Or 1 closed-syllable 1 -cris (alacris) With environmental (C/V-to-V) conditioning Or 2 closed-syllable Morpheme-initial TR in compound (reciprocus) With environmental (labial) conditioning 1 -brium (manubrium) With environmental (labial) conditioning Or 2 heteromorphemic TR 2 -tri: na (moletri: na) With r-conditioning Or 1 closed-syllable 2 Non-morpheme-initial TR (im-/per-petra: re) With environmental (r- and V-to-V) conditioning Or 1 closed-syllable

-bulum (pro: stibulum)

-culum (vehiculum)

-bilis (ascendibilis)

2 -brium (manubrium) Or 1 tautomorphemic TR

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

Analysis

113

TABLE 4.2 Closed-syllable vowel reduction indicating heterosyllabic TR

(29)

Tautomorphemic TR (Tr only)

Heteromorphemic TR

1 -bra (palpebra, colubra?) Or 2 open-syllable 2 -trum deverbative (fulgetrum) Or 1 originally -bra 1 -tri: x (genetri: x) Or 2 open-syllable 1 -bris (alebris) Or 2 open-syllable 2 -cris (volucris) Or 1 open-syllable 1 -tri: na (moletri: na) Or 2 open-syllable 1 Non-morpheme-initial TR (im-/per-petra: re) Or 2 open-syllable

*-s-r- (tenebrae, colubra?) *-T-r- (integrum, enubro: ?)

Patterns in the data a. Heteromorphemic TR resulted in closed-syllable reduction (with the possible exception -brium). b. Morpheme-initial Tl resulted in open-syllable reduction. c. Some morpheme-initial Tr can only be explained by open-syllable reduction (-trum denominative, -crum, morpheme-initial TR in compounds, and probably -brium if we assume that it was analysed as a separate element in archaic Latin). d. All remaining morpheme-initial Tr can be explained either by closedsyllable reduction, or by open-syllable reduction with environmental conditioning e. Non-morpheme-initial tautomorphemic Tr resulted in closed-syllable reduction or open-syllable reduction with environmental conditioning.

Since there was no consistent syllabification of TR at the time of archaic Latin vowel reduction, as (29a-c) confirm, we formulated hypotheses at }4.3.2 (15), repeated below, based upon the notions that syllable boundaries in TR may have been conditioned by morpheme boundaries, and that if conditioning effects occurred, perhaps in anticipation of the /r/, these were likely to be found in open syllables, before tautosyllabic TR. (30)

Hypotheses regarding archaic syllabification of TR a. Alignment of synchronically transparent morpheme boundaries with syllable boundaries, resulting in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

114

Syllabification b. open-syllable reduction before morpheme-initial TR, hence displaying sensitivity to environmental context (e.g. r-conditioning), c. closed-syllable reduction before heteromorphemic TR, and d. a single, consistent default syllabification of TR in morphologically opaque forms.

(29a–c) fall neatly into this framework: we find closed-syllable reduction before heteromorphemic TR (e.g. integrum), and open-syllable reduction before morpheme-initial TR (e.g. lu: dicra, vehiculum). We predict that non-morpheme-initial but tautomorphemic or morphologically opaque TR in (29e) (e.g. perpetra: re) should follow a consistent default syllabification. As the examination of such forms rendered closed-syllable reduction most likely, we hypothesize that the default archaic syllabification of TR was heterosyllabic. The problematic remaining forms in (29d), morpheme-initial TR with apparent closed-syllable reduction (e.g. palpebra, genetri: x, moletri: na), invite two competing accounts: (i) heterosyllabic TR with closed-syllable reduction, or (ii) tautosyllabic TR with open-syllable reduction and environmental conditioning. In this section, I argue that the former analysis accounts for forms which were no longer morphologically transparent, and TR was therefore heterosyllabic by default, just as in (29e), whereas the latter accounts for forms with a synchronically transparent structure, but specific preceding and following phonological environments. Crucial to such an analysis is independent verification of the synchronic transparency of morphemes. Suffixes in archaic Latin may have been synchronically and diachronically transparent (e.g. *-blom), or diachronically but no longer synchronically transparent (perhaps *-ro-), or diachronically opaque but apparently synchronically transparent (perhaps *-brium, *-tri: na). Synchronic transparency in archaic Latin is difficult to recover, but productivity in early and classical Latin is an indicator. 4.5.2 Morphological transparency and alignment The problematic cases for a morpheme-syllable alignment view belong to the following morphological categories, all of which show preceding /e/. (31)

Counterexamples to morpheme-syllable alignment a. -bra b. deverbative -trum c. -tri: x d. -bris e. -tri: na

Unlike -tri: x and -tri: na, there are indications that the suffix -bra was no longer synchronically transparent in archaic Latin, probably influenced by its merger with -bra from heteromorphemic *-s-ra: . The suffix -bra was clearly unproductive by classical Latin, and Serbat (1975: 126) claims that it ceased to exist in the linguistic

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

Analysis

115

consciousness of Latin speakers from the beginning of the literary period. If -bra was morphologically opaque as early as archaic Latin, then it would also have been invisible to phonological processes such as syllabification and reduction. As a result, the default heterosyllabicity in the absence of a morpheme boundary, as found in forms such as impetra: re, was also applied to forms in -bra, triggering closed-syllable reduction in the preceding vowel, thus pal.peb.ra. In contrast, the suffixes -clum, -blum, and -blis clearly had a longer life, with -clum and -blis being particularly productive. All of these show preceding open-syllable reduction. The -blum suffix seem to have undergone a sterile period, with virtually no attestations of new formations from Augustan times until the 2nd century ad, when it seems to have enjoyed a rebirth (Serbat 1975: 77–80). This sterility suggests an earlier death as a productive suffix, a situation analogous to -bra, although its 2nd-century renaissance indicates that its value was still felt during the early historical period. Furthermore, there are denominative formations in -blum (e.g. tu: ribulum ‘censer’, cf. tu: s, -u: ris ‘incense’), but none in -bra.46 Given that denominative formations from mediative suffixes seem to have developed later than root and deverbative formations (Serbat 1975: 344, 375–7), it is likely that a suffix forming denominatives survived longer than one which did not. Therefore, it is feasible that the morpheme boundary before -blum was still perceived at the time of vowel reduction, but that before -bra was not. The divergence in the behaviour of vowels before deverbative -trum (fulgetrum, palpetra) and denominative -trum (calcitra: re, ta: litrum) also becomes apparent. Recall that the former forms could simply be explained by positing -brum at the time of reduction, followed by non-local labial dissimilation to -trum; but if we were to reject such an account on phonological grounds (cf. palpebra), morphological transparency could still explain the contrasting reflexes. Deverbative (and other) *-tro- appears to have been the earliest casualty among the mediative suffixes (Serbat 1975: 344, 380), as all formations were early, with no apparent productivity whatsoever in the historical period. However, there is little reason to doubt that ta: litrum and *kalkitrum are true denominative formations, despite their rejection by Serbat (1975: 340–41) mainly on the very grounds that they are isolated denominatives. We therefore have evidence for a limited survival of -trum in the newer, denominative function after the end of the productive era of -bra and deverbative -trum, and it is precisely in these newer formations that that suffix was still transparent in archaic Latin, resulting in open-syllable reduction, and not default heterosyllabic TR. Forms with originally morpheme-initial /br/ were susceptible to morphological opacity not only owing to early non-productivity of the suffixes, but also because of their merger with heteromorphemic */s-r/ (e.g. latebrae and tenebrae with different

46

If we accept that candela: brum was the result of dissimilation (Serbat 1975: 125).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

116

Syllabification

histories). Evidence comes from the divergent behaviour of -bra and -crum, and -bris and -cris, the former in each pair showing closed-syllable reduction, and the latter open-syllable. Words in -crum arising through lateral dissimilation appear to be old formations, but open-syllable reduction indicates archaic transparency of the suffix, just as in its productive counterpart -clum, perhaps suggesting that the two were still perceived as allomorphs in the synchronic grammar. Similarly, although adjectives in *-klis/-kris show very little evidence of survival in Latin, and we might therefore expect heterosyllabic TR at the time of reduction, the conditioning in alacris and volucris suggests open syllables. The transparency of the unproductive suffix is best explained by the phonological and morphological proximity of -cris to the very productive suffix -clum/-cla and its allomorph -crum/-cra, explaining how the later noun formation volucra could arise from the earlier adjectival volucris. All these forms therefore contained a transparent suffix at the time of vowel reduction. Conversely, a synchronic connection was not maintained between forms in -bris, which had undergone lateral dissimilation, and those in -blis, which had not, as the latter consistently shows open-syllable reduction, but the former probably closedsyllable. We might reject the reality of alebris on the basis of its scant attestation (once in Caesar, once in Festus, then only in the later glossaries), and interpret celebris as an s-stem form showing regular heterosyllabicity (an interpretation with some morphological difficulties; see website). However, the bare survival of -bris (only three or four forms in total) alongside productive -blis could have rendered the former morphologically opaque at a very early stage, particularly in light of the unambiguous diachronic origin of the latter forms in /bl/, but the merger of the mediative suffix forms with inherited s-stems to yield /br/ forms. Indeed, we cannot confidently reconstruct the morphological origin of celebris: *kele-d=li-s with morpheme-initial TR or *kel-es-ri-s without. Unsure as to the origin of /br/ in these forms, archaic Latin speakers presumably treated them identically, with default heterosyllabicity of TR. No analogous problem existed for /bl/, as there are no examples of short vowel + stop before /l/-initial suffixes.47 The remaining unexplained forms showing /e/ before TR are those in -tri: x and -tri: na. The suffix -tri: x was unambiguously transparent in archaic times given its productivity in the later language, as was -tri: na given the related verbs and agent nouns: compare lava: re/-ere ‘wash’ ~ lava: tus/lautus/lo: tus ‘washed’ ~ lo: tor ‘washer of clothes’ ~ l(av)a: tri: na ‘washing-place’ with molere ‘grind’ ~ molitus ‘ground’ ~ molitor ‘miller’ ~ moletri: na ‘mill’. We therefore cannot invoke the same explanation as for -bra, and hence I argue in the next section that /e/ in these forms results from

47

Consequently, we must rely primarily on Tr forms to test the alignment hypothesis. In all Tl forms, the sequence is both tautomorphemic and tautosyllabic, showing open-syllable reduction, a pattern consistent with the alignment hypothesis.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

Analysis

117

environmental conditioning in an open syllable, and TR was morpheme-initial and tautosyllabic, as expected. To conclude this section, I hypothesize an explanation for default heterosyllabicity of archaic TR that arises from the above discussion. The forms with the inherited suffixes *-ro- and *-ri- which derived from s- or stop-final stems all had heteromorphemic and therefore heterosyllabic TR, with the different pre-suffixal vowel qualities (tenebrae, lu: gubris) arising from the inheritance of either an e-, o-, or zero-grade of the stem. However, as with -bra, the suffixes *-ro-, *-ri- ceased to be productive before the start of the literary period, and the formations were either inherited or archaic. Therefore, the heterosyllabic treatment of TR may have started off in these forms as a result of the alignment of morpheme and syllable boundaries at a prehistoric stage, but remained in the absence of a conditioning morphological context following the loss of transparency of the suffix. As a result, heterosyllabicity became the default, contextless syllabification of TR in archaic Latin, and heterosyllabic TR in forms in *-ro-, *-ri- might have resulted from that default setting, also encountered in impetra: re and forms in -bra. Therefore, in reconstructing good historical motivations for the heterosyllabicity of -bra, deverbative -trum, and -bris, based on their non-transparency in archaic Latin, we have also formulated a likely morphological explanation for heterosyllabicity as the default treatment of TR. 4.5.3 Constrained r-conditioning We are yet to explain formations in -tri: x and -tri: na—suffixes which were undoubtedly transparent in archaic Latin, but which seem to show closed-syllable reduction. Morpheme-syllable alignment predicts open-syllable reduction in these forms, and internal /e/ must therefore be explained by environmental conditioning, a much more common phenomenon in open-syllables. The relevant forms are the following. (32)

Forms in -tri: x and -tri: na48 genetri: x ‘mother’, meretri: x ‘courtesan’, obstetri: x ‘midwife’ moletri: na ‘mill’

Simple perseverative V-to-V conditioning, involving exact matching of vowels, cannot work, as the vowel in the preceding syllable is /o/ in two of the four instances. Given that /e o/ are both mid vowels, V-to-V conditioning based on height is more promising, but also fails because of the counterevidence afforded by related forms such as genitor, merito: rius, and molitor, all with internal, open-syllable /i/ after initial sequences identical to -tri: x forms. However, the striking difference between these Recall (}4.4.6) that we rejected domitri:x and ia:nitri: x on the basis that the best explanation for their internal /i/ was their masculine equivalents domitor and ia:nitor. Ia: nitri: x could, however, be explained by the account developed in this section. 48

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

118

Syllabification

forms and genetri: x, meretri: x, and moletri: na is that the vowel was followed by a simple onset /t/ in the former but by complex /tr/ in the latter, inviting us to hypothesize a constrained r-conditioning across an intervening consonant. Recall that r-conditioning before simple onset /r/ resulted in the mid vowel /e/ (}4.2.2.1), indicating that the following rhotic produced an anticipatory mid-vowel resonance. The Latin data imply that such a resonance was merely reduced, not totally obliterated, across an intervening consonant, as supported by Heid and Hawkins’s (2002) acoustic findings. The anticipatory conditioning could therefore surface when in a mutually supportive relationship with perseverative, V-to-V mid-vowel conditioning: the coarticulatory effects of /r/ were not sufficient to be phonologized across an intervening stop, unless the mid height was already present when the vowel was articulated, persevering from a preceding mid vowel, whether front /e/ or back /o/. Thus we have genetri: x, meretri: x, and moletri: na, with preceding mid vowels, but manubrium/manibrium, manupretium, and ta: litrum with preceding low vowels, and lu: dicra with a preceding high vowel. Whether constrained r-conditioning can also explain obstetri: x depends on the ability of mid-vowel conditioning to cross over not simply one sonorant, as in the other forms showing the effect, but also a sequence /bst/ consisting of stop-fricativestop. Recall (}4.2.2.4) that V-to-V conditioning occurred sporadically in Latin, but there was usually only /l/ or a nasal separating the vowels, and if there were two consonants, the first was a liquid, and any obstruent was either labial or dorsal, not coronal. As obstetri: x contains a three-consonant sequence, none of which is a liquid and two of which are coronal obstruents, it is probably best seen as an analogical formation on genetri: x. We can therefore characterize constrained r-conditioning: (33)

Constrained r-conditioning V à e / (C)V[–high, –low].C__.Tr

The counterexamples to constrained r-conditioning are the phonologically similar pair molucrum and volucris, and the compound reciprocus, all of which should show internal /e/ before TR, as the vowel was in an open-syllable (before morpheme-initial TR), and there was a mid vowel in the preceding syllable with only one intervening consonant. A phonetically motivated explanation for /u/ is forthcoming for molucrum and volucris, as we can posit that the presence of the following dorsal stop /k/ in each case blocked the anticipatory resonance of /r/, as found in Heid and Hawkins (2002), where local consonant perturbation, particularly from a velar, could obliterate the short-range effects. Plausibly, the tongue raising required for /k/ prevented the retention of a constant mid-level tongue height, resulting in a high vowel in the unstressed, internal open syllable as expected. Contrast molucrum with moletri: na where the anticipatory effect of the /r/ was free to have an effect before /t/. However, the internal vowel in molucrum and volucris, being in an open syllable, was still susceptible to conditioning effects, and again, such effects appear to have been both

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

Analysis

119

perseverative and anticipatory. Retention of the original back, rounded /u/ instead of reduction to /i/ could be explained by the labializing and l-conditioning influence of the initial sequence ‘labial C–/o/–dark /l/’ in both forms. Dark /l/ usually had a regressive rather than progressive colouring effect, as it was itself conditioned by a following vowel (see Chapter 2), but dark /l/ conditioned by following inherited /u/ was plausibly further supported by the preceding labial + back vowel, resulting in the retention of robust /l/darkness during vowel reduction, and consequently retention of the following /u/. However, as with genetri: x beside genitor, perseveration alone cannot account for molucrum and volucris beside forms such as molitor and volito: with identical initial sequences. The following dorsal consonant /k/ therefore not only blocked r-conditioning, but also itself contributed to this back-conditioning, in combination with the preceding sequence, a [back] consonant colouring a preceding vowel to be [back]. The compound form reci-procus arguably showed the usual open-syllable reduction due to the stronger morphological boundary before Tr, preventing the coarticulatory anticipation of the /r/. However, we might also argue that the tongue raising required for the preceding /k/ prevented the retention of a constant mid-level tongue height, reducing effects of the perseverative V-to-V coarticulation (but cf. vegetus ‘vigorous’), and perhaps also the anticipatory r-conditioning, thus resulting in unconditioned, open-syllable /i/. In sum, the forms with internal /e/ before morpheme-initial TR, at first suggesting closed-syllable reduction instead of predicted open-syllable reflexes, can be explained by environmental conditioning in the expected open syllables. Counterexamples to constrained r-conditioning still appear to show open-syllable reflexes, and are due mainly to the blocking effects of adjacent /k/. 4.5.4 Summary The following analysis, consistent with our hypotheses at }4.5.1 (30), can account for the data most elegantly and comprehensively. (34)

Summary analysis a. TR was heterosyllabic in archaic Latin, b. unless preceded by a synchronically transparent morphological boundary, in which case it was tautosyllabic, due to the alignment of morpheme and syllable boundaries. c. Open- or closed-syllable vowel reduction occurred in early archaic Latin on the basis of these syllabifications. d. Open-syllable reduction before TR was susceptible to three types of environmental conditioning: i. Constrained r-conditioning: V à e / (C)V[–high, –low].C__.Tr ii. Labial conditioning: before labial consonants iii. Back-conditioning: /u/ retained after /C[labial]ol/, before C[dorsal]

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/2/2015, SPi

120

Syllabification

4.6 Conclusions on archaic Latin syllabification We can detect a progressive development of the syllabification of TR in Latin. In archaic times, the sequence was heterosyllabic unless a transparent morpheme boundary was perceived immediately preceding it. This perhaps indicates an earlier stage whereby syllabification of the sequence was governed primarily by alignment to morphological boundaries. As morphemes ceased to be productive and were no longer unconsciously perceived, TR adopted the default position of heterosyllabicity, perhaps based on the antiquity and early end to the productivity of formations in *-ro-/-ra: . Vowel reduction occurred at a stage when speakers were sensitive to some but not all morpheme boundaries, and after a series of relevant prior sound changes, which occurred in the following order: (i) */tl/ > /kl/, (ii) lateral dissimilation, and (iii) */sr b=r d=r/ > /br/. Reduction therefore occurred in line with either default heterosyllabic TR or morphologically aligned tautosyllabic TR. Open-syllable vowels before the latter were susceptible to environmental conditioning, similar to, but in a more constrained fashion than, vowels in internal open syllables before simple onsets. Constrained r-conditioning before TR resulted in vowels in open syllables being realized as /e/ when preceded by a mid vowel in the previous syllable and in the absence of a blocking dorsal consonant. After this era, the default syllabification of TR changed from heterosyllabicity to tautosyllabicity by early Latin, with only transparent morpheme boundaries after stop-final free morphemes (such as verbal prefixes) resulting in syllable boundaries and thus heterosyllabicity. Why the change in the default syllabification occurred can only be the subject of speculation. Perhaps there was an analogical spread of tautosyllabicity based upon those forms which remained tautosyllabic throughout (e.g. -clum), as morpheme boundaries came to be less transparent. However, heterosyllabicity then spread in literary language to forms other than those like oblinere, this time supported by Greek metrical conventions. As there were thus templates for both syllabifications, the uniform tautosyllabicity in Plautus was replaced by variation in later authors and perhaps even the spoken language, as some Romance evidence suggests. This study therefore illustrates both the synchronic and diachronic phonological impact of the loss of morphological analysis. In terms of a theory of diachronic phonology, we can maintain a phonetically based reductionist view, as synchronic morphological structure only has an influence on synchronic phonological structure. The effect of structure on diachronic change is one step removed, mediated by the synchronic phonetic implementation of that structure. Syllabifications yielded vowel tokens of particular phonetic shapes, whether conditioned by /r/ or by the vowel duration expected in closed syllables (Sen 2012b), which were then phonologized by the listener in diachronic vowel reduction.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

5 Vocalic epenthesis in Tl 5.1 Introduction The phonotactics of a language changes, as we see in greater detail in Chapter 6. Sequences that were permissible in the synchronic phonology of one period develop by sound change, and are no longer well-formed at a later period, and vice versa. For example, we saw in Chapter 4 that inherited internal */sr/ developed to /br/, rendering /sr/ phonotactically ill-formed in Latin. In this chapter, we continue our investigation into the history of stop + liquid sequences in Latin, examining the diachronic phenomenon of vocalic epenthesis in stop + /l/, rendering /bl kl pl/ impermissible consonantal sequences in most contexts. Vocalic epenthesis, traditionally labelled ‘anaptyxis’ when applied to Latin, is the insertion of a vowel between two consonants. This phenomenon was regular in late archaic/early Latin in word-internal sequences of certain stops + /l/, e.g. po: clum > po: culum ‘cup’. Well-attested non-epenthesized forms such as po: clom in Plautus (e.g. Pl. Cur. 359) indicate that development was ongoing in the 3rd century bc, allowing us to date the phenomenon well after early archaic vowel reduction in the 6th to 5th centuries bc (Chapter 4). However, the phonological conditions for epenthesis have never been satisfactorily investigated, and no convincing answers have been proffered to the questions: (i) Which stops participated? (ii) Were syllable, metrical, and morphological structure relevant? (iii) When did epenthesis occur in the different sequences? For example, /bl/ undoubtedly participated in the change (*stablom > stabulum ‘stable’), but why did epenthesis not occur across prefix + root boundaries (oblinere ‘smear’), and does the absence of non-epenthesized forms in /bl/, alongside attestations of such forms when the stop was different, indicate the antiquity of epenthesis in /bl/ compared to the others? In this chapter, we present a new chronology for the spread of epenthesis—/bl/ then /kl/ then /pl/—and account for the diachronic extension of epenthesis environments, through motivations from phonology—the features of the stop—and morphology—the role of suffixes. Furthermore, we demonstrate that epenthesis only occurred where the /bl kl/ sequence was a complex syllable-initial onset, highlighting its divergent development from forms where the syllable boundary

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

122

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

bisected Tl, thus *po: .klom > po: culum ‘cup’, beside *nek.le.ge.se > *neglegere ‘neglect’. Finally, we can even witness the tail end of the spread of epenthesis in /kl/ from the 3rd to the 2nd centuries bc, with high-frequency words initially resisting the change. This is predicted by the ‘lexical diffusion’ model of the implementation of sound change (Wang 1969; Chen and Wang 1975) for developments which require structural analysis of some kind, and are not physiologically motivated (Phillips 1984; 2001). I argue that epenthesis in /kl/ is one such change. Vocalic epenthesis again demonstrates the relevance of syllable and morphological structure in sound change; but contrary to previous chapters, synchronic structure directly conditions diachronic change, without the intermediate effect of structurally conditioned phonetic tokens. In a reductionist account of diachronic phonology, we might attribute such a development to ‘structural analogy’ (Blevins 2004: 154), change guided and constrained by analogy on similar, pre-existing morphological or phonological structures. Vocalic epenthesis occurred in the history of Latin in several different consonantal sequences and at different periods. Epenthesis in ‘consonant + /n/’ occurred at a very early stage, e.g. feminis ‘thigh (gen.)’ < *femnes (Meiser 1998: 142; Klingenschmitt 1992: 118), and in ‘consonant (usually voiceless dorsal stop) + nasal’1 in archaic times for the adaptation of Greek loanwords, e.g. Gk. drachmá: à drac(h)uma ‘drachma’ (e.g. Pl. Trin. 425), alongside drachma which became the regular form (e.g. Pl. Mer. 777), owing the influence of the Greek original. Within stop + liquid sequences, the regular epenthesis in Tl in archaic to early Latin is the subject of this chapter, e.g. po: culum ‘cup’ (e.g. pocolom CIL 12.439) < po: clom (e.g. Pl. Cur. 359). However, inscriptional evidence from an early stage indicates that vocalic epenthesis occurred in Tr sequences in dialects of Latin which did not develop into the classical language, e.g. mac[i]steratvs ‘magistrate’ (CIL 12.401), terebonio (a name) (CIL 12.33; 3rd–2nd centuries bc). In imperial Latin, epenthesis is seen in non-Roman varieties of the language, possibly due to the adaptation of Latin words to the phonotactics of the language native to the area. There are examples of epenthesis in obstruent + /r/ (even word-initially in Africa, e.g. geracilis in CIL 8.6237), consonant + /n/, stop + /t/, and /n/ + stop (Leumann 1977: 103–4).2 Vocalic epenthesis also occurred in Oscan (e.g. *patrei > patereí ‘father (dat.)’), an Italic language of the Sabellian branch, spoken close to Rome in early times (Schmid 1955). The phenomenon clearly occurred separately in the different languages and not See Ch. 6 on the phonotactics of stop + nasal. De Groot (1921) devotes an entire study to vocalic epenthesis in Latin. While he acknowledges the regularity seen in /bl/ and /kl/, his study concentrates on late Latin epenthesis, by which period he claims that epenthesis had become regular in numerous sequences, but the change did not occur simultaneously in the different consonant groups. Furthermore, the effects of epenthesis were chiefly later removed again through syncope. 1 2

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Introduction

123

in Proto-Italic, as not only was Latin epenthesis ongoing in early Latin, long after the split of Proto-Italic, but Oscan epenthesis was also chronologically preceded by Oscan syncope of short vowels in internal open syllables, so providing an input to epenthesis. Syncope in turn must have occurred after a split of the Sabellian branch of Italic into Oscan and Umbrian, as Umbrian palatalization must have preceded syncope (Benediktsson 1960: 179–80; Meiser 1986: 131, 200). Neither does the Oscan evidence indicate a widespread areal epenthesis in central and southern Italy. Epenthesis targets were very different in the two languages (all CR, RC, CN, NC sequences in Oscan, but only Tl with regularity in Latin), and the syllable structure of targets also appears to have been different: heterosyllabic sequences in Oscan (Rix 1996: 248–9; Bernardi Perini 1974: 52–6), but, we shall argue, tautosyllabic in Latin.3 Furthermore, the absence of epenthesis in unrelated but geographically adjacent Etruscan (Wachter 1987: 133–4) sets it apart from the stress-related phenomena of vowel reduction and syncope, whose occurrence was widespread across Italy regardless of language. To conclude, we should not appeal to Oscan, or other Sabellian, evidence to illuminate Latin epenthesis, but should concentrate solely on the data afforded us by Latin itself. The aspects of Latin vocalic epenthesis in Tl that require explanation are characterized by the following questions. (1)

Questions on vocalic epenthesis in Latin Tl a. Which stops participated in the development? b. What were the prosodic and morphological structural conditions for the change (syllable, morpheme, word, stress)? c. Was epenthesis a uniform phenomenon across the participating Tl sequences, or did it occur at different times in the different targets?

Regarding question (1a), /b/ and /k/ certainly participated, in suffixes such as -clom > -culum, and *-blom > -bulum, as we saw in Chapter 4.4 There were also forms in /kl/ which did not originate in these suffixes, e.g. Hercle: s > Hercule: s ‘Hercules’. Whether /p/ and /g/ underwent epenthesis is disputed. Neither Lindsay (1894: 93–5) nor Meiser (1998: 65) draws any distinction between the different stops. Sommer (1948: 138–41) and Sommer and Pfister (1977: 111–13) include the sequences /pl gl/ in addition to /bl kl/, but acknowledge counterexamples in /pl/, and Maniet (1975: 104–5) similarly notes that epenthetic vowels did not tend to arise in the sequence /mpl/. Leumann (1977: 102–4) and Weiss (2009: 164–5) include /bl kl/ with certainty in their formulations, but only tentatively acknowledge /pl/ (both) and /gl/ (Leumann) as possible contexts. Finally, Sihler (1995: 90) includes /bl kl pl/, but notes that there are only 3 There were dialectal differences in Oscan epenthesis (Rix 1996), and the phenomenon appears to have been even more widespread in some minor Sabellian languages, thus Paelignian sacaracirix (Untermann 2000: 643). 4 Note the asterisks: -clom is attested whereas *-blom is not.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

124

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

occasional variant forms for /gl/. The remaining Tl sequences, with coronal stops /t d/, underwent prehistoric changes. PIE */tl/ merged with /kl/ and likewise underwent epenthesis (Meiser 1998: 123): *peh3-tlo-m > *po: tlom > po: clom > po: colom > po: culum ‘cup’.5 PIE */dl/ underwent total regressive assimilation to /ll/ (Meiser 1998: 123): *sedla: > sella ‘seat’. As the epenthetic vowel was an unstressed, internal short vowel in an open syllable, it was conditioned as expected before the following contextually darkened onset /l/, as discussed in Chapter 2. The epenthetic vowel was presumably originally very short in duration, and therefore susceptible to environmental conditioning (}4.2). Before clear /l/, the epenthetic vowel was /i/, and before dark /l/, it was /o u/, which regularly merged as /u/ in the 3rd century bc in most environments. As discussed Chapter 2, vocalic epenthesis therefore provides evidence for /l/ being contextually darkened before /e:/. (2)

Quality of the epenthetic vowel a. /i/ before clear /l/ *stablis > stabilis ‘firm’ b. /u/ (< /o u/) before dark /l/ *stablom > stabulum ‘stable’ po: clom > po: colom > po: culum ‘cup’ Hercle: s > Hercule: s ‘Hercules’ Aiscla: pios > Aescula: pius ‘Asclepius’

We shall therefore first investigate the undisputed sequences /bl/ and /kl/, then the disputed /pl (mpl) gl/, determining in each case (i) any structural conditions and (ii) the chronology of the change. We hypothesize that epentheses which were not contemporaneous need not have had identical structural conditions, and were in essence different developments. However, we conjecture that any stepwise extension of environments for epenthesis should be guided and constrained by phonological or morphological structure. Finally, we shall attempt to ascertain the motivation for each epenthesis (phonetics or structural analogy), based on evidence from its implementation (lexical frequency).

5.2 /bl/ 5.2.1 Syllable structure The sequence /bl/ developed an epenthetic vowel in the nominal suffix *-blom/-bla and adjectival *-blis. Epenthesis in /bl/ was regular and consistent, and we have no evidence for a stage without the vowel. 5

See }6.6.2 for a possible divergent development of heteromorphemic */tl/.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

/bl/ (3)

125

Vocalic epenthesis in /bl/ *sth2-d=lo-m > *stad=lom >*stablom > stabulum ‘stable’ *sth2-d=li-s > *stad=lis >*stablis > stabilis ‘firm’

Open-syllable vowel reduction demonstrates that these suffixes were preceded by a syllable boundary in early archaic Latin (}4.4.3), and the sequence /bl/ was therefore tautosyllabic, thus *pata-blom > *patiblom > patibulum ‘gibbet’. As every TR sequence was consistently tautosyllabic in early Latin, except at prefix + root boundaries (}4.3.2), we reconstruct tautosyllabic /bl/ both before and after (or during) epenthesis. It is therefore simplest to posit that Tl in these suffixes was tautosyllabic when epenthesis began to occur. The stop in both suffixes continued the PIE voiced aspirate */d=/, which we concluded in }4.3.1 must already have merged with inherited /b/ before /l/ by the time of archaic Latin vowel reduction. We therefore expect epenthesis to have occurred also in /bl/ sequences which did not originate in */d=l/; but there are practically no examples of inherited internal /bl/ as a result of the rarity of /b/ in PIE reconstruction.6 Every exception involves /bl/ across a prefix + root boundary, and this is notably a context in which epenthesis failed. (4)

Failure of epenthesis in /bl/ across prefix + root boundaries *ab-lawere > abluere ‘wash off ’ *ob-liga: re > obliga: re ‘bind’ *ob-linere > oblinere ‘smear’

Where a prefix + root boundary fell between the stop and /l/, the scansion of early verse shows us that a syllable boundary also occurred in that position in early Latin, thus ob-linere ‘smear’ was syllabified /ob.li.ne.re/. The failure of epenthesis in these forms presents a strong indication that vocalic epenthesis occurred in tautosyllabic onset /bl/ sequences, but not heterosyllabic /b.l/, where the syllable break was aligned with the morphological boundary. Epenthesis also failed root-initially—i.e. word-initially, and word-internally after a prefix or at the start of the second element of a compound—despite being in the syllable onset. Word-internal resistance was presumably by analogy on the wordinitial simplex forms. This phenomenon is discussed further in }5.6. (5)

Failure of epenthesis in /bl/ root-initially a. Word-initially blandus ‘flattering’, blandi: ri: ‘flatter’ blati: re ‘babble’

Forms such as bibulus ‘drunkard’ were built with the agent-noun suffix *-elo-/-olo-, and not simple *-lo-, as confirmed by e.g. *kʷer-e/olo-s > querulus, adj. ‘querulous’, and not *kʷer-lo-s > {kʷellus (cf. *puerola: > *puerla > puella ‘girl’). 6

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

126

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl b. Word-internally per-blandus ‘very suave’, e: -/sub-blandi: ri: ‘coax out/fawn upon’ de: -blatera: re ‘babble’

5.2.2 Chronology The mediative suffixes *-d=lom/-d=la: /-d=lis had developed fully to -bulum/-bula/-bilis with an epenthetic vowel before our first attestations of such formations (Leumann 1977: 102; Sommer and Pfister 1977: 113). However, as there are no examples of words with earlier */bl/ before the 2nd century bc, we have no motivation, from attestations at any rate, to push the phenomenon back beyond the 3rd century. As evidence for the antiquity of the change, Leumann cites conciliaboleis = class. concilia: buli: s ‘place of assembly (abl. pl.)’ in the Lex Repetundarum (CIL 12.583.31), from 122 to 123 bc. The only example of such a form in Wachter (1987) is the name stabilio in CIL 12.1449, from the 2nd to early 1st century (p. 243).7 However, unlike in /kl pl/, every example of */bl/ in both the inscriptions and early Latin poetry is epenthesized, exhibiting no variation with non-epenthesized forms. As this change seems to have been well established by early Latin, we can, despite the absence of very early attestations, conclude that epenthesis in /bl/ occurred at least as early as the first half of the 3rd century. Furthermore, epenthesis failed in the form pu: blicus ‘public’ and the names Pu: blius/Pu: blilius etc. As these forms developed from the base *popli- during the documented linguistic history of Latin, as discussed in }5.4.3, and are likely to have contained tautosyllabic onset /bl/ in early Latin (particularly in light of long /u:/ in the first syllable), the failure of epenthesis can be attributed to the fact that /bl/-epenthesis was no longer active in early Latin. Word-internal onset /bl/ was therefore a target for epenthesis in the late archaic period, but not later, and the outcome was regular and settled by the middle of the 3rd century at the very latest. By comparison with the chronology of epenthesis in /kl/, we conclude below that /bl/-epenthesis was a 4th-century bc phenomenon.

5.3 /kl/ 5.3.1 Syllable structure The sequence /kl/ developed an epenthetic vowel in the suffix *-klom/-kla. However, unlike for /bl/, we also have evidence from words other than those containing a mediative suffix, notably Greek loanwords. Forms with root-final /k/ before -ulum

7 tableis = class. tabuli:s ‘tablets (dat./abl. pl.)’ in the Lex Agraria (CIL 12.585.46), from 111 bc, is most likely a non-standard syncopated form (e.g. Leumann 1977: 97). Cf. the usual form with a vowel between /bl/ later in the Lex Agraria (CIL 12.585.70), and also in tabolam in the earlier Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus from 186 bc.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

/kl/

127

(e.g. speculum ‘mirror’) appear to have contained an existing, not epenthetic, vowel (}5.3.3). (6)

Vocalic epenthesis in /kl/ *peh3-tlo-m > *po: tlom > po: clom (e.g. Pl. Cur. 359) > po: colom (e.g. pocolom CIL 12.439) > po: culum ‘cup’ Gk. He: raklê: s à Etruscan Hercle/Lat. Herecle: s (herecles) à Hercle: s (e.g. hercles CIL 12.563) > Hercole: s (e.g. hercolei CIL 12.607) > Hercule: s ‘Hercules’ (but cf. hercle! ‘by Hercules!’)8

Epenthesis in /kl/ was again regular and consistent, but on this occasion there are several attestations of non-epenthesized forms, illustrating a period during which the change was not complete. All such forms did however eventually undergo regular epenthesis, thus po: clom > po: culum. An exception appears to be the very frequent oath hercle! ‘by Hercules’, which resisted epenthesis at all times, an anomaly discussed further in }5.7. Open-syllable vowel reduction demonstrates that *-klom/-kla was preceded by a syllable boundary in early archaic Latin (}4.4.4), and the sequence /kl/ was therefore tautosyllabic, thus *wehe-klom > *wehiklom > vehiculum ‘cart’. As every TR sequence was consistently tautosyllabic in early Latin, except at prefix + root boundaries (}4.3.2), we reconstruct tautosyllabic /kl/ both before and after (or during) epenthesis. Therefore, just as with /bl/, it is simplest to posit that Tl in these suffixes was tautosyllabic when epenthesis began to occur. The evidence for epenthesis in /kl/ outside these suffixes also supports tautosyllabic Tl. Hercle: s is likely to have been syllabified /her.kle:s/, as /rk/ was consistently heterosyllabic throughout the history of Latin, and similarly Aiscla: pios must have been syllabified /ais.kla:.pi.os/, with internal heterosyllabic sT as shown by archaic reduction (e.g. *en.kas.tos > incestus ‘impure’) and the scansion of early verse. There is again some indication that epenthesis failed at prefix + root contacts, and the stop furthermore became voiced where epenthesis failed (not relevant in /bl/ where the stop was already voiced). The only evidence for this phenomenon in original heteromorphemic */kl/ is neglegere. (7)

Failure of epenthesis in /kl/, and voicing, across prefix + root boundaries *nek-legese > neglegere ‘neglect’

/kl/ across a prefix + root boundary was heterosyllabic, and therefore, as in /bl/, vocalic epenthesis occurred in tautosyllabic onset /kl/ sequences only. There was a divergent treatment of */kl/ depending on the position of the syllable boundary:

8

See }5.3.4 for the development.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

128

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

tautosyllabic complex onset */.kl/ > /kVl/, whereas heterosyllabic */k.l/ > /g.l/. See }6.6 on why sonorants sometimes triggered regressive voice assimilation in Latin. Also as in /bl/, /kl/-epenthesis failed root-initially (word-initially, and word-internally after a prefix/compound element), despite being in onset position (see }5.6). (8)

Failure of epenthesis in /kl/ root-initially a. Word-initially cla: rus ‘clear’, claudere ‘close’ b. Word-internally prae-cla: rus ‘brilliant’, se: -clu: dere ‘shut off ’

Unlike for /bl/, there are several examples of forms with non-epenthesized onset /kl/ in classical Latin, which fall into two general categories: Greek loanwords and postsyncope /kl/ (the latter discussed in }5.3.2). Examples given are attested in or before classical times. (9)

Greek loanwords with internal /kl/ a. Names for people and places: Amyclae, Anticle: a, Ascle: piade: s (a famous doctor; cf. the god Aescula: pius), Cyclade: s, Cyclops, Empedocle: s, He: racle: a (cf. Hercule: s), He: racli: tus, Procle: s b. Others: cyclas ‘female light outer garment’, cyclicus ‘of the Epic cycle’, coc(h)lea ‘snail’, eclipsis ‘eclipse’, ecloga ‘short passage/poem’, eclu: trum ‘pitcher’, naucle: rus ‘ship’s captain’, tri: cli: nium ‘dining-room’ (cf. tri: cili: nio: at Var. R. 3.13.3)

Greek loanwords almost uniformly did not epenthesize, presumably owing to the familiarity of educated Latin speakers with the Greek language, and in particular names of well-known Greek places and people (both real and mythological). Such words were therefore unconstrained by native Latin phonotactics. However, when loanwords entered the native vocabulary, probably because they were borrowed at an early date (sometimes via Etruscan), they did indeed follow undergo epenthesis, thus Hercule: s beside He: racle: a, and Aescula: pius beside Ascle: piade: s. Similarly, tri: cli: nium shows signs of epenthesis, as illustrated by tri: cili: nio: in Varro, presumably because the word was felt to belong to the native Latin lexicon by some speakers. 5.3.2 Metrical structure Epenthesized tri: cili: nium may alternatively have been regular, with the shorter tri: cli: nium ultimately winning out due to the subsequent action of early/classical parsing syncope (Sen 2012a: 225–6). In this post-epenthesis wave of vowel deletion, the pressure to avoid (i) syllables not parsed into feet, and (ii) secondarily stressed light syllables resulted in the relaxation of phonotactic constraints on syncope, allowing vowels between stop and liquid to be deleted, contrary to almost all

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

/kl/

129

preceding periods. Vowels in internal light syllables between Tl, whether inherited or epenthetic in origin, were therefore (occasionally) deleted before a stressed, heavy syllable, or before the final, extrametrical syllable (unless there was only one preceding light syllable).9 Forms with three consecutive, non-final light syllables also underwent syncope in whichever internal syllable was phonotactically acceptable, including Tl at this stage. (10)

Internal /kl/ (< earlier /kVl/) after early/classical parsing syncope a. Before heavy syllables ancla: bris ‘sacrificial’, anc(u)la: re ‘serve (wine)’, ex-ancla: re ‘drain; endure’ < *ankola: - < *amb=i-kwol-a: - (cf. anculus ‘man-servant’) congenucla: re ‘fall on one’s knees’ (cf. geniculum ‘small knee’) no: mencla: tor ‘slave who calls out names’ (cf. no: mencula: tor with earlier epenthesis) b. Before word-final syllables assecla ‘hanger-on’ (only at Nep. Att. 6.4) < assecula (e.g. Cic. Ver. 3.30) < *ad-sekw-ela: manucla ‘trigger of a catapult’ (also c. context; Vitr. 10.10.4) c. In three consecutive light syllables Cocles, -itis ‘one-eyed person (cognomen of legendary Horatius)’ < *Cocules, -itis (cf. Coculitum) < Cocles, -itis nucleus ‘kernel, stone’ < nuculeus (also e: nuclea: re ‘remove stones from fruit; remove all obscurities’)

Syncope in this environment was not across the board: note the retained vowel in Aescula: pius, despite the following stressed, heavy syllable, in all the -culum forms, with following word-final syllables, and often in forms with three consecutive light syllables (e.g. vehiculum). It is plausible that morpheme and lexical frequency influenced this syncope, with more frequent words, and the common mediative suffix, resisting its action (185 occurrences of Aescula: pius in Perseus),10 and less frequent forms syncopating, thus no: mencla: tor (9 occurrences in Perseus), exancla: re (1 in Perseus), ancla: bris (0 in Perseus), congenucla: re (0 in Perseus). The relevance of frequency in sound change is considered further in }5.7 (see fn. 44). As early/classical parsing syncope post-dated epenthesis, reversing its effects, we can generally disregard these apparent exceptions with /kl/ when formulating an 9 Different phonotactic constraints on syncope obtained in these two contexts, with /nkl/ permissible before a stressed heavy syllable (ancla: bris), but not before the unstressed final syllable (anculus not {anclus, and syncopated manucla but not further syncope to {mancla). The former was probably an earlier syncope context for /nkl/, with the latter becoming much more commonplace in imperial and late Latin. 10 Counts from Perseus in this chapter are from 3 Sept. 2009, unless otherwise stated.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

130

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

analysis of the latter. At most, the syncope context blocked the action of epenthesis, although the evidence for overlapping the phenomena in this way are not compelling, given that virtually every form has attestations of variants with an original or epenthetic vowel. For example, nucleus has several early attestations as nuculeus:11 both occurrences in Plautus (Capt. 655, Cur. 55), once in Cato (Agr. 119), and once in Varro (R. 1.41.6). Of these, both verse occurrences (Plautus) require long forms for the metre, raising the possibility that short forms in the MSS of early prose writers might be the result of later emendations. The vowel between /kl/ in nuculeus could have been original or epenthetic (Leumann 1977: 287), but its persistence in either case in early authors indicates that syncope was late relative to epenthesis.12 Cocles, gen. Coclitis, ‘one-eyed person, Cyclops’ is ultimately derived from Gk. Kúklo: ps, possibly via Etruscan cuclu (Leumann 1977: 459; DELL 130), and usually referred either to one of the mythological Cyclopes or to the legendary Horatius Cocles (held to have single-handedly kept the Etruscans at bay). The apparent failure of epenthesis might be attributed to its loanword status, as with the forms in (9) above, although Cocles presents a special case as it retained neither the original Greek nor Etruscan shape, but seems to have undergone Latin-internal changes to yield the final form, notably employing the ending -es, -itis. TLL (Onom. 2.519–20) reports an alternative manuscript reading of Pl. Cur. 393 with Coculitum for Coclitum (gen. pl.), suggesting that regular epenthesis may originally have occurred, but was reversed by later syncope, stemming from the tetrasyllabic oblique forms in -itis. Alternatively, the old non-epenthesized form persisted due to the conservatism provoked by the prestige of the Roman hero’s name, although it is then unclear why Hercule: s would not have shown a similar resistance. A final explanation might appeal to the influence of the original Greek form, which had entered into the Latin lexicon as Cyclops, -o: pos (i.e. with Greek morphology) by early times (e.g. Lucil. 482). To conclude, /kl/-epenthesis occurred in a tautosyllabic, complex onset, and regularly failed at prefix + root boundaries where Tl was heterosyllabic. When heterosyllabic /kl/ occurred in this context, the stop in coda position became voiced /g/ by regressive voice assimilation.13 11 As in Cocules, the vowel before /l/ was conditioned as /u/, providing further evidence that a following short /e/ contextually darkened /l/. 12 Although the relative lateness of syncope in forms with three consecutive light syllables might be indicated by the presence of long forms in early authors, its phonological conditions must have been those of early Latin, when tetrasyllables with three initial light syllables were stressed on the first syllable (núculeus), rather than the second as in classical Latin (Lindsay 1894: 173–4). Otherwise, the epenthetic/ original vowel would have been stressed ({nucúleus), and unlikely to be susceptible to syncope. 13 Etymology of facilis ‘easy’: contrary to the majority of the standard grammars (e.g. Sommer and Pfister 1977: 112; Sihler 1995: 90; Meiser 1998: 89), who report original *fak-li-s followed by epenthesis, we follow Leumann (1977: 347) in claiming *fak-ilis with deverbative -ilis arising from a resegmentation of forms originally in *-b(i)lis. This theory is supported by three observations. First, there are no nonepenthesized forms in Plautus of facilis and facile, adv. (68 occurrences), and facilius, comparative adv. (22). Contrast this with peri: culum ‘danger’, the most frequent form in -culum: out of its 48 occurrences,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

/kl/

131

5.3.3 Morphological structure Forms in -culum built on a root with final /k/ probably all contained an original, or at any rate existing, vowel between /kl/, and therefore do not provide evidence for epenthesis. The forms continue agent-noun forming *-e/olo- (e.g. oculus ‘eye’ < *okʷelos), diminutive *-elo- (e.g. porculus ‘piglet’), or an instrumental -ulum/-ula (see below), after root-final /k/, rather than simple *-lo-/-la: ,14 and therefore provide no evidence for epenthesis, as the vowel was original. The agentive and diminutive forms are unproblematic, as the suffixes were clearly vowel-initial. However, the instrumental suffix has been the subject of much debate (e.g. Leumann 1977: 313; Sihler 1979; Olsen 1988; Nielsen 2004), as it is usually interpreted as a consonantinitial, mediative suffix in origin, thus PIE *-d=lo-, *-tlo- etc.15 Most formulations therefore require vocalic epenthesis to explain the outcomes after root-final consonants. Some relevant forms in -culum are below (Leumann 1977: 313). (11)

Forms in -culum amiculum ‘cloak’, baculum ‘stick’, coculum ‘small cooking vessel’, iaculum ‘missile’, speculum ‘mirror’, torculum ‘press’, vinculum ‘band’

The etymological question has not been previously addressed in terms of the plausibility of epenthesis in /kl/ in these forms, and such an approach renders an origin with a vowel-initial suffix *-e/olo- in Latin much more likely than one in consonant-initial *-d=lo-, *-tlo-. First, recall that /kl/ words in Plautus showed variation between epenthesized and non-epenthesized forms; this was specifically an epenthesis/non-epenthesis variation, not a non-syncope/syncope one, as it never occurred in words containing an original vowel. The variation is therefore a useful indicator of whether a vowel between stop and /l/ in Plautus was original (e.g. porculus) or epenthetic (e.g. po: culum). Forms with root-final /k/ and an instrumental suffix -ulum, almost never show short forms (i.e. without a vowel separating /kl/) when attested in Plautus, suggesting that the vowel was original, not epenthetic. only 10 show epenthesis. There are no early inscriptional examples of short forms either (e.g. CIL 12.632 facilia). Second, -ilis is paralleled in u:tilis ‘useful’ (and other forms), where the vowel is clearly not epenthetic, as original */tl/ would have developed to /kl/. Fragilis ‘fragile’ and agilis ‘agile’ would also have to be explained in this way, based on our conclusion in }5.5 that /gl/ did not undergo epenthesis, as would denominative parilis and similis, as */rl/ > /ll/ and */ml/ > /mpl/. Third, Umbrian faśefele ‘suitable for sacrificing’ (Untermann 2000: 255–6) would have corresponded to Lat. {fakibilis (unattested), with the suffix *-blis. This suggests that a form with this suffix, and not *-li-, was Proto-Italic. In Latin, this was replaced by -ilis on the basis of the resegmentation arising from the haplological reduction of *habibilis to habilis. 14

Recall the rarity of such forms in Latin (}4.4). Leumann has *-tlo- on the basis of /k/-final roots and the change */tl/ > /kl/ – *bak-tlo-m > *bakklom > *baklom > baculum ‘stick’ (cf. Gk. báktron)—as does Nielsen, mainly on semantic grounds and the complementary distribution of -ulum (after stop) and -culum (elsewhere). Sihler prefers *-d=lo-. All of these formulations face phonological challenges, e.g. explaining the voicing of the resulting consonant. 15

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

132

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

These roots therefore came to take the suffix *-e/olo- in Latin, even if they originally took *-tlo-, as suggested by Gk. báktron ‘stick’ beside baculum < *bak-e/olo-m. The sole exception is vinculum, which has nine short-form attestations to one long-form, suggesting that the word probably contained the consonant-initial suffix -clum < *-tlo-m. It is noteworthy that this is the only such form attested in Plautus in which the suffix appeared after a closed syllable, which resulted in a phonotactically acceptable coda nasal + onset stop syllable contact, thus /win.klum/. We might hypothesize that after roots ending in /k/, vowel-initial *-e/olo- was selected after a light syllable in Latin, and consonant-initial *-klo- was selected after a heavy syllable. We can even plausibly reconstruct a history whereby all these forms inherited PIE *-tlo-, but underwent a prehistoric weight-preserving epenthesis as a concomitant of degemination, only occurring if degemination created a light syllable from a previous heavy, thus */jakμμ.tlomμμ/ > */jakμμ.klomμμ/ > /jaμ.koμ.lomμμ/ > iaculum after a single rootfinal consonant, versus */winkμμ.tlomμμ/ > */winkμμ.klomμμ/ > */winμμ.klomμμ/ after a root-final consonant cluster, which later underwent syllable-initial /kl/-epenthesis to vinculum. We therefore have evidence for an instrumental suffix *-e/olo-, with an existing, not epenthetic, vowel in these formations by the time of the vocalic epenthesis under investigation here. Further evidence for this hypothesis comes from originally */d/-final roots, as these show a clear split between formations using a simple suffix *-lo- and those with *-e/olo-. The former group underwent total regressive assimilation of the root-final */d/ to the following /l/, thus *sed-la: > sella ‘stool’ and *ra: d-lo-m > ra: llum ‘scraper’, but the group using *-e/olo- regularly has a vowel separating /dl/, thus *taid-e/olo-s > taedulus ‘tiresome’ (only at Fest. p. 360M), and from the same root as ra: llum, *ra: d-e/ola: > ra: dula ‘razor’ (first attested in imperial Latin: Col. 12.18.5). Forms with root-final */d/ also show signs of formations in *-tlo-, with the resulting coronal stop sequence assibilating in PIE as well as Latin. The resulting coda /s/ eventually deleted with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel, thus *pro: ted-tlo-m > *pro: -tes-slo-m > *pro: teslom (degemination before another consonant) > pro: te: lum ‘tandem team’ (cf. pro: tendere ‘extend’), and *skad-tla: -i > *skas-sla: -i > *skasla: i > sca: lae ‘ladder’ (cf. scandere ‘climb’). However, given the phonological similarity of the outcomes of taedulus/ra: dula with the -culum forms, it seems most plausible that even if roots with final /k/ had formations in *-tlo- originally, these were lost in favour of the suffix *-e/olo-. 5.3.4 Chronology: po:culum, Aescula:pius, Hercule:s Our earliest attestations of epenthesis in /kl/ come from the vase inscriptions from Latium known as the po: cula deo: rum (CIL 12.439–53 and two others, Wachter 1987: 465–8). All consist of the name of a deity in the genitive followed by the word

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

/kl/

133

po: colom = class. po: culum ‘cup’ (i.e. ‘X’s cup’) with minor variations, and all show epenthesis (reconstructed in CIL 12.448). Wachter posits that these inscriptions date from the first third of the 3rd century, on the basis of the appearance of the god Asclepius (CIL 12.440), who became firmly established in Rome after the transfer of the god’s snake from Epidaurus to Rome, traditionally accepted to be shortly before 290 bc (Hornblower et al. 2012: 28, 181). Non-epenthesized poclom occurs beside pocol[om] in the inscriptions on vase fragments from Ariminium (Wachter 1987: 468–9). Wachter posits the terminus post quem for these inscriptions as approximately 268 bc, when the Latin colony was founded, but acknowledges that a more precise date is unattainable. The evidence from po: culum demonstrates that existence of the epenthesized form, and variation between the two forms, can be dated as far back as the early 3rd century. The dating of the po: cula deo: rum is suggested by the appearance of the god Asclepius, but with non-epenthesized /kl/: CIL 12.440 aisclapi. The preservation of the Greek shape of the name, without epenthesis, arguably shows that that the transfer of the god from Epidaurus was recent. The forms CIL 12.26, 12.29 aiscolapio (Wachter 1987: 345), and CIL 12.28 aescolapio (Wachter 1987: 346–7) from Rome can be dated to the end of the 3rd or beginning of the 2nd century, illustrating a settled epenthesized form by that time. The earliest attestation of epenthesis in /kl/ which can be firmly dated is CIL 12.607 hercolei from 217 bc Rome (Wachter 1987: 286), but there are indications of earlier epenthesis in ‘Hercules’. The name derived from Gk. He: raklê: s, via Etruscan syncope (Hercle), and Latin epenthesis (Hercule: s). Rix (2004: 440–45) discusses the history of the name, identifying a (non-epenthesized) Latin example dating from the second half of the 5th century bc : herecles. This form was directly inherited from Greek, without Etruscan intermediation, and its Latinity is proved by the closed-syllable reduction */a/ > /e/, consistent with our formulation in Chapter 4, whereby stop + liquid was heterosyllabic where a transparent morphological boundary did not immediately precede the sequence. Rix argues that the Latin form Hercle: s (see below for its attestations), the precursor of epenthesized Hercule: s, was a merger of directly inherited Latin Herecle: s, with regular reduction, and Etruscan Hercle, with a form of syncope regular only in that language. The name appears in an epenthesized form in CIL 12.551 hercele on a Praenestine bronze mirror (Wachter 1987: 135–6), which can be dated to the 4th–3rd century bc (Wachter 1987: 102),16 earlier than the firmly datable attestation above. But the epenthetic vowel is /e/, not /o/ as found regularly before the dark /l/ expected before /e:/ (}2.3.3). Wachter rules out Etruscan influence on the basis that epenthesis is not expected in that language (}5.1). This could therefore be evidence for an early

16

Rix (2004: 444) dates it to the second half of the 3rd c.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

134

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

orthographic attempt to represent a short vocalic transition in the consonantal sequence, which was becoming phonologized, although there is no other evidence for variation in the backness of the epenthetic vowel.17 Hercule: s is otherwise found without epenthesis among the 4th-century Praenestine bronze objects, thus CIL 12.563 hercles and CIL 12.564 fercles (Wachter 1987: 130–35).18 The only other record of the name without epenthesis from Latium is CIL 12.2659 [h]ercle (Wachter 1987: 381–2), an inscription from the Lacus Albanus which Wachter dates to the early 3rd century bc, and Rix (2004: 442) to the second half of the 4th century, after Colonna (1980: 46, 51, fn. 17). However, Praenestine inscriptions of the 3rd–2nd centuries only show epenthesized forms, thus CIL 12.61 and 62 hercole (Wachter 1987: 225–9, 232–7), corroborating the hypothesis of (at least) early 3rd-century epenthesis. In non-Latin-speaking areas, we find non-epenthesized forms persevering. herclo( ) in an inscription from Trasacco (Vicus Supinas) by the Fucine Lake, in the territory of the Marsians (Wachter 1987: 402), shows the non-epenthesized form seen in Oscan before 250 bc (later Herek-), as well as the o-stem found in that language.19 CIL 12.2486 herclei (
2) from Superaequum in Paelignian territory, dates from perhaps as late as the 1st century bc (Wachter 1987: 409–10), but shows neither Latin nor Oscan epenthesis. CIL 12.394 herclo from Navelli, probably in the territory of Vestinia (Wachter 1987: 410), again shows the Oscan o-stem. Perhaps these inscriptions represent a Latinized orthography of Oscan pronunciation, hence showing no Latin epenthesis, as this was not a feature of the local pronunciation, but no Oscan epenthesis either, in an attempt to write in a more Latinate fashion. To conclude, the above evidence indicates the development of an epenthetic vowel in internal /kl/ in Latin in the late 4th to early 3rd centuries, mainly on the basis of consistent epenthesis in the word po: culum in the po: cula deo: rum, and arguably because of hercele on the Praenestine mirror. However, unlike for /bl/, there is variation in early Latin verse between epenthesized and non-epenthesized forms in /kl/, thus Pl. Per. 775 po: clum, Lucil. 303 po: clo: , but Pl. St. 272 po: culo: . Furthermore, note that in the first half of the 2nd century bc, Terence does not have a single epenthesized form of peri: culum in 29 attestations, making it the most frequent -culum form. Variation based on frequency will be investigated in more detail in }5.7, but its occurrence suggests that epenthesis in /kl/ was still in the process of 17 Rix (2004: 444) takes the quality of the internal vowel to show that the final-syllable /e/ was short, influenced by the affirmation (me:)hercle ‘by Hercules!’, conditioning the preceding /l/ as clear and, by a harmony effect, the inserted vowel as /e/. However, recall from Chapter 2 that laterals before short /e/ were dark, just as before /e:/, a fact borne out by the quality of the epenthetic vowel in the early variant forms Cocules and nuculeus, discussed in }5.3.2. 18 Variation between hhi and hf i is found in Praenestine Latin (Wachter 1987: 149). 19 See Wachter (1987: fn. 342) on evidence for an Oscan o-stem form, e.g. hereklúí from around 250 bc (Untermann 2000), and for Oscan–Latin hybrid forms, e.g. hercolo, with Latin epenthesis but Oscan inflection.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

/pl/

135

occurring in early Latin, whereras in /bl/ it had been completed at an earlier stage. On these grounds, we can posit that epenthesis in /kl/ began late in the 4th century and only became completed by the middle of the 2nd, whereas in /bl/, it was completed by the start of the 3rd century, hence plausibly began early in the 4th.

5.4 /pl/ There is clear evidence for epenthesis in /pl/, but also numerous categories of counterexample that require explanation.20 (12)

Vocalic epenthesis in /pl/ manipulus ‘handful; infantry unit’ < *manu-pl-o-s (cf. manus ‘hand’; ple: re ‘fill’) (Leumann 1977: 394; EDL 363 s.v. manus) populus ‘people’ < *poplos (e.g. CIL 12.25 poplom) < Proto-Italic *poplos (cf. Umbrian puplum/poplom: Untermann 2000: 610–11)

These two forms appear unambiguously to illustrate epenthesis in /pl/. Populus is the regular Latin form of the latter, and although there is a non-epenthesized variant maniplus of the former, the long form is more common. As with /bl kl/, root-initial /pl/ failed to epenthesize both word-initially and internally. (13)

Failure of epenthesis in /pl/ root-initially a. Word-initially pla: ca: re ‘placate’ placet ‘it seems good’, place: re ‘be pleasing’ plica: re fold’ plo: ra: re ‘grieve’ b. Word-internally applica: re ‘lean against’ de: plo: ra: re ‘lament’, explo: ra: re ‘unfold’ exple: re ‘fill up’, reple: re ‘refill’ perplexus ‘entangled; muddled’

The word-internal forms above contained synchronically recognized preverbs which were generally also free morphemes (ad, de: , ex, per), prompting speakers to retain internal /pl/ by analogy on their simplex equivalent. However, it is difficult to explain non-epenthesized /pl/ in the forms in (14) below in the same way. Here, /pl/ occurred internally at the start of a morphologically bound, not free, second element of a compound, with a root, not prefix, as the first element. Note, however, that

20 Most forms containing /pul/ in Latin derive from a stem ending in /p/ followed by the suffix -ulus -a -um, hence the vowel was original, not epenthetic.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

136

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

morphologically similar mani-pulus did undergo epenthesis. These counterexamples are considered in }}5.4.1 and 5.4.2 (14)

Failure of epenthesis in forms with /pl/-initial second elements a. Multiplicatives (number root + bound morpheme) duplex/duplus ‘double, twofold’ triplex/triplus ‘triple, threefold’ quadruplex/quadruplus ‘four times as great/much, fourfold’ multiplex ‘many times/deep/formed’ < *-plek-s/-pl-o-s (cf. plectere ‘twine’, plica: re ‘fold’) b. Other (root + root and extension) locuple: s ‘rich’ < *loko-ple: -t-s (cf. locus ‘place’; ple: re ‘fill’, ple: nus ‘full’) (EDL 472–3 s.v. -pleo: )

We again find examples of /pl/ in classical Latin, arising from the action of early/ classical parsing syncope (Sen 2012a: 225–6) of vowels before a stressed, heavy syllable. Furthermore, this environment blocked epenthesis in /pl/ which had arisen through the much earlier archaic alignment syncope (Sen 2012a: 215–18). (15)

Internal /pl/ (< earlier /pVl/ or failed epenthesis) a. After archaic alignment syncope discipli: na ‘instruction, discipline’ < *diskapuli: na (Leumann 1977: 98), cf. discipulus ‘pupil’, a deverbative built upon *dis-kapio: (Leumann 1977: 311; EDL 172) b. After early/classical parsing syncope manipula: ris ~ manipla: ris, ‘belonging to the ranks; common soldier’ manipula: rius ~ manipla: rius ‘of a common soldier’ manipula: tim ~ manipla: tim ‘in handfuls/companies’

/pl/ before a stressed, heavy syllable is much better attested than in the other early/ classical parsing syncope environments (before the final syllable unless there was only a single preceding light syllable, and in forms with three consecutive, non-final light syllables), suggesting that the contexts had different phonotactic constraints, with /pl/ permitted in the former but not the latter two (e.g. manipulus).21 The blocking of epenthesis in forms like discipli: na suggests that the phonetic pressures which led to early/classical syncope before a stressed, heavy syllable were already in place at the time of /pl/-epenthesis, which therefore regularly failed in that context (unlike epenthesis then later syncope in /kl/). It is therefore likely that the 21 /pVl/ in these contexts syncopated later. Syncope in manipulus under the classical, not early, Latin tetrasyllabic stress pattern, is suggested by Serv. A. 11.463, who states that the syncopated form had penultimate, not antepenultimate, stress (maníplis not mániplis in his example). Presumably, the stress position of classical manípulus (not early mánipulus) was retained after syncope. See }5.4.2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

/pl/

137

epenthesized variants of the derivatives of manipulus in (15b) owed their epenthetic vowel to analogy on the base form without a following stressed, heavy syllable, rather than to a regular phonological development. This interpretation is supported by the fact that there is only one epenthesized form of a derivative of manipulus in Plautus (Truc. 491 manipula: ris), beside four occurrences of non-epenthesized variants (Pl. Ps. 181 manipla: tim, Pl. Mos. 312, Mil. 815 manupla: re: s, Mos. 1048 manipla: re: s; see }5.7.2). Epenthesis in /pl/ was regularly blocked in forms with /mpl/. In the majority, the sequence arose through prehistoric epenthesis of /p/ in */ml/ arising through morphological concatenation, but there is no reason to suspect that the stop was anything other than a full segment by the time of epenthesis. The multiplicative simplex appears here, but could equally have been listed in (14) above. (16)

Failure of epenthesis in /mpl/ amplus ‘large, ample’ < *am-los (Leumann 1977: 213, 311; LEW 1.42; EDL 40) exemplum ‘example’ < *ex-em-lo-m (Leumann 1977: 45, 213, 311, LEW 1.426; DELL 205; EDL 188–9 s.v. emo: ) extemplo: (but also extempulo: ) ‘immediately’ < *ex tempulo: (Leumann 1977: 270; LEW 1.433, 2.659–60; DELL 680–81 s.v. templum; EDL 610–11 s.v. templum) simplex ‘single, simple’, simplus ‘simple sum’ < *sem-plek-s, *sem-pl-os (DELL 514–15 s.v. I. plecto: ) templum ‘temple’ < *temp-lo-m (Leumann 1977: 213; LEW 2.65–70; EDL 610–11; DELL 680–81 reconstructs *tem-lo-m)

The variant extempulo: , attested seven times in Plautus (e.g. Aul. 93) beside 67 occurrences of extemplo: , might provide the only early evidence for epenthesis in /mpl/,22 but is more likely to continue an original vowel from the root tempus ‘time’ (Leumann 1977: 270; OLD 659), which was lost through early/classical parsing syncope. Plautus reserves the long form extempulo: for the end of iambic senarii, the repository for archaisms in Plautine verse, perhaps indicating that it was original; however, this position was also the usual place for epenthetic forms in his comedies, rendering an origin in templum ‘temple’ equally possible, although semantics renders such an etymology less likely.23 Alternatively, the vowel might have been occasionally restored by analogy on its original root tempus ‘time’, whether that origin was continuously maintained in speakers’ consciousness, or merely perceived through a

Templum only shows a variant tempulum at a much later stage (e.g. tempvlvm CIL 3.10955). Leumann and OLD interpret extemplo: as a diminutive of ex tempore ‘on the spur of the moment’. DELL takes the word to be derived from templum in its original meaning of ‘area of sky/land defined by the augur within which he took the auspices’, hence meaning ‘(immediately) outside the templum’. The former interpretation seems much more likely on semantic grounds, especially given the presence of the nearsynonym ex tempore. 22 23

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

138

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

semantic connection. Extempulo: therefore does not provide a counterexample to the failure of epenthesis in /mpl/. We saw that /bl/- and /kl/-epenthesis failed across prefix–root boundaries, and that the Tl sequences in these cases were heterosyllabic. Furthermore, the stop in /kl/ underwent regressive voice assimilation to /gl/ when heterosyllabic. We might therefore predict /pl/ to exhibit similar behaviour, becoming /bl/ when across a prefix + root boundary, but examples of such structures are absent (e.g. there are no forms with stem-final /p/ followed by the suffix *-lo-/la: ; see }4.4). However, we seem to find one example of the failure of epenthesis with voicing, but curiously, this did not occur at a prefix–root boundary, and the form appears to derive from precisely the same root as populus where epenthesis did occur. This phenomenon is investigated in }5.4.3. (17)

Failure of epenthesis in /pl/ with voicing pu: blicus ‘public’ < *poblikos < *poplikos (e.g. CIL 12.581 in poplicod)

As in /kl/, epenthesis failed in Greek loanwords with /pl/. (18)

Greek loanwords with internal /pl/ aplustre ‘ornamented stern-post of a ship’ peplus/peplum ‘Greek women’s garment’

Finally, /pl/-epenthesis failed in the following etymologically obscure pair. (19)

Failure of epenthesis in etymologically obscure /pl/ poples, -itis ‘knee-joint, knee; back of the knee’ (e.g. Acc. trag. 456, EDL 480) replum ‘covering moulding’

5.4.1 Morphological structure The multiplicatives (duplex ‘twofold’ etc.) and their derivatives on the whole show no epenthesis, nor do the morphologically isolated locuple: s and obscure poples. The multiplicatives fluctuate between forms in -plex and -plus, with roughly the same meaning. DELL 514–15 (see also Sihler 1995: 434; EDL 473, 475) takes the forms in -plus to originate from a simplified root *pel- (cf. Gk. diplós, Umb. dupla and Goth. twei-fls), and those in -plex from the derived root *plek-, found in the Latin verbs plica: re ‘fold’ and plectere ‘twine’. Both types were therefore inherited. A straightforward explanation for the failure of epenthesis in these forms might appeal to analogy on the multiplicative simplex/simplus ‘single’, as epenthesis never occurred in /mpl/. However, such an analysis would need to presume a strong analogical influence from a single multiplicative on all the others, independent support for which is lacking.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

/pl/

139

Morphological structure offers a second analysis: /pl/-epenthesis did not occur in root-initial /pl/ when the second element of a compound, perhaps even when the element -plex/-plus, was morphologically bound. A directly analogous example of the retention of the phonological shape of morphological elements might come from Eng. threefold < *tri-pl̩ to- or similar, which Sihler (1995: 434) suggests should have yielded {thriffled by regular phonological changes. This explanation faces the epenthesized counterexample mani-pulus, but is supported by locu-ple: s, both of which contain a second element derived from the root of the verb ple: re ‘fill’ (thus manipulus can be translated literally by English handful). However, manipulus does not contain the long-vowel verbal stem, suggesting that verb-derived locuple: s (the only surviving formation in *-ple: -) was a later formation than root-derived manipulus. Therefore, the element -ple: s was arguably still felt to be a verbal stem within a compound rather than a bound morpheme, resulting in a failure of epenthesis in a similar way to verbal stems after prefixes. This account perhaps finds some support from the statement locuple: s non locuplex ‘[the correct form is] locuple: s not locuplex’ in the Appendix Probi (G.L. 4.199.5), suggesting that speakers felt that both -ple: s and -plex were identifiable morphological elements, both of which resisted epenthesis. On the other hand, the statement could also simply represent a confusion of final hsi and hxi after /ks/ > [(s)s] word-finally (Sommer and Pfister 1977: 185), but the confusion itself might have been enhanced in this form due to the consistent failure of epenthesis in the two morphological elements. In contrast, the -plus of maniplus might no longer have been felt to be a distinct element, resulting in the regular phonological development to manipulus. There are two potential difficulties with this interpretation. First, mani- was presumably transparently the first element (cf. manus ‘hand’), leaving -plus unambiguously as the second. However, the semantic transparency of mani- need not have resulted in the semantic transparency of -plus, which subsequently might not have been an identifiable morpheme with a recognizable phonological shape, unlike the functionally transparent -plus/-plex in the multiplicatives. A second difficulty might relate to syllable structure if epenthesis occurred in a complex onset (as in /bl kl/), and syllable boundaries aligned with morpheme boundaries, requiring a transparent morpheme boundary before /pl/ for epenthesis to occur. However, this need not be problematic if epenthesis occurred in early Latin, when all TR was tautosyllabic (see }5.4.3). Morpheme-initial retention in /pl/ is consistent with epenthesis in morphologically opaque *poplos > populus, but inconsistent with its failure in related *poplikos and obscure poples. On balance, the morphological account of the failure of epenthesis in locuple: s and the multiplicatives is plausible, but cannot explain all of the evidence. We therefore consider an alternative influence.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

140

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

5.4.2 Metrical structure An analysis based on a combination of metrical structure and morphological pressures enjoys a wider coverage of the /pl/ data.24 The clearest evidence for epenthesis comes from forms where /pl/ was either after an unstressed syllable, thus (má.ni). {plus}, or a stressed syllable forming the head of a monomoraic, degenerate foot, thus *(pó).{plos}. Manipulus would have maintained stress on the initial syllable in Plautus (and earlier) whether epenthesized or not, as tetrasyllables with three initial light syllables were initially stressed in early Latin, thus má.ni.plus or má.ni.pu.lus (see Allen 1973: 188–90). Evidence for initial-syllable stress in the long form manipulus comes from the scansion of Pl. Cur. 585 and Ter. Eu. 776, and TLL 8.316 tells us that the short form was only used under metrical necessity. The later, post-epenthesis, classical Latin stress pattern of the word was ma.ní.pu.lus, obeying the Penultimate Law. The sequence /pl/ therefore clearly followed an unstressed syllable at the time of epenthesis. Conversely, epenthesis in disyllabic *póplos followed a stressed syllable, but the extrametricality of the final syllable (as evidenced by early and classical stress placement) resulted in stress being assigned to a monomoraic syllable, which alone constituted the head (and only) foot in the word. This (Ĺ)σ pattern is described by Allen (1973: 80–81, 185–6) as ‘staccato stress’, and involves a degenerate (i.e. not bimoraic) foot consisting of a single light syllable, thus (pó).{plos} (see Mester 1994). We might then expect epenthesis in staccato-stressed dúplex, tríplex, póples; but conspicuously only the nominative singulars of these words are disyllabic, the oblique forms being trisyllabic, with initial well-formed (not degenerate) bimoraic trochaic feet: genitives (dú.pli).{cis}, (trí.pli).{cis}, (pó.pli).{tis}.25 In contrast, *poplos remained disyllabic and staccato-stressed in all its forms (aside from the genitive plural), e.g. (pó).{pli: } (gen.). Post-stress blocking of epenthesis therefore occurred where /pl/ followed the stressed head of a well-formed foot. Furthermore, and as predicted by this formulation, post-stress blocking also occurred after a heavy, bimoraic syllable, which constituted a well-formed foot by itself. This brings into line the failure of epenthesis in the forms in /mpl/, where the nasal closed the preceding syllable, thus (sím).{plex}, (ám).{plus}, (ek).(sém).{plum}.26 The magnitude of the short vocalic transition in /pl/ caused by a timing mismatch between the release of the labial closure and the formation of the coronal—the

24 Metrical notations used: ( . . . ) = foot, ‘.’ = syllable boundary, { . . . } = extrametrical syllable, L = light syllable, H = heavy syllable, σ = either heavy or light syllable. The acute accent denotes primary stress. 25 See }5.4.3 for evidence for heterosyllabic /pl/ in (póp).li.{tis}, but not in the multiplicatives. 26 I argue in }5.4.3 that the failure of epenthesis in *poplikos (> pu:blicus) belongs here rather than with duplicis, etc., i.e. (póp).li.{kos}, not (pó.pli).{kos}, although either predicts blocking (but only the former explains voicing).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

/pl/

141

plausible phonetic roots of epenthesis in /pl/—was presumably inversely proportionate to the strength of the preceding stress, dependent on the following hierarchy. (20)

Hierarchy of stress strength (strongest to weakest) conditioning epenthesis in following /pl/ a. Heavy-syllable stress: blocked » b. Light-syllable stress when head of a well-formed trochee: blocked » c. Light-syllable stress when head of a degenerate foot: epenthesis » d. Unstressed syllable: epenthesis

The above formulation predicts epenthesis in longer multiplicatives with /pl/ in the third syllable, and therefore not immediately post-stress: quádruplex and múltiplex. Epenthesized derivatives of these indeed sporadically appear in Plautus. (21)

Epenthesis in derivatives of multiplicatives quadrupulá: ri: ‘act as a quadruplator (prosecutor)’ (Pl. Per. 62) quádrupuli: ‘four times as much’ (Pl. Truc. 762)

These long forms did not become regular, as might be expected for quadrupla: ri: where epenthesis would have been blocked by the early/classical parsing syncope context. However, the appearance of an epenthetic vowel, in the face of considerable analogical pressure from all the other multiplicatives to the contrary, strongly suggests that /pl/-epenthesis in quadruplex/quadruplus was regular, but reversed or blocked by analogy (cf. the epenthesized variant manipula: ris ‘common soldier’, presumably by analogy with the regularly epenthesized base manipulus). Indeed, the fixed phonological shapes of the multiplicative morphemes -plex/-plus, leading to their morphologically conditioned retention discussed in }5.4.1, might itself have been conditioned by the greater frequency of non-epenthetic, post-stress environments among the formations (all oblique cases). The morphological and metrical accounts discussed in this and the previous section are therefore compatible: once non-epenthesized multiplicative morphemes were established by regular blocking in oblique forms such as duplicis, the remainder of the multiplicatives adopted the nonepenthesized /pl/-initial element. We therefore see epenthesis neither in staccatostressed duplex or triplex, nor in their post-unstressed derivatives, nor in postunstressed quadruplex, multiplex, and their derivatives, aside from those above which betray the phonologically regular outcome. The multiplicatives in -plus which remained disyllabic in oblique forms, duplus and triplus, presumably resisted epenthesis by analogy on the forms in -plicis. Lócuple: s never appears with an epenthetic vowel, but might have yielded {ló.ku. pu.le: s (cf. má.ni.pu.lus), as /pl/ followed an unstressed syllable in the nominative singular. However, the oblique cases (e.g. locuplé: tis gen.) provide an environment for early/classical parsing syncope (before a stressed, heavy syllable), which would have

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

142

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

blocked epenthesis, as in maniplá: ris ‘common soldier’; unlike the latter, it was not a derivative of a form whose base regularly epenthesized, and thus there was no analogical pressure to form an epenthesized variant. This formulation is therefore preferred to the morphological explanation of locuple: s in }5.4.1. The rare and technical réplum ‘covering moulding’ must remain unexplained, but /pl/ might be attributed to root-initial blocking if related to re-ple: re ‘refill’, or conservative retention of a specialized term. In conclusion, both metrical and morphological structure conditioned /pl/-epenthesis. This occurred regularly following an unstressed or staccato-stressed syllable, but was blocked when oblique cases presented metrical contexts for epenthesisblocking and syncope, or reversed when /pl/ was in initial position of a functionally transparent morpheme, by analogy with forms in which that morpheme regularly appeared without epenthesis. 5.4.3 Syllable structure The formulation above predicts epenthesis in *poplos only if /pl/ was tautosyllabic, resulting in preceding staccato stress, thus (pó).{plos}, not {(póp).{los}. In the absence of a transparent morpheme boundary in the stem, we expect heterosyllabicity of /pl/ in archaic Latin (Chapter 4), but chronological evidence (}5.4.4) suggests that /pl/epenthesis was occurring in Plautus’ time, by which time the sequence would have been tautosyllabic. Therefore, as in /bl kl/, epenthesis in /pl/ occurred in complex onsets only, as corroborated by mani-pulus where /pl/ would have been tautosyllabic in both archaic and early Latin, owing to the transparency of the morpheme boundary preceding the sequence (cf. manus ‘hand’). However, the metrical constraints on /pl/-epenthesis ensure the tautosyllabicity of /pl/, as heterosyllabic /p.l/ would always have resulted in a preceding head of a well-formed trochee, given that the coda stop would have rendered the syllable bimoraic. Since the metrical condition does the job, we do not need to stipulate a further syllable-based condition on /pl/-epenthesis, and can merely state that any internal /pl/ was a target if the preceding stress was not sufficiently strong. The lack of a structural condition not related to phonetics has implications for the mechanism of the sound change, as discussed in }5.7. Apparently from the same root as populus, we find the regular form pu: blicus ‘public’, a development from early Latin poplicus (e.g. in poplicod in the Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus, CIL 12.581), not only without epenthesis, but also with voicing of the stop. The failure of epenthesis is predicted by the metrical analysis whether /pl/ was tautosyllabic or heterosyllabic, as the initial, stressed syllable was the head of a well-formed trochee in either instance: (pó.pli).{kos} (like dúplicis) or (póp). li.{kos} (like símplicis). However, only the heterosyllabic structure can explain the voicing of the stop, given its failure in forms such as duplicis etc. beside the parallel

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

/pl/

143

voicing phenomenon */kl/ > /gl/ in neg-legere (}5.3.1). The problem therefore boils down to an explanation of tautosyllabic /pl/ in *poplos, but heterosyllabic /pl/ in related *poplikos. We find a sufficient number of early non-epenthesized forms to verify the development *poplos > populus ‘people’, further corroborated by Umb. puplum/poplom (Untermann 2000: 610–11), suggesting common Italic *poplos.27 (22)

Evidence for *poplos (see }5.4.4 on chronology) a. pilumnoe poploe (Carmen Saliare 4.15 = Fest. p. 205M) b. poplo[ . . . ] (CIL 12.2833a) ˙ c. poplvs senatvsqve romanvs (CIL 12.614) d. poplom (CIL 12.25) e. poplo (CIL 12.40)

The form in -pul- became regular by the classical period (Meiser 1998: 89). Nonepenthesized forms survived in the fossilized ‘clan names’ (no: mina genti: licia) Poplicius and Poplilius. On the other hand, the epenthetic form is always found in Populo: nia, a place name, and Populo: na, an honorific title of Juno (Leumann 1977: 103; Rix 1995: 82–3). Similarly, the origin and eventual outcome of pu: blicus and related forms seem secure. (23)

Evidence for *poplikos (see }5.4.4 on chronology) a. popliosio (CIL 12.2832a), showing the inherited o-stem genitive *-osjo > classical name Pu: blii: (gen.) b. in poplicod (CIL 12.581.15) > classical in pu: blico: ‘in public’ c. rei poplicae (CIL 12.586.8) > classical rei: pu: blicae ‘for the state’ d. poplico, poplice (CIL 12.582.2, 3 etc.) > pu: blico: , pu: blice: ‘officially, publicly’

Classical pu: blicus is first found in early verse, where popli- is never found (e.g. pu: blicam at Pl. Capt. 334, pu: blicitus at Enn. Ann. 183), and some early inscriptions, such as CIL 12.10 (the epitaph on the tomb of P. Cornelius Scipio, augur 180 bc) te in gremiv scipio recipit terra pvbli prognatvm pvblio corneli ‘the earth 27

The etymology of the word is unclear. Rix (1995) reconstructs a collective *pe-pl̩ h1-áh2 from the root *pelh1- ‘brandish’, with a secondarily formed singular *pe-pl̩ h1-ó-m, and an agent noun *pé-pl̩ h1-o-s. The latter two became confused and conflated in Proto-Italic, yielding *pe-pl-ó-s > *po-plo-s, with the collective semantics and (originally reduced) unaccented reduplicative vowel of the collective, which emerged as /o/ between labials, but the masculine gender of the agent noun. The meaning of the term was therefore something like ‘group of brandishers’, and this is corroborated by its original meaning in Latin as ‘citizen army’, a sense that remained in popula: ri: ‘ravage’. Whether or not this etymology is accurate (see EDL 480), our evidence clearly points to original *poplos.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

144

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

receives you, Publius Cornelius, son of Publius, into her bosom’. Epenthesis versus voicing/non-epenthesis in early Latin is illustrated nicely by juxtaposed populus and pu: blicus in CIL 12.585.4 ager pvblicvs popvli romanei ‘the public field of the Roman people’ from 111 bc. Traditionally (e.g. Leumann 1977: 117), the development *poplikos > pu: blicus has been ascribed to the contamination of pu: be: s ‘manpower; adult population’, and even to the conflation of two original formations, *poplikos beside *poplos and *pu: bikos beside pu: be: s (see Sommer and Pfister 1977: 151; DELL 542 s.v. 1. pu: be: s). Unlike *poplikos, no forms of *pu: bikos are attested, and its closest parallel is ci: vicus ‘of the city’ beside ci: vis ‘citizen’. The proximity of meaning between pu: be: s and populus can be illustrated by Pl. Ps. 126: di: co: omnibus, pu: be: praesenti: in contio: ne: , omni: poplo: ‘I say to all, to the company present in assembly, to all the people’. The phrase pu: be: praesenti: in contio: ne: parodied an archaic judicial formula commented upon by Festus (Paul. Fest. p.301M), who glosses pu: be: simply as populo: . Furthermore, the original meaning ‘citizen army’ of *poplos comes close to the developed meaning of pu: be: s as ‘manpower’, or in general the adult male population capable of bearing arms or taking part in the assembly, a sense made explicit at Caes. Gal. 5.56.2: omne: s pu: bere: s arma: ti: conveni: re co: nsue: runt ‘all the armed adults planned to assemble’. According to DELL 542, this developed meaning of pu: be: s came about from an original sense ‘pubic hair’ (e.g. Verg. A. 3.427), but assuming that the judicial formula parodied in Plautus was archaic, it is safe to maintain that the secondarily developed sense of pu: be: s pre-dated the first appearances of pu: blicus, and hence could have influenced *poplikos. The theory of contamination to explain pu: blicus is therefore plausible on semantic grounds. There are, however, four key difficulties with this theory. First, there is no attested *pu: bikos. Second, the development of the meaning of pu: be: s from ‘pubic hair’ to a collective ‘adult (male) population’ suggests if anything the influence of *poplos, a word with collective sense, on pu: be: s and not vice versa. This could suggest that a derivative of *poplos with a voiced stop and long vowel /u:/ already existed, formally assisting the influence. This leads to the third objection: that the development of *poplikos to pu: blicus seems to have been phonetically gradual, via voiced *poblikos then diphthongized *poublikos, and not simply via the replacement of *pop- with *pu: b- through contamination. The diphthong /ou/ regularly monophthongized to /u:/ (via [o:]) in the 3rd/2nd century bc (}}1.3.2 and 3.5.4). (24)

Evidence for intermediate *poblikos > *poublikos a. poblicai (CIL 12.397) poblice (CIL 12.1526) poblici (CIL app. 293) and others (Wachter 1987: 385 and fn. 884)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

/pl/

145

b. povblicon (CIL 12.402 and 403) povblilia (CIL 12.42) povlilio (CIL 12.572) This evidence strongly suggests that *poplikos regularly developed to *poblikos, a form contamination from pu: be: s is unable to explain. The raising and lengthening of the vowel to /u:/ seems to have been a secondary development, perhaps evidenced by the analogical restitution of /p/, but retention of the vowel hui in forms such as CIL 12.583.11 pvplico (123–122 bc) and in some passages in Plautus, such as Per. 65 and Rud. 572. Again, a form contaminated by pu: be: s would surely have had initial pu: b-, or unaffected pop-, but never pu: p-. A fourth and final objection is particularly difficult to overcome. Even if *poplikos changed to pu: blicus because of the semantic proximity of pu: be: s and *pu: bikos, it remains somewhat implausible that the names Pu: blius, Pu: blilius, Pu: blicius, and Pu: blicola from *Poplios, *Poplilios, *Poplikios, and Poplicola (attested at Act. Triumph. 8, CIL 12.p.44) should have undergone the same change, as they would presumably have mostly lost their semantic connection with the original stem and been simply considered proper names. A regular phonological account is the only satisfactory way to account for the development in these alongside the adjective. The history we reconstruct—*poplikos > voicing to *poblikos > breaking to *poublikos > monophthongization to pu: blicus—is similar to Wachter’s (1987: 384–6) solely phonological account, also without appeal to contamination. Wachter’s second and third steps are identical to the account posited here: breaking and monophthongization. However, the first is not simply voicing to [pob] as here, but ‘voicing and sonantization’ (my translation) to [poβl], presumably denoting lenition of the voiceless stop to a voiced fricative or approximant.28 Wachter argues that breaking and monophthongization was common before a sonorant consonant, so we find in CIL 12.42 the variant form seignvm, where the orthographic diphthong probably represents a long vowel [i:], versus regular classical signum ‘sign’ with a short vowel; in both forms, the orthography hgni can be interpreted as [ŋn] (see }6.4). The original form *sek-no-m again had a voiceless stop, but voicing and nasalization triggered breaking in the preceding vowel in one variant, but no breaking (but regular raising to /i/) in the classical form. However, nasal assimilation, and not ‘sonantization’, accounts for the consonant in signum, and voicing alone can account for the increased vowel duration required for breaking (see below) in both *[seŋnom] (enhance by nasality) and *[poblikos]. Wachter’s lenition of the stop to a fricative in *poplikos is therefore unnecessary.29 The result of Wachter’s ‘voicing and sonantization’ is represented as *Poƀl-. Wachter introduces this effect mainly to explain the omission of the stop altogether in the form povlilio in CIL 12.572, as voiced fricatives are more easily lost (or not perceived) than stops. However, its omission is scant evidence on which to reconstruct such a lenition, unparalleled in Latin if one rejects 28 29

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

146

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

The breaking of the short vowel /o/ was presumably conditioned by two factors: the following labial context causing a /u/-like VC transition, and the relatively long duration of the vowel, rendering the transition more perceptible. Vowels are phonetically longer before voiced stops and sonorants than before voiceless stops, thus allowing more time for phenomena such as breaking to occur, as Keating notes (1985: 120), and furthermore vowels in closed syllables in archaic Latin (possibly into the early period) were regularly longer than open-syllable vowels (Sen 2012b), further indicating a heterosyllabic syllabification of /pl/: *pob.li.kos > *[poublikos]. The inherited diphthong */ou/ regularly monophthongized to /u:/ by around the middle of the 2nd century bc (via 3rd-century [o:]), and the relatively new diphthong arising through breaking in *poublikos would likewise have been subject to this early Latin monophthongization. Based on the chronology of the change, it is perhaps best to interpret the writing of diphthongs in certain attestations to be orthographic attempts to represent [o:] or [u:], rather than real diphthongs, thus CIL 12.402 and 403 povblicon, CIL 12.42 povblilia, and CIL 12.572 povlilio, the latter two of which date from the late 3rd to early 2nd century (Wachter 1987: 384–6). Wachter’s formulation does not attempt to explain where the change would occur as opposed to epenthesis. The crux of the matter is therefore, as hypothesized, why /pl/ was tautosyllabic in *poplos, resulting in epenthesis, but heterosyllabic in *poplikos, resulting in voicing. We could argue that the stronger stress in earlier *(pó.pli). {kos}, on the head of a well-formed trochee, than in staccato-stressed *(pó).{plos} not only blocked epenthesis, but furthermore attracted the stop to the coda position of its syllable, making it heavy, thus *(póp).li.{kos}. This effect arguably failed in duplicis because of root faithfulness, since the element -plex was felt to be independent and of sufficient salience to maintain its shape. Its failure in poplitis could be attributed to frequency (see below in this section and }5.7), if voicing only occurred in the much more frequent *poplikos, but not in the rare poplitis. Another possibility, which is compatible with and potentially augmented the above phenomenon, could be that the clear /l/ in *poplikos provided a phonetic cue for heterosyllabic syllabification, simply due to the frequency of similar forms. The most notable difference in the /pl/ sequences in *poplikos and *poplos is precisely that /l/ would have been contextually darkened in the latter, but palatalized in the former (Chapter 2); it seems possible that Latin speakers parsed clear /l/ as a simple onset (/p.l/), as that variant was most common word-initially. The word-based syllabification hypothesis (Steriade 1999a) argues that strings are syllabified according to their similarities to word-initial and word-final sequences, as word boundaries are easily deciphered by language users by morphosyntactic means. The hypothesis therefore appeals to the dual role of the word as both a phonological Wachter’s appeal to regressive nasal assimilation as a kindred process, and the form could simply be a mistake.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

/pl/

147

and a morphosyntactic entity.30 Based on response variability with several parses of the same internal sequence, each with advantages and disadvantages in syllable-toword identity, Steriade (1999a: 227) posits that ‘the greater the similarity between a given syllable edge and an attested word edge, the greater the confidence of the speaker in the relevant parse’. Allophonic detail (e.g. clear and dark laterals) can therefore be invoked by speakers. Heterosyllabic /pl/ in *poplikos versus tautosyllabic in *poplos might therefore be predicted by (i) significantly less frequent word-initial /pli/ than /ple: pla plo plu/,31 and (ii) significantly more frequent word-initial /li/ than /le: la lo lu/. To acquire a general picture of the occurrences of the different sequences in Latin, the wordsearch tool in Perseus was employed.32 (25)

Occurrences of word-initial /pl/ a. /pli/ Plinius, a name (431) plica: re ‘fold’ (4), and derivatives (none with more than 3) plinthus ‘plinth’ (11), the most frequent Greek loanword No other forms with more than one occurrence (aside from other Greek loans) b. /ple: pla plo plu/: most regular forms ple: bs ‘people’ (7,845), ple: re ‘fill’ (6,041), place: re ‘please’ (4,624), plu: rimus ‘most’ (2,602), pla: ca: re ‘placate’ (2,597), pla: nus ‘flat’ (2,587), ple: rus ‘most of ’ (1,601), ple: nus ‘full’ (1,549), pluvius ‘rainy’ (385), plo: ra: re ‘grieve’ (177), plo: ra: tus ‘wailing’ (87)

(26)

Occurrences of word-initial /l/ a. /li/ li: ber ‘free’ (11,041), licet ‘it is permitted’ (9,818), li: beri: ‘children’ (7,217), libet ‘it is pleasing’ (6,779), li: ba: re ‘pour a libation’ (5,332), littera ‘letter’ (4,001) b. /le: la lo lu/ locus ‘place’ (14,297), loca: re ‘place’ (9,490), la: tus ‘wide’ (7,954), Lati: nus ‘Latin’ (6,757), lux ‘light’ (5,107), loqui: ‘speak’ (4,814), lu: cus ‘grove’ (4,777), longus ‘long’ (4,073), latus ‘side’ (4,029), late: re ‘hide’ (3,888), labor ‘work’ (3,083), lu: ce: re ‘shine’ (2,841), laetus ‘happy’ (2,737), lauda: re ‘praise’ (2,730)

30

Note that this approach does not tackle the question of why word edges have a certain shape, so the theory does not so much account for syllable shape as move the entity whose phonotactics must be explained from the syllable to the word. Presumably morpheme structure constraints would be required to complete the picture. 31 Recall (}2.3.3) that /e:/ provides much more robust examples of preceding dark /l/ than /e/, even though the latter also contextually darkened the lateral. 32 Perseus’ ‘maximum frequencies’ (accessed on 3 Sept. 2009) are reported here in the word count data (meaning that any occurrence which is plausibly an attestation of the word is included).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

148

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

Words beginning in /pli/, hence with clear /l/, were few and of low frequency, whereas forms beginning in /pl/ with dark /l/ were considerably more frequent. Therefore, /poplos/ might have been preferentially syllabified /po.plos/ owing to there being numerous parallels for word-initial [plˠ], but /poplikos/ was more commonly parsed as /pop.li.kos/, owing to the infrequency of word-initial [pl] with clear /l/. Corroborating this parse would have been the numerous instances of wordinitial simple clear /l/. However, there would have been no more reason to parse clear /l/ as a simple onset over dark /l/, as the latter was also amply attested in word-initial position. By word-based syllabification, word-internal /l/ could have been parsed as syllable-initial whether clear or dark, and word-internal /pl/ with dark /l/ could also have offered two competing parses of roughly equal phonotactic satisfaction. However, word-internal /pl/ with clear /l/ was much more likely to have been heterosyllabic, as initial simple clear /l/ was considerably more frequent than initial /pl/ with clear /l/. Furthermore, we predict that /pl/ in this word was heterosyllabic in archaic Latin as it was not transparently morphologically analysable (Chapter 4), so the wordbased syllabification parse would simply have maintained the existing structure into early Latin. This account must in addition posit that the ‘syllable-initial to wordinitial’ correlation was considerably more important in syllabification than the ‘syllable-final to word-final’ correlation, as word-final /p/ was extremely rare, appearing virtually only in the adverb volup ‘with pleasure’, which is attested only 20 times, 18 of which are in Plautus. Otherwise, this rarity would have driven the speaker to avoid syllable-final /p/, hence heterosyllabic /pl/. The word-based syllabification analysis predicts heterosyllabicity and voicing in poplitis and duplicis/triplicis, metrically identical to *poplikos and also with /pli/. Heterosyllabicity failed in the multiplicatives, as shown by regular early short scansion, probably because of the morphological transparency of -plex, conditioning a syllable boundary between it and the number root as in archaic Latin (Chapter 4). Default tautosyllabicity of TR in early Latin would have further corroborated this parse. Voicing therefore failed because of syllable structure, and epenthesis because of metrical structure, both with influences from morphological structure. Conversely, there are indications that /pl/ in poples, -itis might indeed have been heterosyllabic. The first, and only early Latin, attestation of poples is at Acc. trag. 456, where poplitum may be scanned either long or short. From classical times, poets treated TR sequences as either tautosyllabic or heterosyllabic according to metrical convenience, but it is noteworthy that forms of poples were almost always heterosyllabic—thus Catul. 64.370 (pop.li.te cor.pus at the end of a hexameter), and Verg. A. 9.762 and A. 12.927 (pop.li.te Gy.gen/Tur.nus at the end of hexameter lines). The last example has tautosyllabic /pl/ in the multiplicative derivative duplica: to: earlier in the line, with the first syllable scanned short, indicating a difference between

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

/pl/

149

the forms.33 The failure of subsequent voicing could be attributed to lexical frequency. The word-count statistics in Perseus tell us that pu: blicus with 15,163 occurrences was far more frequent than poples (66). Phillips (1984: 336; 1998a: 375–6) argues that physiologically motivated sound changes such as assimilations affect the most frequent words which fulfil the context for change first. Similarly, Bybee (2002: 287) concludes that ‘changes that affect high-frequency words first are a result of the automation of production, the normal overlap and reduction of articulatory gestures that comes with fluency’. Latin voice assimilation might be classed as such a process, and we might therefore expect heterosyllabic /pl/ to become /bl/ in more frequent words first, but possibly not run to completion to encompass all words with heterosyllabic /pl/. We shall return to frequency effects in }5.7. To summarize, as with /bl/ and /kl/, /pl/-epenthesis occurred in internal complex onsets only, but only because of metrical conditions. It failed, with voicing of the stop to /b/, when the sequence was heterosyllabic, as with */k.l/ > /g.l/. There were more metrical constraints on epenthesis in /pl/, compared to /bl/ and /kl/: epenthesis failed after a stressed syllable which constituted the head of a well-formed foot, regardless of whether that syllable was heavy or light, thus (ám).{plus} and (dú.pli).{cis}, and was blocked in the early/classical parsing syncope environment ‘before a stressed heavy syllable’, thus (ma.ni).(plá: ).{ris} (where epenthesized variants still occurred by analogy on the base manipulus). After a short vowel, /pl/ was furthermore prone to heterosyllabicity when /l/ was clear (in /pli/), due to word-based syllabification, resulting in a stressed heavy syllable, thus (póp).li.{kos}, and subsequent voicing to *poblikos. Breaking and monophthongization resulted in pu: blicus. The failure of heterosyllabicity in duplicis etc. can be attributed to the transparency of the multiplicative morpheme, conditioning a preceding syllable boundary. The failure of voicing in poples, despite indications of heterosyllabicity, may have been because this physiologically motivated development did not spread to words of below a certain frequency, only occurring in the much more frequent *poplikos. 5.4.4 Chronology: manipulus, populus, pu:blicus Manipulus has no attestations before early Latin verse, where it appears consistently with epenthesis, thus its single occurrence in Plautus is Cur. 585 manipulo: , and its one occurrence in Terence Eun. 776 manipulus. The absence of an epenthetic vowel in the derivatives manipla: tim and manipla: ris is due to the syncope context rather than to chronological reasons (}5.4). As noted above, we find attestations of non-epenthesized forms of *poplos from archaic to early times. Populus appears a handful of times with epenthesis in early Latin inscriptions.

33

However, Lucr. 4.952 conversely requires short scansion of the first syllable of poplite:sque.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

150 (27)

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl Chronological evidence for non-epenthesized *poplos a. pilumnoe poploe from the Carmen Saliare (4.15 = Fest. p. 205M), an ancient ritual hymn which was practically indecipherable to Cicero in the 1st century bc (see Var. L. 7.27; Cic. Att. 5.9.1, de Orat. 3.197; Hor. Ep. 2.1.86; Quint. Inst. 1.6.40)34 b. poplo[ . . . ] (CIL 12.2833a) in the Corcolle altar fragments, dated to the early ˙ 5th century bc (Wachter 1987: 93–4)35 c. poplom (CIL 12.25) in the Column of Duilius, the original form of which could be from around 220 bc, although the text has many later features (Wachter 1987: 359–61) d. poplo (CIL 12.40) in an inscription from Aricia (Ariminium?) in Latium which dates from the 3rd century to the first half of the 2nd century bc (Wachter 1987: 382–3) e. poplvs senatvsqve romanvs (CIL 12.614) in 189 bc, in the decree of L. Aemilius, the governor of Spain (Wachter 1987: 287–8); the formula is that seen later regularly with the first two elements inverted

(28)

Chronological evidence for epenthesis in populus a. popvlo (CIL 12.586.13) in the letter of L. Cornelius to the Tiburtes (hence from Rome), probably datable to 159 bc (Wachter 1987: 299–301)36 b. popvlo (CIL 12.1861) from the territory of the Sabines, near the Fucine Lake, which can be dated to after the death of Ennius in 169 bc (Wachter 1987: 416–19) c. popolvm, popvl(o: ) (CIL 12.582.14, 10) from around 125 bc (Sommer and Pfister 1977: 113)37

We have no inscriptional examples of epenthesis in /pl/ before the middle of the 2nd century bc. In early verse (from the late 3rd century), there is variation between populus and poplus, similarly to forms in /kl/. Out of 47 occurrences of the word in Plautus, 32 show epenthesis (e.g. Trin. 1047 populo: versus Am. 101 poplo: ). All eight occurrences in Terence show epenthesis.

34 The antiquity of the hymn is suggested by its attribution by Varro (L. 7.3), Cicero, and others to Numa Pompilius, the second king of Rome. Habinek (2005: 8) reports that dating the song and rite back to the very foundation of Rome is corroborated by the recent discovery of objects resembling the Salian ancilia or shields in Italian graves dating to the 10th and 9th centuries bc. Goldberg (2006: 435–6, fn. 17) states that the Carmen Saliare is a particularly good example for Cicero’s discussion in de Oratore on the power of rhythm, since its text was largely incomprehensible by his day. 35 Wachter reports the form without a final hoi, but Vine (1991) includes it. 36 poplicae appears in the same inscription for pu:blicae. 37 poplico, poplice appear in the same inscription at ll. 2, 3 etc., for pu: blico:, pu:blice: .

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

/pl/

151

We therefore have evidence to attribute /pl/-epenthesis to around the second half of the 3rd century. A stage of variation can perhaps be detected at around this time: unusually, we find an example of epenthesis in the name Poplicius in CIL 12.28 popvlicio (Wachter 1987: 346–7). The inscription is from the end of the 3rd to the beginning of the 2nd century, and perhaps indicates that epenthesis in /pl/ was not settled in the orthography at that time, hence scribes were unsure where it should or should not appear. Contrast epenthesis in names with /kl/, Hercule: s and Aescula: pius, settled by the beginning of the 2nd century. The heterosyllabic development of /pl/ to /bl/ (*poplikos > pu: blicus, and in names such as Pu: blius) can be dated to an earlier time. (29)

Chronological evidence for voiceless /pl/ a. popliosio (CIL 12.2832a) in the Lapis Satricanus from around 500 bc, whose antiquity is indicated by the inherited o-stem genitive *-osjo, unattested elsewhere in Latin b. in poplicod (CIL 12.581.15) in the Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus from 186 bc (Wachter 1987: 289–98), although note that there is much conservative language in this inscription c. rei poplicae (CIL 12.586.8) in the letter of L. Cornelius to the Tiburtes (hence from Rome), probably datable to 159 bc (Wachter 1987: 299–301); again, there are numerous conservative elements in the inscription (but cf. popvlo) d. CIL 12.582.2, 3 etc. poplico, poplice (but cf. popolvm, popvl(o: )) from around 125 bc (Sommer and Pfister 1977: 113)

(30)

Chronological evidence for voiced /bl/ a. poblicai (CIL 12.397) in an inscription from Beneventum in Samnium, a colony founded in 268 bc (Wachter 1987: 420) b. povblicon (CIL 12.402 and 403), povblilia (CIL 12.42), povlilio (CIL 12.572), the latter two from the late 3rd to early 2nd century (Wachter 1987: 384–6) c. pvbli . . . pvblio (CIL 12.10) in the epitaph of P. Cornelius Scipio, augur 180 bc (son of Scipio Africanus, defeater of Hannibal) d. ager pvblicvs popvli romanei (CIL 12.585.4) ‘the public field of the Roman people’ from 111 bc e. pvblicvm (CIL 12.1471), pvblicai (CIL 12.1550), pvblicos (CIL 12.594.1.3.17) from the 2nd to the 1st century bc (Wachter 1987: 241–2) f. Other forms with pob- (Wachter 1987: 385 and fn. 884), e.g. poblice (CIL 12.1526), poblici (CIL app. 293), which latter is from 80 bc Rome (Crawford 1974: 1.396)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

152

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

The development was well under way from the 3rd century. Note that not only voicing but also breaking and monophthongization had occurred by the time of Scipio’s death, suggesting a considerably earlier development to pob-, arguably in the first half of the 3rd century. Aside from the very early popliosio, the forms with /pl/ appear to be deliberate archaisms in inscriptions containing numerous conservative elements, and whose real dates are betrayed by epenthesized forms of populus, among other indications. Therefore, voicing in heterosyllabic /pl/ probably occurred in the first half of the 3rd century bc, and epenthesis in tautosyllabic /pl/ in the second half. This is consistent with the Plautine evidence, in which there are no examples of forms in *popli- in any of the 46 occurrences of pu: blicus and its derivatives and related words. Similarly, there are no voiceless forms attested in the four occurrences in Terence.

5.5 /gl/ The only evidence for epenthesis in /gl/ from an etymologically secure origin is the single word iu: gula: ns, attested only a few times and in only some MSS. (31)

Vocalic epenthesis in /gl/ iu: gula: ns ~ iu: gla: ns ‘walnut’ < *Jowis gla: ns (Leumann 1977: 134), the former only at Var. R. 1.16.6 (-gl- in MS B), 1.59.3; Fest. p. 166M (where Verrius’s iugulanda is also reported); Col. Arb. 22.3 (MS A; -u- erased in MS S); Plin. Nat. 15.28 (MS M), 30.101 (MS V). Macr. 3.18.3 (TLL 7.2.631–2, OLD 980, EDL 263–4 s.v. gla: ns)

The elements of *Jowis gla: ns > iu: gla: ns are calqued on Gk. Diòs bálanos ‘walnut’ (lit. ‘Zeus’ acorn’), and although it is unclear at what stage internal /s/ was lost and /i/ syncopated (presumably in early archaic times), it is clear that there was an original morpheme- and syllable-initial /gl/ sequence (cf. gla: ns ‘fruit of mast-bearing tree, e.g. acorn’), which developed to /gul/ in this word in a variant form. However, the epenthesized variant was much less frequent than the non-epenthesized form (e.g. Cic. Tusc. 5.58), indicating that /gl/-epenthesis was neither very early (compare /bl/ with no non-epenthesized variants) nor firmly established. The other possible examples consist of words ending in -gulum/-a which probably continue agent-noun forming *-e/olo- (e.g. figulus ‘potter’), diminutive *-elo- (e.g. iugulum ‘collar bone’),38 or instrumental *-e/olo-, after root-final /g/, rather than simple *-lo-/-la: , and therefore provide no evidence for epenthesis, as the vowel was original. As discussed in }5.3.3, the instrumental suffix has been the subject of much debate, but as with /k/-final (and */d/-final) roots, evidence from the plausibility of 38 Iugulum ‘collar bone’ is interpreted as a diminutive of iugum ‘yoke’, following Sihler (1979: 169) and Nielsen (2004: 205–6), hence < *jug-elo-m, and not an instrumental as claimed by Leumann (1977: 311).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

/gl/

153

epenthesis in /gl/ indicates a vowel-initial suffix by the time of vocalic epenthesis. Some relevant forms in -gulum/-gula are below (from Nielsen 2004). (32)

Forms in -gulum/-gula agolum ‘cattle whip’, cingulum ‘belt’, coa: gulum ‘rennet’, re: gula ‘ruler, rod’, repa: gula ‘door-bars, restraints’, te: gula ‘roofing tile’; te: gulum ‘roofing’, tragula ‘carrier, sledge; fishing-net’,39 tra: gula ‘javelin’

The variation in Plautus between epenthesized and non-epenthesized forms, but not non-syncopated and syncopated forms, is a useful indicator as to whether a vowel was original or epenthetic. However, a number of the forms above are not attested in early verse. Agolum is attested only once at Paul. Fest. p. 29M, cingulum only from Varro (e.g. R. 2.9.15) and cingulus ‘belt’ from Cicero (Rep. 6.21) and Festus (Paul., Fest. p. 43M), coa: gulum only clearly from Varro (e.g. Men. 111; possibly earlier in a Lucilius fragment), re: gula only from Cicero (e.g. Leg. 1.19), and tragula only from Varro (e.g. L. 5.139). Some forms are however attested in early Latin verse. Repa: gula is found at Pl. Cist. 649 (repa: guli: s) and Enn. scen. 270, but its scant attestation means that little can be concluded from the absence of a short form. On the other hand te: gula is attested twelve times in Plautus (e.g. Mos. 109), once in Caecilius (com. 197; d. 168 bc), twice in Terence (e.g. Ph. 707), and once in a pre-Augustan inscription (CIL 12.590.28). It is therefore rather more noteworthy that there are no attestations of a form without the purported epenthesis in this word. There is, however, an inscriptional attestation of the derivative te: gula: rius ‘concerning the manufacture of tiles’ in republican CIL 12.594.2.2.25, where we find the two words figlinas teglarias, hence with a short form of the word. This instance is clearly an example of early/classical syncope before a stressed, heavy syllable, just as in the adjacent figuli: nus ‘of a potter’, which certainly had an original vowel between /gl/, since it was derived from the agent noun figulus ‘potter’ < *-e/olo-.40 Finally, tra: gula is attested three times in Plautus and once in Lucilius (1315) with internal -gul- and never *-gl-, again indicating that the vowel was not epenthetic. In sum, there is no evidence from early Latin for the vowel separating /gl/ in these forms to have been epenthetic. To conclude, the only evidence for epenthesis in /gl/ comes from iu: gula: ns, the more poorly attested variant of iu: gla: ns. Epenthesis in /gl/ is therefore an uncertain, minor phenomenon, in contrast with epenthesis in /bl kl pl/, but as in those sequences, epenthesis appears to have occurred (morpheme-initially) in a complex onset.

39 Nielsen (2004: 206–7) reports that there are no attestations of tragula in metrical texts (as opposed to tra: gula), but on etymological grounds reconstructs a short root-vowel, contra Schrijver (1991: 1889). EDL 626–7 s.v. traho: merges the two as tra:gula < *trag=la. 40 EDL 221 s.v. fingo: has *d=ig=-lo- to explain the /g/, but figu:ra and effigia show that a stem fig- existed which could have formed *fig-elo-s > figulus.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

154

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

5.6 Word-initial Tl As seen in the above sections, epenthesis never occurred in word-initial Tl sequences, despite being complex onsets in this position,41 e.g. blandus ‘flattering’, cla: rus ‘clear’, and placet ‘it seems good’. The retention of Tl word-initially proves that it presented no straightforward physiological difficulty, nor was it an utterly prohibited onset structure requiring repair by epenthesis (cf. /bl/ in pu: blicus), as might be conjectured by an analysis based on syllabification templates (e.g. Ito 1989). We therefore consider evidence for morphological and analogical reasons, not phonetic/phonological, for epenthesis in /kl/ and its extension to /pl/ in }5.7. Since we attributed epenthesis in /bl/ to the 4th century bc, it is possible that the change was occurring under the influence of archaic initial-syllable stress, which persisted until some time in that century (Meiser 1998: 53). Failure of word-initial epenthesis in /bl/ could then be attributed to its consistent position in the onset of the syllable bearing the strong stress of archaic Latin, thus blándus,42 similar to early/ classical syncope blocking or reversing epenthesis before a stressed, heavy syllable (e.g. anclá: bris). However, we cannot invoke stress as a conditioning factor in wordinitial blocking in /kl pl/, as these appear to have occurred under the later archaic/ early Latin form of the Penultimate Law (the same as classical Latin, except that tetrasyllables with three initial light syllables were stressed on the first, not the second, syllable), and /kl pl/-initial forms which bore stress on non-initial syllables are plentiful. Although initial stress is able to account for several forms, such an account must choose to generalize whichever parts of verbs and nouns had initial stress over the others, without any clear motivation for the selection. (33)

Forms in Plautus with initial /kl pl/ and non-initial stress a. cla: má: re ‘shout’, cla: mó: ris ‘shout (gen.)’, but clá: mo: ‘I shout’, clá: mor ‘shout (nom.)’ clandestí: nus ‘clandestine’ (alongside clám ‘secretly’) cle: méntis ‘mild (gen.)’, but clé: me: ns ‘mild (nom.)’ cliéntis ‘client (gen.)’, but clíens ‘client (nom.)’ cli: téllae ‘pack-saddle’, with no attested simplex cloá: ca ‘drain’ (alongside clúere ‘purify’) clué: re ‘be known as’, but clúeo: ‘I am known as’ clu: rí: nus ‘of apes’ (alongside clú: ra ‘ape’)

41 This is corroborated by the regular short scansion in Latin poetry of words ending in a short vowel and preceding a word beginning in TR. Only two exceptions from Catullus exist (4.9, 29.4) which can be disregarded as poetic devices and unrepresentative of the spoken language. 42 Consider in this context the importance of alliteration in very early Latin verse.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Word-initial Tl

155

b. pla: cá: re ‘placate’, but plá: co: ‘I placate’ placé: re ‘be pleasing’, but plácet ‘it is pleasing’ plo: ráre ‘wail’, but pló: ro: ‘I wail’ It is possible that the regular phonological blocking of epenthesis in /bl/ due to archaic initial stress was spread by analogy to /kl pl/, and I argue in }5.7 that this was certainly plausible in /kl/ where epenthesis appears to have been a structurally driven process, through an extension of /bl/-epenthesis. On the other hand, partly because such an account is more problematic for /pl/, we might simply posit that the basis for word-initial blocking resides in the phonological robustness of the word-initial position, which is borne out in numerous investigations into phenomena such as neutralization, deletion and epenthesis. For example, Hall (2006: 606) notes ‘that there is a strong tendency in natural languages to preserve underlying segments (and sequences of segments) in word-initial position because this is a perceptually salient position’ and ‘if languages make an effort to preserve phonological material in contexts in which this material is more salient, then a preservation of segments (and contrasts) in word-initial position is to be expected’. These observations have been formalized in phonological theory by, among others, Goldsmith’s (1990) positional licensing, and in Optimality Theory by means of positional faithfulness, a family of constraints requiring the output preservation of underlying contrasts in specific psycholinguistically prioritized or perceptually prominent linguistic positions, such as initial syllables, stressed syllables, syllable onsets, or root syllables (Beckman 1997: 2 with numerous references; 1999). The prominence of the word-initial position is based upon psycholinguistic findings on its importance in processing, as well as natural language phenomena. Hawkins and Cutler (1988: 295–300 with references to individual studies) discuss two types of evidence for this salience: the beginning portions of words are the most effective cues for the the successful recall or recognition of a word (e.g. ‘tip-of-thetongue’ state), and the effects of distorting the beginning of a word are much more severe than the effects of distorting later portions, a finding established as early as Bagley (1900). The importance of the word-initial position for the listener has been formalized in the ‘cohort’ word-retrieval model developed by Marslen-Wilson and his colleagues (e.g. Marslen-Wilson and Welsh 1978; Marslen-Wilson and Tyler 1980; Tyler and Marslen-Wilson 1986). This theory posits that listeners narrow down the possibilities of the word they are hearing as the word is heard; thus the set of words activated by the first segment of a spoken word is a relatively large ‘initial cohort’; as subsequent segments are heard, it is gradually narrowed down to a ‘uniqueness point’ of a one-word cohort. Therefore, the start of the word up to the uniqueness point is of greater importance than the end. Although the cohort model may not constitute the whole picure, as suggested by the finding that word-finals are more salient than word-middles (see Hawkins and Cutler 1988: 300–301), it accounts well for phonological processes

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

156

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

reported by the authors which maintain the shape of a word up to its uniqueness point, but allow change thereafter. Finally, Shattuck-Hufnagel’s (1979) ‘slot-and-filler’ model of word construction posits a separate representation for segments, and a framework of ‘slots’ which lock those segments into position, and is thus capable of explaining speech errors such as spoonerisms, where the segmental information inserted into the two word-initial onset slots is reversed. Shattuck-Hufnagel (1987; 1992) argues specifically for the special status of the word-initial slot compared to word-internal onsets. In conclusion, the absence of vocalic epenthesis in word-initial Tl in Latin can be attributed to the privileged status of the word-initial position as a salient unit in speech processing. Such an explanation can apply equally to /bl/, /kl/, and /pl/. We can therefore maintain that epenthesis occurred in syllable onsets, albeit only wordinternally.

5.7 Frequency and the implementation of epenthesis Inscriptional evidence together with the presence or absence of variation at the start of the literary period allows us to posit approximately when vocalic epenthesis was occurring in the different sequences. As epenthesis in /bl/ was entirely settled by the early Latin period, it seems to have been the first environment for the change, plausibly occurring over the course of the 4th century, and perhaps even while archaic initial stress persisted. Epenthesis started occurring in /kl/ in the late 4th century bc and was only completed by the middle of the 2nd. Epenthesis in /pl/ began to occur later than in /bl/ and /kl/, in the second half of the 3rd century. However, voicing of the stop in heterosyllabic /pl/ had occurred earlier, arguably in the first half of the 3rd , and this was also possibly when voicing in heterosyllabic /kl/ occurred (i.e. neglegere). Vocalic epenthesis spread from phonological context to phonological context: /bl/ (4th century), then /kl/ (4th–2nd centuries), then /pl/ (3rd-2nd centuries). The spread from ‘voiced labial stop’ to ‘voiceless velar stop’ to ‘voiceless labial stop’ is phonologically peculiar as there seems to be no obvious expansion or minimal change in the feature matrix between the first and second contexts, whereas the second and third contexts represent the only remaining sequences of voiceless stop + /l/ at the time, given the very early change */tl/ > /kl/. A more straightforwardly predictable spread might have been from /bl/ to /pl/, maintaining the place of articulation of the stop, but losing its voicing, and thence to /kl/, the remaining voiceless Tl sequence. However, an explanation of the attested spread comes from morphological considerations: both /bl/ and /kl/ appeared most often in the mediative suffixes *-blom and *-klom, and hence the spread was not by phonological, but morphological context. Indeed, the earliest attestations of epenthesis in /kl/ are variants of po: culum < *po: -klom. Thereafter, either spread ‘/kl/ to /pl/’ or ‘/bl/ to /pl/’ might have been

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Frequency and epenthesis

157

purely phonological, involving only one feature change (place or voice). I argue for ‘/bl/ to /pl/’ in }5.7.5, based on patterns in the chronology of the developments and the role of lexical frequency in their implementation, a consideration which also supports our structurally based analysis of /kl/-epenthesis. The spread of epenthesis across lexical items, as seen in /kl/, falls neatly into a model of lexical diffusion (Wang 1969; Chen and Wang 1975), whereby the spread of a change occurs item by item within a context. Phillips (1998a) emphasizes that lexical diffusion is strictly a method of implementing a change within a single context, without reference to its actuation, which could be either physiologically or analogically based, possibly resulting in a spread to a new context. As we have no evidence for a state before a completed change to an epenthesized form in /bl/, we cannot tell whether the change occurred in every word at the same time in an identical, gradient fashion (i.e. a regular Neogrammarian sound change), or whether it occurred in some lexical items before others (i.e. lexical diffusion). However, the actuation of the spread of epenthesis from /bl/ to /kl/ can be attributed to lexical analogy (see Kiparsky 1995), requiring morphological analysis and following a soundto-structure correspondence to maintain a consistent shape in mediative suffixes, based on the existence (for whatever historical phonetic reasons) of the epenthesized suffix *-bolom > -bulum. We might describe this spread as a structurally based extension of the environment for the development, as some analysis of the forms, here morphological, would need to be performed. (34)

Structurally based spread of epenthesis from /bl/ to /kl/ ‘Mediative suffix with /l/ ) -TVl-’

The generalization of epenthesis within /kl/ from ‘syllable onsets in mediative suffixes’ to ‘internal syllable onsets’ required a further structurally based extension, according to the following ratio in the innovator’s grammar. This time, the extension required the speaker to perform an analysis of phonological, not morphological, structure. (35)

Structurally based spread of epenthesis within /kl/ ‘Onset /kl/ in mediative suffixes : -kVl- = internal onset /kl/ : X; X = -kVl-’

This can be considered to be phonological analogy, resulting here from the replacement of the morphological condition with a phonological one.43 It is characterized again by sound-to-structure correspondence, where ‘structure’ in this case refers to syllable position, rather than morphological structure (as in the spread from /bl/). 43

The minimal expansion of the environment by replacing the morphological with a phonological context can also explain why word-initial /kl/ remained unaffected, since the mediative suffix was always word-internal.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

158

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

Both extensions (i.e. actuations) are therefore hypothesized to be structurally motivated changes, and the implementation of both in their new context would also require structural analysis of each affected item. A key difference in the implementation of structurally based changes—developments which require analysis of some kind (including analogical changes)—and non-structural (including physiologically based) changes relates to which lexical items within a given context are affected first (see Hooper 1976; Phillips 1984: 322–3). Phillips’s (2001: 123–4) ‘Frequency Implementation Hypothesis’ posits: ‘Sound changes which require analysis—whether syntactic, morphological, or phonological—during their implementation affect the least frequent words first; others affect the most frequent words first.’ Phillips (2006: 181; 2014) elaborates, stating that if no analysis beyond the phonetic form of the word is required, and the information needed is therefore ‘relatively shallow’, then the most frequent words change first, whereas if more detailed analysis is required, referring to ‘word class, syllable structure, phonotactic structure, and so forth’, the least frequent words are affected first. We refer to the former as ‘phonetically based changes’—including physiologically based assimilations and reductions, and suprasegmental changes such as stress shifts which eliminate or ignore grammatical information (Phillips 1998b)—and the latter as ‘structurally based changes’—such as glide deletion in Southern American English, the unrounding of Middle English [] (Phillips 1984: 323–32), and suprasegmental changes which require analysis, for example by part of speech or morphological constituency. The reasoning behind this divergence might be that phonetically based changes are more likely to manifest themselves the more (and more automatically) a word is repeated: Bybee (2002: 287) concludes that ‘changes that affect high-frequency words first are a result of the automation of production, the normal overlap and reduction of articulatory gestures that comes with fluency’. Conversely, analogy might occur ‘when memory fails’ (Hooper 1976), and other structural motivations might apply when a word is likely to be syntactically, morphologically, or phonologically analysed rather than produced automatically, a situation that is more probable the less frequently the word is used. We hypothesized that vocalic epenthesis in Latin /kl/ was structurally based, requiring morphological analysis (the mediative suffix *-klom) and phonological analysis (syllable onset /kl/). Therefore, we should expect that epenthesis affected the least frequent words in *-klom first. In the same way, we should also expect the least frequent words with /kl/ not in the mediative suffix to be affected first. Conversely, if the change in /kl/ was phonetically motivated (as it may have been in /bl/), we should expect the most frequent words to have been affected first.44 44

Early/classical parsing syncope before a stressed, heavy syllable, often reversing earlier /kl/-epenthesis, appears to have affected the least frequent words first. This might suggest that the change was structurally based, requiring analysis by metrical structure, as is likely if it was triggered by the pressure to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Frequency and epenthesis

159

The implementation of epenthesis in /pl/, once it had been actuated by an extension of either the /bl/ or /kl/ context, might simply have been phonetically based. This possibility is supported by its sensitivity to stress, a physical conditioning context not seen in /kl/-epenthesis. All /pl/ sequences following the weaker stress environments—staccato-stressed and unstressed—were therefore epenthesis targets, without reference to structure (beyond the phonetic realization of metrical structure). It is therefore arguably irrelevant that /pl/-epenthesis occurred in the onset, as heterosyllabic /pl/ would always have been after a well-formed bimoraic foot, e.g. (póp).li.{tis}. Therefore, we might expect the most frequent words to be affected first by /pl/-epenthesis, unlike /kl/-epenthesis. Heterosyllabic /pl/ also underwent earlier voicing to /bl/, removing the input to /pl/-epenthesis. Voicing might be interpreted as phonetically based, as assimilations are commonly considered to be physiologically or perceptually motivated; hence we might predict that /p.l/ > /b.l/ occurred in the most frequent words first if it was lexically diffused, possibly explaining its occurrence in *poplikos > pu: blicus, but not poples, -itis (}5.4.3). However, as we concluded that voicing occurred earlier than epenthesis, plausibly in the early 3rd century and therefore before the first literary attestations, it is difficult to find evidence for its implementation in the lexicon, aside from the above example. The hypothesis that /kl/-epenthesis was structurally motivated does not entail the exclusion of any phonetic basis. There is every possibility that a brief vocalic transition between stop and /l/ was commonplace, but simply factored out by the listener as part of the speaker’s phonetic implementation, until such motivation arose to reinterpret that transition as a vowel in its own right. As it happened, that motivation appears to have been structural (onsets in mediative suffixes). There could therefore have been a period during which the speaker became aware of the vocalic transition, but was as yet unsure whether it ought to be treated as a full vowel. A single indication of this step might come from probably the earliest attestation of an epenthetic vowel in Hercule: s: hercele (CIL 12.551), from the 4th to the 3rd century. We concluded in }5.3.4 that it was best to account for the internal vowel in hercele as an attempt to write a very short vocalic transition between the stop and liquid, which later became phonologized as a full vowel /u/. We therefore investigate in the following sections whether words of higher or lower frequency appear to have been affected by /kl pl/-epenthesis and /pl/-voicing, testing our predictions. As we seem to have caught epenthesis in /kl pl/ mid-spread when our inscriptional and literary evidence begins, we have a reasonable chance of

parse syllables into feet, rather than by stress sensitivity. In Aesculá:pius, the epenthetic vowel remained (185 occurrences in Perseus), whereas syncope won out in less frequent forms, thus no:menclá: tor ‘slave who calls out names’ (9 occurrences in Perseus), exanclá: re ‘drain; endure’ (1 in Perseus), anclá: bris ‘sacrificial’ (0 in Perseus), congenuclá: re ‘fall on one’s knees’ (0 in Perseus).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

160

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

finding patterns. However, we must note that there is insufficient data for the quantitative indicators to be conclusive; the trends are simply suggestive and no more. 5.7.1 Inscriptions The words in question do not appear often enough in our corpus of inscriptions from the 4th to the 2nd centuries for many effects to be detected. The most frequent word in the inscriptions is po: culum ‘cup’ in its various forms, although most of the attestations come from the homogeneous po: cula deo: rum, from roughly the same time and the same place. It occurs securely 18 times, 17 of which show epenthesis (94%).45 The next most frequent word in /kl/ is Hercule: s (without a mediative suffix), for which we must discount the forms from non-Latin speaking areas, leaving us with 12 attestations, 9 of which show epenthesis (75%).46 The remaining forms, with counts of fewer than 5, cannot give us much meaningful information: Aescula: pius has 4 occurrences, 3 of which show epenthesis, although the early failure of epenthesis in the one form may be explained by the recency of the introduction of the god to Rome (see }5.3.4);47 pia: culum ‘expiatory offering’ occurs three times, all in CIL 12.366, the Lex Sacra from Spoletium (Wachter 1987: 426–32), all of which are non-epenthesized. However, the inscription is from an Umbrianspeaking territory (Umbrian did not have epenthesis), and the inscription shows non-Latin traits, and should therefore be treated with caution. The most frequent word therefore shows the most consistent epenthesis, and the least frequent the fewest examples of epenthesis, contrary to our prediction. However, given the extreme paucity of evidence combined with the great chronological and geographical range of the data, we cannot extract a significant pattern from this evidence. The evidence is even more scant for /pl/, as there are no other relevant words attested in inscriptions aside from populus, and we therefore cannot consider its relative frequency to manipulus. The same problem arises when considering the voicing of the stop to /b/, where the only relevant word, aside from related names, is pu: blicus ‘public’. 5.7.2 Plautus Table 5.1 gives the counts for words in /kl/ in Plautus, and Table 5.2 those for words in /pl/. Counts for pu: blicus and its derivatives and related forms are given in Table 5.3;

45 16 times in the po:cula deo:rum (Wachter 1987: 465–8; CIL 12.439–53, and two others), twice in vase fragments from Ariminium (Wachter 1987: 468–9), one of which is not epenthesized. 46 Epenthesized forms are found in CIL 12.30, 61, 62, 551, 607, 1458, 1459, 2518, and 2675a, nonepenthesized forms in CIL 12.563, 564, and 2659. The inscriptions deemed to show too much non-Latin influence to be taken into account are CIL 12.394, 2486 (
2) and Wachter (1987: 402). 47 Epenthesized forms are found in CIL 12.26, 28, and 29, the non-epenthesized form in CIL 12.440.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Frequency and epenthesis

161

TABLE 5.1 Frequency of words and epenthesis in /kl/ in Plautus

(me: )hercle(st) peri: culum ri: diculus Hercule: s curriculum po: culum Aescula: pius cubiculum saeculum de: ri: diculum taberna: culum vehiculum fo: culum ia: ienta: culum (ie: ient-) inri: diculum (irr-) specta: culum ce: na: culum de: verticulum indu: cula mi: ra: culum pia: culum pro: pugna: culum pugna: culum redimi: culum sarculum tintinna: culum adminiculum ora: culum

Frequency (parts/100k)

Occurrences

With epenthesis

% with epenthesis (for words > 5 occurrences)

356.1 26.5 11.6 11.0 6.6 6.6 4.4 2.8 2.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.1 1.1

645 48 21 20 12 12 8 5 5 3 3 3 2 2

10 10 21 20 12 9 8 5 1 3 1 0 2 2

1.6 21 100 100 100 75 100

1.1 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

there are no attestations of poples in Plautus.48 Percentages of epenthesized forms are provided for words which are attested more than five times. Only the frequencies of the words within Plautus are included here, not their overall frequencies in the language at the time, a measure considered further in }5.7.4. The relatively very frequent oath hercle ‘by Hercules!’, and its variant me: hercle (only 3 times),49 appear extremely infrequently with an epenthetic vowel (1.6%). Rix 48 All word counts in Tables 5.1–5.6 are based upon Perseus, cross-checked against the IntraText Digital Library, both accessed on 3 Sept. 2009. There are 181,153 words in Plautus and 55,066 words in Terence according to the latter. 49 Herclest appears 4 times.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

162

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

TABLE 5.2 Frequency of words and epenthesis in /pl/ in Plautus

populus50 popula: ris manipula: ris popula: rita: s manipulus manipula: tim

Frequency (parts/100k)

Occurrences

With epenthesis

% with epenthesis (for words > 5 occurrences)

25.9 6.1 2.2 0.6 0.6 0.6

47 11 4 1 1 1

32 11 1 1 1 0

68 100

TABLE 5.3 Frequency of words and voicing in /pl/ in Plautus

pu: blicus pu: blice: pu: blicitus pu: blica: nus pu: blica: re Pu: blilius

Frequency (parts/100k)

Occurrences

With voicing

% with voicing (for words > 5 occurrences)

18.8 2.2 2.2 1.1 0.6 0.6

34 4 4 2 1 1

34 4 4 2 1 1

100

(2004: 443) notes the high frequency of hercle and its variants in early and republican Latin, and that the use of the affirmation in an epenthetic form only appears 10 times (e.g. Per. 591) where metrics dictated the choice. He also notes that the name of the god when not used in the oath always had the epenthetic vowel. This difference is usually attributed to speed of delivery, in that the oath is argued to have been spoken quickly, so without epenthesis. A similar tempo-based argument is traditionally employed to explain syncope in the interjection *kedate > cette ‘gimme!’ (Sommer and Pfister 1977: 113). However, we argue that syncope here was perfectly regular regardless of speed, thus one can compare valide: >valde: ‘very’, and that it usually failed in verbs due to root faithfulness (see Rix 1966), thus retegere ‘uncover’ (but cf. *re-didere > reddere ‘give back’). As the interjection cette gained a degree of independence from its base verb ceda: re ‘give’, it also underwent regular syncope once it was no longer subject to the constraints proper to verbs. Therefore, speech tempo was arguably not (or not solely) responsible; other considerations such as loss of morphological analysis were also in play. In a similar way, the failure of epenthesis in

50

Including populi: in Non. p. 454M (Pl. Am. 1034t).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Frequency and epenthesis

163

hercle could have resulted from its very high frequency and its independence from the name Hercule: s, rather than its high tempo. The remaining forms are much less frequent than hercle, but peri: culum ‘danger’ with 48 occurrences is over twice as well attested as its nearest rival ri: diculus ‘funny’. It is therefore noteworthy that epenthesis in peri: culum is relatively uncommon in Plautus, with only 21% of occurrences showing the development. In contrast, ri: diculus (21 occurrences) always shows epenthesis. Hercule: s (20), the first form after hercle not to contain the mediative suffix, again shows epenthesis in 100% of the attestations, as does curriculum ‘course’ (12). However, po: culum ‘cup’ (12) only shows epenthesis in 75% of its attestations. Recall that the earliest evidence for epenthesis in /kl/ comes from this word in the po: cula deo: rum, and it is therefore unusual that epenthesis should still not have become settled by the time of Plautus. Perhaps the uniform epenthesis in the po: cula deo: rum is somewhat illusory and the result of a scribal endeavour to represent phonetically one form of colloquial speech,51 whereas there was in fact a great deal more variation in the pronunciation of the word. This variation could have been because the word was much more frequent in everyday speech than suggested by Plautine language (or the language of other early and republican authors; see }5.7.4), given that the word referred to a common household object, although this must remain conjecture. Other forms attested more than twice in Plautus which show a low percentage of epenthetic forms are saeculum ‘age, generation’ (20%: 1 of 5 occurrences), taberna: culum ‘tent’ (33.33%: 1 of 3), and vehiculum ‘cart’ (0%: 0 of 3). Saeculum appears to belong to a conservative register, and therefore its resistance to epenthesis is perhaps unsurprising, thus at Pl. Mil. 1079, we find the line qui: n mi: lle anno: rum perpetuo: vi: vont ab saeclo: ad saeclum ‘Indeed, they live continuously for a thousand years from age to age’ in the ever-pompous speech of the soldier Pyrgopolynices, with two non-epenthesized forms of saeculum after an archaized verb-form vi: vont for vi: vunt. Similarly, the two non-epenthesized forms taberna: clo: appear within the space of three lines in the speech of the slave Sosia in Pl. Am. 426 and 428, suggesting that Plautus was creating a somewhat archaic tone in this mythological tragi-comedy. Vehiculum was perhaps much more frequent in everyday speech than the literary attestations indicate given its meaning, as suggested for po: culum above. Otherwise, epenthesis is overwhelmingly found in words in /kl/ attested fewer than ten times in Plautus; thus 100% of forms show epenthesis in Aescula: pius ‘Asclepius’ (8 occurrences), cubiculum ‘bedroom’ (5), de: ri: diculum ‘absurdity’ (3), fo: culum ‘warming device’ (2), ia: ienta: culum (ie: ient-) ‘breakfast’ (2), inri: diculum (irr-) ‘laughing stock’ (2), and several other words with only one occurrence. The only other words, aside from those discussed above, without epenthesis in every 51 The mistake in the po: culum CIL 12.440 in which we find pococolom for hpocolomi could perhaps have arisen from an over-zealous desire to include the epenthetic vowel.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

164

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

attestation are specta: culum (50%: 1 of 2 occurrences), whose one non-epenthesized occurrence (Cur. 647) comes in a dramatic description of the collapse of theatre scaffolding at a festival of Bacchus, using archaic language (e.g. ruont for ruunt ‘tumbled down’), adminiculum ‘support’ (0%: 0 of 1), and ora: culum ‘oracle’ (0%: 0 of 1), which was undoubtedly a word of a conservative, sacred register. A pattern conforming to our prediction therefore emerges. The very frequent hercle showed considerable resistance to epenthesis. Then comes peri: culum, which seems to have been much more frequent than other words in /kl/, and this too showed notable resistance. Thereafter, epenthesis was fairly consistent, with resistance found only when the author adopted an old-fashioned tone for comic or other reasons, notably in words belonging to a conservative register. Regarding /pl/-epenthesis, little can be concluded given that populus (47 occurrences) and its derivative popula: ris (11) are the only words attested with any degree of regularity. The single attestation of manipulus shows epenthesis, but its failure in 15 of the 47 occurrences of populus shows that it was still in the process of occurring. However, epenthesis in derivatives of these words which we argue were analogical on the base, since the following stressed, heavy syllable would have blocked its action (}5.4), are instructive, as they might indicate how firmly epenthesis was established in the relevant base. The derivative manipula: ris (4) only shows epenthesis once, a trend seen also in its failure in the single attestation of manipula: tim (1). Conversely, the 11 occurrences of popula: ris, and the one instance of popula: rita: s, all show epenthesis, perhaps showing that epenthesis occurred in populus earlier than in the less frequent manipulus, and was therefore better established in the former, as predicted if /pl/epenthesis was a phonetically based change. Finally, every form showing the development */pl/ > /bl/ had undergone the change by Plautus’ time, corroborating our hypothesis that this change occurred earlier than epenthesis. As pu: blicus and related forms constitute all of the evidence for the development and there are no attestations of poples in Plautus, we have no counterevidence to our hypothesis that if /pl/ in poples was heterosyllabic before the time of Plautus, it failed to show voicing because of its low frequency, and failed to show epenthesis because of the preceding head of a well-formed trochee. 5.7.3 Terence Counts for the forms in Terence, albeit few, could provide some support for the hypothesis that the most frequent forms resisted /kl/-epenthesis (Tables 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6). There are many fewer attestations from which to extract patterns, but it is noteworthy that Terence is more categorical in his choice of forms. All the words have their classical, epenthesized appearance 100% of the time, aside from (i) the very frequent oath (me: )hercle(st), which is never epenthesized, (ii) saeculum, which

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Frequency and epenthesis

165

TABLE 5.4 Frequency of words and epenthesis in /kl/ in Terence Frequency (parts/100k) (me: )hercle(st) peri: culum ri: diculus saeculum Aescula: pius cubiculum curriculum de: ri: diculum Hercule: s

Occurrences

With epenthesis

103 29 10 2 1 1 1 1 1

0 0 10 0 1 1 1 1 1

187.0 52.7 18.2 3.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

% with epenthesis (for words > 5 occurrences) 0 0 100

TABLE 5.5 Frequency of words and epenthesis in /pl/ in Terence

populus popula: ris manipulus

Frequency (parts/100k)

Occurrences

14.5 5.4 1.8

8 3 1

% with epenthesis (for words > 5 occurrences)

With epenthesis 8 3 1

100

TABLE 5.6 Frequency of words and voicing in /pl/ in Terence Frequency (parts/100k) pu: blice: pu: blicus pu: blicitus

3.6 1.8 1.8

Occurrences 52

With voicing

2 1 1

2 1 1

always appears in its conservative older form for reasons of register, and (iii) peri: culum, for which Terence settled upon the non-epenthesized form as standard (0 out of 29 occurrences epenthesized). It could be no coincidence that peri: culum was again significantly more frequent than the next best-attested form if the sound change began with the least frequent words, and had not yet spread fully to words of higher frequency. Regarding /pl/, all forms show their classical shapes, thus epenthesized in populus, manipulus, and their derivatives, and voiced in pu: blicus and related forms. Poples is again not attested. 52

As none of these words occurs more than 5 times in Terence, there is no percentage column.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

166

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

TABLE 5.7 Counts of words in /kl/ in context 1 Words

2 Verse: Plautus + Terence + Catullus + Lucretius

3 Prose: Cicero + Caesar

(me: )hercle(st)53 peri: culum54 saeculum55 ri: diculus Hercule: s ora: culum56 curriculum po: culum cubiculum specta: culum Aescula: pius taberna: culum pro: pugna: culum de: ri: diculum vehiculum de: verticulum adminiculum pia: culum fo: culum ia: ienta: culum inri: diculum mi: ra: culum ce: na: culum indu: cula pugna: culum redimi: culum sarculum tintinna: culum

645 + 103 + 1 + 0=749 48+29+2+14=93 5+2+7+45=59 21 + 10 + 2 + 1=34 20+1+1+1=23 1+0+2+0=3 12+1+0+0=13 12+0+1+7=20 5+1+1+0=7 2+0+0+0=2 8+1+0+0=9 3+0+0+0=3 1+0+0+0=1 3+1+0+1=5 3+0+0+0=3 1+0+0+0=1 1+0+0+0=1 1+0+0+0=1 2+0+0+0=2 2+0+0+0=2 2+0+0+0=2 1+0+0+1=2 1+0+0+0=1 1+0+0+0=1 1+0+0+0=1 1+0+0+0=1 1+0+0+0=1 1+0+0+0=1

93+0=93 501+41=542 49+0=49 50+0=50 35+2=37 52+0=52 24+0=24 16+0=16 16+0=16 17+0=17 4+0=4 6+4=10 6+0=6 0+0=0 2+0=2 3+0=3 3+0=3 2+0=2 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 1+0=1 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0

4 Total: columns 2 and 3

5 Occurrences in Perseus

842 635 108 84 60 55 37 36 23 19 14 13 7 5 5 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

2,160 3,907 738 216 2,160 338 65 200 254 898 185 699 116 9 173 27 64 456 26 0 0 704 36 1 1 9 25 1

5.7.4 Frequency in context The words discussed above are presented in Tables 5.7 and 5.8 in the context of their estimated relative frequencies in early and republican Latin, and the language in all periods, in order to build a picture of how representative of the language the 53 Catul. 38.2 shows epenthesis. In Cicero, 85/93 show epenthesized hercule. Perseus’ count of 2,160 inludes occurrences of both the oath hercle and the name Hercule: s. 54 Only 1/14 shows epenthesis in Lucretius. 3/501 in Cicero are non-epenthesized. 55 Only 1/7 shows epenthesis in Catullus, and 0/45 in Lucretius. 14/49 in Cicero are non-epenthesized. 56 0/2 in Catullus shows epenthesis. 27/52 in Cicero are non-epenthesized.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Frequency and epenthesis

167

TABLE 5.8 Counts of words in /pl/ and */pl/ > /bl/ in context 1 Words

2 Verse: Plautus + Terence + Catullus + Lucretius

3 Prose: Cicero + Caesar

4 Total: columns 2 and 3

5 Occurrences in Perseus

populus popula: ris57 manipula: ris manipulus manipula: tim popula: rita: s

47+8+8+7=70 11+3+0+0=14 4+0+0+0=4 1+1+0+0=2 1+0+0+0=1 1+0+0+0=1

1,421+66=1,487 189+0=189 2+1=3 0+2=2 0+0=0 0+0=0

1,557 203 7 4 1 1

38,850 3,044 54 398 27 8

pu: blicus58 pu: blica: re59 pu: blice: pu: blica: nus pu: blicitus poples Pu: blilius

34+1+0+0=35 1+0+0+0=1 4+2+0+0=6 2+0+0+0=2 4+1+0+0=5 0+0+1+1=2 1+0+0+0=1

2,225+44=2,269 98+1=99 58+3=61 40+2=42 0+0=0 0+0=0 0+0=0

2,304 100 67 44 5 2 1

15,163 8,509 0 293 5 66 283

frequencies in the above sections are. The first column lists the relevant forms; the second shows the number of times they appear in the early and republican poets Plautus, Terence, Catullus, and Lucretius taken together; the third column shows the number of occurrences in the republican prose authors Cicero and Caesar taken together; the fourth has the total occurrences in these poets and prose authors; and the fifth has the number of occurrences (maxima) in Perseus (accessed 20 May 2009), which consists of works of all periods of Latin in antiquity. The forms are sorted by column 4 in descending order of occurrences (then by their occurrences in the poets).60 The counts in context corroborate the hypotheses above. The very high incidence of (me: )hercle(st) in early and republican times (842 occurrences) correlates with the high level of failure of epenthesis in the word in the early comedians (Plautus and

57 47/189 in Cicero are instances of popula:ri: which is sometimes the infinitive of the verb ‘ravage’, not the dat./abl. of popula:ris ‘popular’ or the dative of the noun popula: ris ‘compatriot’. 58 60/2,225 in Cicero are instances of pu:blico: and 24 are of pu:blica: s, which could sometimes be the first and second persons singular of the present indicative of the verb pu:blica: re ‘make public’. 59 See note 58. The figure for Cicero also contains all the occurrences of pu: blico: and pu:blica: s, although most of them are in fact instances of the adjective. 60 Counts taken from the IntraText Digital Library, accessed 20 May 2009. In authors other than Plautus and Terence, who are discussed in the preceding sections, the forms found are epenthesized unless otherwise stated in a footnote. Plautus and Terence are representative of early verse and Catullus and Lucretius provide a representative sample of the republican verse of the first half of the 1st c. bc, i.e. the earliest poetry after the early Latin poets. Cicero and Caesar provide a representative sample of the prose of the first half of the 1st c. bc.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

168

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

Terence). Similarly, the much higher incidence of peri: culum (635) compared to the other words (there are five times as many occurrences as its nearest rival) correlates with a high degree of failure of epenthesis. The next most frequent form is saeculum (108), which also shows numerous non-epenthesized forms in both poets, and even in Cicero, although we hypothesized that this was due to the conservative register in which the word was usually used (pompous in Plautus, austere in Lucretius). The words attested fewer than 100 times in the authors combined showed reasonably consistent epenthesis in the early comedians, with the few exceptions discussed above. Turning to the words in /pl/, the high number of attestations of populus (1,557) combined with the observation that 68% (32/47) of its attestations in Plautus showed epenthesis, and 100% (8/8) in Terence, suggests that very frequent words underwent this change in early Latin without much resistance (compare resistance in the frequent /kl/ forms). The robustness of the epenthetic vowel in populus ensured its consistent analogical presence in derivatives, such as popula: ris (11/11 in Plautus, 3/3 in Terence), despite the presence of a following stressed, heavy syllable. Epenthesis also occurred in the relatively infrequent manipulus (4 occurrences in the 6 authors combined, but 398 in Perseus), with the single occurrences in Plautus and Terence both showing the vowel. However, epenthesis in the derivatives manipula: ris (1/4 in Plautus) and manipula: tim (0/1 in Plautus) failed due to the following stressed, heavy syllable, unlike the case of popula: ris, perhaps indicating that the epenthetic vowel in the base manipulus was not as firmly established as that in populus, and so did not exert as strong an analogical influence. As expected by the chronology of the development, all words with heterosyllabic /pl/ have /bl/ (and breaking/monophthongization) by early Latin, i.e. pu: blicus and its derivatives, with the possible exception (}5.4.3) of the very infrequent poples, -itis (2 in the 6 authors combined, 66 in Perseus). We hypothesized that voicing did not occur due to its infrequency, as phonetically motivated sound changes such as voice assimilation, when lexically diffused, affect the most frequent items first (Bybee 2002: 287). Whether /pl/ in poples remained heterosyllabic or had become tautosyllabic in early Latin, as was regular for all TR sequences, the failure of epenthesis is expected due to the preceding head of a well-formed trochee in its oblique forms. Alternatively, we could attribute the failure of epenthesis in poples to its infrequency compared to populus and even manipulus, if /pl/-epenthesis affected the most frequent items first. 5.7.5 Conclusions on frequency Although the statistics are not conclusive, given the paucity of attestations in early Latin, they strongly support a pattern whereby words of lower frequency were affected by epenthesis first in the context /kl/, with those of considerably higher frequency resisting the change until later, or altogether. This pattern bears out our

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Frequency and epenthesis

169

prediction that the change was not phonetically but structurally motivated. The two sound-to-structure correspondences required for the spread of epenthesis from /bl/ to /kl/ were first, a correspondence whereby mediative suffixes showed epenthesis, and secondly, a correspondence whereby every internal onset /kl/ showed epenthesis. It is clear that the morphological correspondence must have been made first, although our data do not show much of a chronological precedence of the phenomenon in the mediative suffix, aside from the consistent epenthesis in the po: cula deo: rum. Regarding /pl/, it is noteworthy that populus and manipulus (of vastly different frequency) had settled into their classical forms by the time of Terence, whereas peri: culum and saeculum had not, despite that fact that epenthesis in /kl/ began in the late 4th century, but in /pl/ only in the second half of the 3rd. This could demonstrate the slow speed of change in /kl/, in contrast to the fast speed in /pl/. Slow change is usually associated with analogy and structurally based lexical diffusion, as these might take time to complete their coverage of the lexicon, whereas fast change is interpreted as a sign of regular, Neogrammarian sound change (e.g. Kiparsky 1995: 643), or perhaps phonetically based lexical diffusion (see Phillips 1998a: 374–5). It is plausible that a difference in the rate of change reflects a difference in the mechanism of change, and these patterns again support our hypotheses that /kl/-epenthesis was structurally motivated, whereas /pl/-epenthesis was phonetically based. Considering very frequent hercle and possibly very infrequent poples, epenthesis appears to have spread through the lexicon slowly from least to most frequent in /kl/, and quickly from most to least frequent in /pl/, until a certain frequency of item was reached, beyond which point it did not progress. Earlier heterosyllabic voice assimilation of */kl pl/ to /gl bl/ is likely to have been phonetically based, although as it occurred before our first literary attestations, we cannot recover evidence for its mechanism. The difference in the mechanism of change in /kl/- and /pl/-epenthesis suggests that the change did not spread from context to context in a simple fashion, but rather occurred in /pl/ independently from /kl/. We cannot reconstruct the motivation behind epenthesis in /bl/, as the forms all underwent the development before their first attestations. However, it is more plausible for a change to spread either ‘/bl/ to /pl/’ or ‘/kl/ to /pl/’, with the voice or place specification of the stop the only difference in the environments, than ‘/bl/ to /kl/ to /pl/’—a path that would require two changes in place of articulation, the first of which would also require a voicing change. Given the difference in the conditions for epenthesis in /kl/ and /pl/, we could speculate that the change in /bl/, as in /pl/, was also phonetically motivated, and that by the time /bl/ became settled (i.e. the change ceased to occur, as perhaps shown by pu: blicus), the environment for the change had shifted from the voiced to the voiceless labial stop. Meanwhile, epenthesis began to occur independently in /kl/ as a result of structural correspondences. An investigation into the effects of frequency has therefore enabled us to reconstruct the motivations behind and the mechanisms of epenthesis in /kl/ in the 4th–2nd

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

170

Vocalic epenthesis in Tl

centuries and /pl/ in the 3rd–2nd centuries, and also posit a motivation behind the change in /bl/.

5.8 Conclusions on vocalic epenthesis in Tl Vocalic epenthesis occurred regularly in word-internal onset /bl/ in the 4th century bc, and onset /kl/ from the late 4th to the middle of the 2nd centuries bc, but not in onset /gl/ at these early stages. Epenthesis in /pl/ occurred from the middle of the 3rd to the 2nd centuries, but was blocked by an immediately preceding stressed syllable forming the head of a well-formed trochee, thus in /mpl/, and by a following stressed, heavy syllable, given that early/classical parsing syncope was also active by this stage. We need not specify that /pl/-epenthesis required the sequence to be in the syllable onset, as heterosyllabic /pl/ always resulted in a preceding head of a well-formed trochee. An earlier heterosyllabic treatment of internal /pl/ in certain metrical contexts and when /l/ was clear is indicated by the voicing of the stop in the first half of the 3rd century bc. Voicing furthermore resulted in breaking and subsequent monophthongization of the preceding vowel: *(póp).li.{kos} > *poblikos > *poublikos > pu: blicus. Epenthesis also failed regularly in heterosyllabic /bl/ and /kl/, conditioned by the presence of a prefix + root boundary in the sequence, and in the latter, the stop once again became voiced, thus *nek-legese > neglegere. As phonetically based sound changes like (usually) voice assimilation affect the most frequent items first when lexically diffused, the failure of voicing in the infrequent poples, -itis can be attributed to the failure of the change to diffuse throughout the lexicon. Epenthesis in /bl/ was arguably also a phonetically based phenomenon—a conclusion we reached on the basis that epenthesis in /pl/, also with a labial stop, affected words of higher frequency first. Therefore, the environment for this phonetically based change spread minimally from voiced /bl/ to voiceless /pl/, with the change ceasing to be active in the former at the time it began in the latter. Conversely, epenthesis in /kl/ was a structurally motivated change, based upon a morphological correspondence requiring the mediative suffix *-klom to have a vowel between the stop and lateral, as occurred previously in *-blom > *-bolom, and a phonological correspondence spreading the context for the change from onset /kl/ in the mediative suffix to every internal onset /kl/. As a structurally motivated change, it affected words of lower frequency first, before reaching those of higher frequency, but never to the very frequent hercle, after diffusing through the lexicon at a relatively slow pace. There were therefore no stressbased phonetic constraints on epenthesis in /kl/, as there were for /pl/, although its effects were occasionally reversed by later early/classical parsing syncope. Finally, every word-initial Tl resisted epenthesis as a result of greater phonological faithfulness to the underlying form in word-initial sequences. In the case of /kl/, this manifested itself in the generalization of the epenthesis context from ‘onset /kl/ in the mediative suffix’ (which was always word-internal) to ‘every internal onset /kl/’, rather than ‘every onset /kl/’. The perceptual prominence of word-initial sequences

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/2/2015, SPi

Conclusions

171

can be attributed to their greater salience in word processing, as borne out by psycholinguistic investigations into word recognition and speech errors. Tables 5.9–5.11 illustrate how these changes occurred in the data we have considered in this chapter, showing sample historical developments from after the time of vowel reduction to classical Latin. TABLE 5.9 Sample diachronic developments of words in /bl/ Tautosyllabic /bl/

Timeline (cent. bc ) 5th 4th 3rd

Inherited form Vocalic epenthesis Vowel raising

Clear /l/

Dark /l/

*sta.blis sta.bi.lis sta.bi.lis

*sta.blom *sta.bo.lom sta.bu.lum

Heterosyllabic /bl/ *ob.li.nese ob.li.nere ob.li.nere

TABLE 5.10 Sample diachronic developments of words in /kl/ Timeline (cent. bc) 5th 4th–3rd Late 4th 3rd Mid-2nd

Tautosyllabic /kl/

Inherited form Voicing Epenthesis starts Vowel raising Epenthesis ends

Heterosyllabic /kl/

Higher frequency

Lower frequency

*pe.ri: .klom *pe.ri: .klom *pe.ri: .klom pe.ri: .clum pe.ri: .cu.lum

*po: .klom *po: .klom *po: .ko.lom po: .cu.lum po: .cu.lum

*nek.le.ge.se neg.le.ge.re neg.le.ge.re neg.le.ge.re neg.le.ge.re

TABLE 5.11 Sample diachronic developments of words in /pl/ Timeline (cent. bc)

5th 4th–3rd 3rd 3rd Mid–3rd 3rd Mid–2nd

Tautosyllabic /pl/

Inherited form Voicing Breaking Monophthongization Epenthesis starts Vowel raising Epenthesis ends

Heterosyllabic /pl/

Preceded by head of well-formed trochee

Elsewhere

Preceded by bimoraic head of trochee

*(tém).{plom} *(tém). {plom} *(tém).{plom} *(tém).{plom} *(tém).{plom} (tém).{plum} (tém).{plom}

*(pó).{plos} *(pó).{plos} *(pó).{plos} *(pó).{plos} *(pó.po).{los} (pó.pu).{lus} (pó.pu).{lus}

*(póp).li.{kos} *(pób).li.{kos} *(póub).li.{kos} *(pú: b).li.{kos} *(pú: ).bli.{kos} (pú: ).bli.{cus} (pú: ).bli.{cus}

6 Assimilations Syllable structure and segmental sequence 6.1 Introduction We have seen that syllable structure governed categorical feature specifications in /l/ (Chapter 2), and that Tl sequences behaved differently when tautosyllabic and heterosyllabic (Chapter 5), showing epenthesis in the former and assimilation in the latter. In this chapter, we reconstruct motivations for several consonantal assimilations in archaic Latin (and earlier), based on the premise that the specification of features conditioned by syllable structure in turn governed the incidence of assimilation, as a result of phonotactic constraints on sequential feature combinations. Consonantal assimilations occurred in Latin in voice, place, and manner.1 (1)

Consonantal assimilations in Latin a. Voice: *nu: bsai > nu: psi: ‘I married’ b. Place: *obkaidese > occi: dere ‘kill’ c. Manner: *supmos > summus ‘highest’

The diachronic explanation for the resulting sound patterns is very similar to that reconstructed for vowel colouring before dark /l/ in Chapter 2: categorical feature specifications (+ – Ø) in segments ([back] in dark /l/, [place/voice/nasal/continuant] in consonants) caused phonetic realizations which influenced the acoustics of an adjacent segment by coarticulation (dark resonance in preceding V, voice etc. percepts in preceding C), which came to be phonologized over time and treated as specified in that adjacent segment (vowel conditioning, consonant assimilation). A difference between the two phenomena in Latin is that syllable-based conditioning played a secondary role in assimilations, in contrast with the crucial determinant, the

1 An earlier, briefer version of material from this chapter can be found in Sen (2011), which focuses upon the linear sequence versus syllable structure debate in approaches to consonantal phonotactics. The argument benefited from useful feedback from delegates at the CUNY Conference on the Syllable, January 2008.

Introduction

173

perceptual robustness of the target and trigger. We argue in this chapter that linear segmental sequence—the juxtaposition of segments with relevant feature specifications— forms the necessary basis of an analysis of Latin assimilations, rather than hierarchical segmental organization, i.e. syllable structure. However, syllable structure governed feature specifications in one important aspect, the voice specification of sonorant consonants (/r l m n/), which in turn conditioned the incidence of sequentially governed assimilations. Nevertheless, most feature specifications (place, manner, and obstruent voice features) were not structure-dependent but underlying, and syllable structure is therefore not required to explain them. Furthermore, we have also seen that morphological structure could govern syllable structure in TR (Chapter 4). The causal path of conditioning influences on diachronic assimilations, with brackets denoting possible but not necessary factors, is therefore: (morphological structure Ò) (syllable structure Ò) feature specifications Ò phonetics Ò change. Hence, syllable structure did not directly govern this sound change, unlike vocalic epenthesis in /kl/, a development which necessarily referred to syllable structure, as it only occurred in complex onsets (Chapter 5). There has been considerable debate in the phonological literature concerning the role played by the syllable in consonantal phonotactics, the synchronic constraints arguably resulting from diachronic processes such as assimilations. A syllable-based account (e.g. Hooper 1972: 530) can be found from early investigations into syllableinternal structure, which focused on the distribution of segments in different constituents (Pike and Pike 1947; Hockett 1947; Henderson 1948; Fudge 1969).2 Three different strategies for explaining assimilations and neutralizations have emerged. Positional licensing (Goldsmith 1990: 123–7; Lombardi 1995 specifically on voice neutralization) posits that prosodic units license features, and the coda has fewer licensing possibilities than the onset because the latter is directly licensed by the syllable, whereas the former is only a secondary licenser. Assimilations and neutralizations result when, for example, the coda is incapable of licensing place of articulation, resulting in the homorganicity of coda consonants with the following onset, where place is licensed by the syllable (e.g. Lat. *e.um.dem > e.un.dem ‘same (acc.)’), or the realization of the coda at a default place of articulation (e.g. Ancient Greek word-final nasals were realized as [n]). 2 The earliest (de Brosches 1765; Whitney 1873; Sievers 1881; Jespersen 1904; de Saussure 1916) and most celebrated syllable-based governing principle for phonotactic organization is undoubtedly the sonority sequencing generalization/principle/constraint, which states that segments rise in sonority (perhaps maximally) from the start of the syllable to a peak, then fall (perhaps minimally) to the end of the syllable. Sonority is viewed as an inherent property of a segment. Given the ongoing debate surrounding its validity, it is perhaps advantageous that the present study requires no recourse to the principle as an explanatory tool. Cser (2012) offers a sonority-based approach to Latin syllable structure and some assimilations, acknowledging the role played in the latter by other influences such as place, but maintaining the role of syllable structure. For a sample of the different approaches, and further discussion and references, see Steriade (1982), Clements (1990), Zec (1995), Ohala and Kawasaki-Fukumori (1997), and Parker (2012).

174

Assimilations

Negative coda constraints state that codas are specifically deemed incapable of licensing certain features (rather than simply lacking positively licensing capability), and therefore cannot contrast in certain features. One such formulation is Ito’s (1986; 1989) Coda Condition, prohibiting a place specification in coda consonants, but allowing doubly linked structures where the place feature is linked to a following onset as well as the coda (i.e. geminates and place-assimilated sequences).3 Under this analysis, the labial place feature of the coda of the second syllable of *e.um.dem could not surface from the time when the condition prohibiting specified place in codas was introduced into the grammar. Instead, the coronal place feature of the following onset spread to the immediately preceding nasal, yielding eundem, with a doubly linked coronal place feature. Finally, under positional faithfulness, onsets are more faithful to their underlying lexical forms than codas (Beckman 1999; Lombardi 2001). The interaction of Optimality-Theoretic faithfulness and markedness constraints (Prince and Smolensky 2004) can bequeath assimilated output forms to a language, as the result of the existence of specific and general forms of the same constraint, where the former demands greater faithfulness in certain privileged positions, such as syllable onsets. Where a markedness constraint is ranked between specific and general versions of a faithfulness constraint, neutralization of the relevant feature in unprivileged positions such as codas results. All three variants of the syllable-based approach have in common that codas exhibit fewer contrasts than onsets, and therefore, all things being equal, regressive assimilation is preferred to progressive, as codas can assume the features of their ensuing onsets. In contrast with the above approach, my analysis is most in harmony with Blevins (2003; 2004), who argues that synchronic patterns are the result of diachronic developments, and phonotactic constraints might therefore make no reference to synchronic structure, but rather reflect the phonetic underpinnings of the original changes, that is, the robustness of the perceptual cues for a given feature in a given environment. Consequently, this approach claims that the features that can contrast in an environment are determined by linear segmental sequence alone, as adjacency, not hierarchical structure, determines perceptibility. Steriade (1999a; 1999b; 2001) similarly argues that linear segmental sequence conditions phonotactics, and furthermore places perceptibility constraints in the synchronic grammar, rather than attributing the phonetic basis of the patterns to the diachronic dimension. Other examples of a linear approach include Blevins (1993) and Rubach (1996). Proponents of either variant of the linear approach claim greater descriptive adequacy than syllable-based efforts, both language-internally and cross-linguistically, for example, 3 For further discussion regarding the form of coda constraints, see Blevins (1995: 227–9) and Lombardi (2001).

Voice assimilation

175

where languages with differing syllabifications of a sequence have identical phonotactic constraints. Whereas the syllable-based approach, with contrasts determined by syllable position, is built upon purely phonological grounds, a key dimension to the linear approach is its reference to the phonetic basis of phonotactic constraints. Positions of contrast are those where perceptual cues for that contrast are most robust, whereas positions of neutralization are those where they are least robust. Wright (2001; 2004: 36) defines a cue as ‘information in the acoustic signal that allows the listener to apprehend the existence of a phonological contrast’. The portion of the signal in which this information is encoded can either correspond with the segment in which the feature resides (internal cues) or be found in neighbouring segments, resulting from coarticulation (external cues). Furthermore, Wright (2004: 52) defines robustness as ‘the redundancy of the cues minus the vulnerability of those cues’, meaning that ‘the more cues point to a contrast and the less susceptible to masking or loss those cues are the more likely the contrast is to survive’. As relevant cues are different for each contrast, different features are more reliably perceived in different environments. This chapter demonstrates that the predictions of the linear approach more closely match the data pertaining to Latin assimilations. The nature of C2, in onset position, is as relevant to the incidence of assimilation as C1, in coda position; some patterns and exceptions can only be explained with reference to articulatory and acoustic information. The consistency predicted by the syllable-based approach with regard to the contrasts which survived in coda position is not borne out, except in one instance. As intervocalic stop + liquid could have been syllabified in two different ways (VT. RV versus V.TRV), the syllable-based approach predicts that the sequence would have developed differently along the lines of the two syllabifications, whereas the linear approach predicts identical outcomes for the two linearly identical sequences. As we do indeed see two different reflexes, we acknowledge the role of syllable structure but argue that its influence is one step removed, in governing the distribution of features, not the conditions for assimilation. Latin assimilations occurred before our earliest attestions, and usually continued to occur in consonantal sequences that arose within the history of Latin. Our understanding of PIE word formation is sufficiently refined to furnish us with a rich array of securely reconstructed consonantal sequences in prehistoric Latin, whose outcome in the familiar classical language was much altered, through assimilation in voice, place, and manner (continuance and nasality).

6.2 Voice assimilation We reconstruct PIE etymologies containing sequences of obstruents with different voicing, which in Latin all showed a single voice specification, with regular regressive assimilation. Comparative evidence indicates that voice assimilation occurred in PIE,

176

Assimilations

but must also have been operational at a much later date in several branches, and was certainly still occurring in formations within Latin (see obtine: re below), as the result of a synchronic phonotactic constraint plausibly present in the grammar since PIE times. (2)

Voice assimilation in Latin a. Stop + stop: *skri: bʰ-tos > scri: ptus ‘written’ b. Stop + fricative: *nu: b-sai > nu: psi: ‘I married’ c. Fricative + stop: *is-dem > *izdem > i: dem ‘same’ (cf. *kas-tos > castus ‘chaste’, with no voicing, and no loss with compensatory lengthening)

The apparent failure of regressive voice assimilation in orthographically regular forms such as obtine: re ‘possess’, subtus ‘beneath’, and subti: lis ‘delicate’ is in fact misleading, as the spelling hpti was common in all periods and the evidence of the grammarians Quintilian (Inst. 1.7.7) and Velius Longus (G.L. 7.62) both indicate the pronunciation [pt]. Orthographic hbti reflects preservation or replacement by analogy of the prefixes in spelling alone, e.g. obdu: ra: re ‘persist’, subdolus ‘deceitful’ (Niedermann 1997: 129), where voicing would have been preserved. Examples of inscriptional phonetic spellings are below. (3)

Inscriptional evidence for the [pt] pronunciation of hbti opsides = obside: s ‘hostages’ (CIL 12.7, 3rd c. bc) optinvi = obtinui: ‘I possessed’ (CIL 12.1570) optvlit = obtulit ‘he brought before’ (CIL 12.1783) svptilissima = subti: lissima ‘most delicate (fem.)’ (CIL 6.9797)

Both the syllable-based and linear approaches are capable of accounting for the above data. The consonant which underwent assimilation in each case was in coda position (e.g. */skri:bʰ.tus/, */nu:b.sai/), but, from a linear perspective, was also in pre-obstruent position, a context in which cues for the perception of voice contrasts in stops are often weak: failure to release stops (into a vowel or sonorant) removes cues to voicing in the release burst, aspiration noise (if present in the language), and VOT. The remaining cues to voicing (duration of the preceding vowel, closure duration, and periodicity in the signal) are often weaker and no longer salient in the absence of the release cues (Wright 2004: 40–41). The linear explanation is weaker where the coda was a fricative, as the presence or absence of periodicity during frication noise is a strong cue to voicing (Cole and Cooper 1975). However, the absence of phonemic /z/ in Latin could explain the voicing of /s/ in robustly cued voiced contexts, as in (2c), where the voiced stop C2 was released: in the absence of a sibilant voice contrast, /s/ could become contextually voiced to provide further cues to the voicing of an adjacent consonant, without compromising its own identification.

Place and continuance

177

The crucial evidence for selecting our analysis is that regressive voice assimilation also took place in word-final obstruent sequences which were not coda + onset. Thus, beside orthographically regular ple: bs ‘people’, we find inscriptional pleps (CIL 12.4333.12; 11 ad), and we also reconstruct the development *snigʷʰ-s > nix ‘snow’, with an original labiovelar stop. Furthermore, we have grammarians’ statements to support the voicelessness of the stop, at least in imperial times (e.g. Scaur. gram. G.L. 7.27). The correct formulation for voice assimilation in Latin must therefore be ‘every part of an obstruent sequence came to agree in voice, regardless of syllabification’, lending some weight to the linear approach over the syllable-based approach.4

6.3 Place and continuance The Latin data relating to assimilations in obstruent place and continuance are presented in Table 6.1. Regressive place assimilation occurred regularly in C1 regardless of its place when C2 was a dorsal stop, and in coronal C1 when C2 was a labial obstruent. The contrast between all three major places survived before coronal stop C2, although coronal stop + coronal stop yielded assibilated /ss/, probably via /tst/ TABLE 6.1 Assimilation in obstruent place and continuance C2

C1 Dorsal + fricative Labial + fricative Coronal + fricative

Dorsal

Labial

Coronal

*ekke > ecce ‘look!’ (no dorsal fricative) *obkaidese > occiidere ‘kill’

(no secure native Latin examples) ecfer (Plautus, e.g. Mil. 463) ‘bring out’ *obpetese > oppetere ‘encounter (prematurely)’ *opifakina > opfikina > officina ‘workshop’ *quidpe > quippe ‘for’ adferse > afferre ‘deliver’

lactis ‘milk (gen.)’

(no dorsal fricative) *hodke > *hokke > hoc ‘this (neut.)’ (no dorsal fricative)

*deiksai > dixi [diksi] ‘I said’ *opitumus > optimus ‘best’ *nubsai > nupsi ‘I married *pattos > *patstos > passus ‘suffered’ *quatsai > quassi ‘I shook’

= apparent regressive assimilation in place and continuance—‘apparent’ due to the fact that the shading is in places speculative, intended purely to aid the extraction of a pattern from the data. There is no reason to shade any part of the dorsal + dorsal cell, and the homorganic stop + stop cells are shaded simply because of assimilation in the corresponding stop + fricative examples.

4 Treating final /s/ as the onset of a degenerate syllable (e.g. Kaye et al. 1985) would allow one to maintain a syllable-based account, but see Vaux and Wolfe (2009).

178

Assimilations

(Niedermann 1997: 148). Sequences of a later origin with two coronal stops showed only regressive voice assimilation and no assibilation, thus *kedate > *kedte > cette ‘give here! (pl.)’. Unlike voice assimilation, place assimilation cannot be dated as far back as PIE, but was probably operational as far back as prehistoric Latin given the absence of unassimilated forms in the earliest attestations. Place assimilation was still operational after archaic Latin alignment and parsing syncopes in the 6th–5th centuries bc (Sen 2012a: 215–20; Meiser 1998: 66–7), thus *sitikos (cf. sitis ‘thirst’) > *sitkos > siccus ‘dry’. A pattern emerges with regard to the unchanging consonantal trigger for place assimilation. Dorsal C2 admitted no place contrast in C1: place features were neutralized and the obstruent was assimilated in place to C2. Slightly more permissive were labials, allowing dorsal C1 to survive, but not recognizing coronal C1, which was assimilated to the labial place of C2. Finally, the most permissive place in C2 was coronal, allowing the survival of the contrast between labial and dorsal, as well as assibilated coronals. The formulation can be inverted by referring to the target C1 rather than the trigger C2: dorsals were the most resistant C1, followed by labials, followed by coronals, the least identifiable before another consonant.5 It is clear that any analysis would have to make reference to the nature of both target and trigger to capture the pattern. Stop C1 before fricative C2 shows the same environment for regressive assimilation in continuance as for place:6 there was no phonemic dorsal fricative, but before the labial fricative /f/, only a contrast between dorsal (Plautine ecferre, despite the morphological boundary, but later efferre; see }6.7 below)7 and other places of articulation survived, with assimilation in continuance in labial C1 (offici: na), and in both place and continuance in coronal C1 (afferre). Furthermore, the similarity with place assimilation continues when we look at coronal fricatives in C2, which allowed both the manner and place of dorsal and labial C1 to persist (di: xi: , nu: psi: ), but which triggered neutralization of manner in coronal C1, realized as a fricative (*quat-sai > quassi: ‘I shook’).

5 Inherited labiovelars /kʷ/ and /gʷ/ behaved in precisely the same way as the dorsal stops preconsonantally (Niedermann 1997: 151), thus *ekstingʷsi: > exti: nxi: ‘I extinguished’, *ungʷtio: > u: nctio: ‘anointing’, *kʷokʷtos > coctus ‘cooked’. 6 Or, alternatively, more thoroughgoing assimilation, as sequences homorganic in place assimilated in continuance, whereas we cannot tell whether place in C1 of homorganic stop + stop sequences was neutralized or retained. 7 Leumann (1977: 210) argues that the prefix ec- that appeared regularly only before roots beginning in /f/ developed from secondary *eks-, the inherited prefix analogically restored after the development *eksfero: > effero: had occurred.

Place and continuance

179

6.3.1 The Place Hierarchy The resulting pattern of shading in Table 6.1 is neatly captured by a ‘Place Hierarchy’ to account for assimilation in both place and continuance. (4)

The Place Hierarchy: dorsal » labial » coronal C1 lower than or level with C2 on the Place Hierarchy assimilated to C2 in place, and in continuance if a stop.8

This formulation is clearly in accord with the linear approach. Only by taking into account both the nature of a consonant and its environment (i.e. the interaction of C1 and C2) can the developments be correctly predicted. A syllable-based formulation would resemble ‘coda stops came to be unspecified for coronal place regardless of the environment, and for labial place if followed by a labial or dorsal onset; coda obstruents were unspecified for continuance if unspecified for place’ (see }6.3.2 regarding fricative C1). The syllable-based approach is clearly unsatisfactory: there is no motivation for reference to syllable position, and linear sequence is necessary and sufficient to capture the generalization, as (4) demonstrates. Furthermore, the syllable-based approach not only includes unnecessary information, but also undergenerates in the same way as we saw for voice assimilation. In word-final consonantal sequences, regressive assimilation in continuance still occurred despite the absence of a coda + onset sequence. The only fricative occurring word finally was /s/, which, being a coronal, only triggered assimilation in another preceding coronal, thus */ts ds/ > /ss/, a geminate outcome sequence required for the correct scansion of early Latin verse (Pl. Aul. 528), but which simplified to /s/ in classical times, thus *mi: lets > mi: less > mi: les ‘soldier’, *obseds > *obsess (not attested in early verse) > obses ‘hostage’. Contrast daps ‘feast’ and mox ‘soon’ for a preceding labial and dorsal respectively, surviving as stops. Jun (2004: 63–4) formulates a hierarchy for resistance to assimilation according to the place of articulation of (unreleased) consonants which matches that in (4) above: dorsal » labial » coronal. He concludes, along the lines of Browman and Goldstein (1990), that the difference in coronal place and the others lies in the greater speed of tongue-tip gestures, resulting in their being overlapped when in C1 by tongue-dorsum and lip gestures in C2, whose beginnings are found in the VC1 transition. To explain the greater perceptibility of dorsals over labials, Jun cites the noticeable convergence of F2 and F3 in vowels adjacent to dorsals, based on the findings of Jakobson et al. (1952) and Stevens (1989). Typological evidence bears out the predictions (Jun 2004: 67–8): if dorsals are targets of place assimilation, so are labials (e.g. Thai), but the reverse is not true, as labials can be targeted where dorsals

8

See }6.3.2 regarding fricative and nasal C1.

180

Assimilations

are not (e.g. Korean, Inuktitut); if labials are targets, so are coronals (e.g. Hindi, Korean, Thai), but again the reverse is not true (e.g. Catalan, English, Lithuanian). However, as the Latin data clearly illustrate, consideration of only the target consonant is insufficient: we need to look at both target and trigger to achieve the formulation in (4) above. Jun (2004: 65) offers the same gestural explanation for the role of the trigger consonant (usually C2) as for the target, noting the asymmetry between coronals and non-coronals as triggers in Latin stop assimilation. No further difference between dorsals and labials as triggers in Latin is motivated, as we cannot tell whether dorsal C1 retained its place or was assimilated before dorsal C2. 6.3.2 The Manner Hierarchy A look at the manner of articulation of C1 and C2 further demonstrates that the interaction of the two consonants is paramount in place assimilation, and a consideration of any one of them in terms of syllable position is incapable of producing the right results. In Table 6.1 we saw that fricative C2 triggered place assimilation in stop C1 wherever stop C2 did as well, obeying the Place Hierarchy in both cases. However, the reverse is not true: fricative C1 retained its place regularly before stops, and only assimilated before other fricatives, obeying the Place Hierarchy, thus *dis-fakilis > difficilis ‘difficult’, with place assimilation in a coronal + labial fricative sequence, but dispo: nere ‘distribute’, hospes ‘guest’, where /s/ survived before a labial stop, pri: scus ‘ancient’, where it survived before a dorsal, and castus ‘pure’ before another coronal. Therefore, fricatives were more resistant to place assimilation than stops. Like stops, nasal C1 assimilated in place to C2 of any manner. (5)

Place assimilation in nasals a. Nasal + stop: Labial: *enprobos > improbus ‘dishonest’ Coronal: *kemtom > centum ‘hundred’ Dorsal: *tengese > tingere = [tiŋgere] ‘tinge’9 b. Nasal + fricative: *komsol > co: nsul ‘consul’ c. Nasal + nasal: *enmane: se > immine: re ‘overhang; threaten’

Nasals were even less resistant than stops to place assimilation, as can be seen in the fact that place assimilation in a nasal + obstruent sequence was exceptionless, failing to obey the Place Hierarchy—thus centum, showing assimilation of a labial to a following coronal. However, the Place Hierarchy was obeyed in nasal + nasal sequences, again showing that the interaction of the consonants was of the utmost importance, thus immine: re with place assimilation in a coronal + labial sequence, but autumnus ‘autumn’, with no assimilation in a labial + coronal configuration. 9

See }6.4 regarding the raising */e/ > /i/ before a dorsal nasal.

Nasality

181

This information can be captured by a hierarchy indicating the most to least resistant manners of articulation regarding place. (6)

The Manner Hierarchy: Fricative » Stop » Nasal a. Fricative C1 assimilated in place only before fricative C2, in accordance with the Place Hierarchy b. Stop C1 assimilated in place before C2 of any manner, in accordance with the Place Hierarchy c. Nasal C1 assimilated in place before C2 of any manner, but only in accordance with the Place Hierarchy before nasal C2 (hence without exception before obstruent C2)

As with the Place Hierarchy, phonetic explanations for the Manner Hierarchy have been hypothesized. Reporting the findings of studies by Kohler (1990), Hura et al. (1958), and Jun (1995), Steriade (2001: 223–4) concludes that perceptibility differences control the incidence of place assimilation (i.e. the linear approach), with nasals being the most confusable class, fricatives the least, and stops in the middle. Jun (2004: 61–3) discusses the proposed reason for this: in pre-consonantal position, place in all consonants is cued by VC formant transitions, a relatively poor source compared to CV transitions. Whereas fricatives and approximants are enhanced by reliable internal cues to place, nasals are further handicapped by the characteristic nasalization of the preceding vowel. The predicted hierarchy is borne out by language typology (Jun 2004: 66–7): continuants virtually never undergo place assimilation (although we have seen that this did occur in a constrained fashion in Latin), and if stops can be targeted for assimilation, so can nasals; but no language targets stops but not nasals. These considerations provide a basis for the patterns we find in Latin and other languages. The Place and Manner Hierarchies have foundations in perceptibility, and the pattern seen in Latin place assimilation arises from their interaction.

6.4 Nasality The evidence for assimilation in nasality in the sequence stop + nasal is again most easily surveyed in tabular form (Table 6.2). Recall that there was no phonemic dorsal nasal. Word-internally, there are clear indications that hgi in hgni sequences was a velar nasal [ŋ] (Sommer and Pfister 1977: 176–7; Allen 1978: 23–5; Cser 2011: 70): (i) the diachronic raising */e/ > /i/ occurred before hgni just as before hngi, the conventional way of writing [ŋg], thus *deknos > dignus ‘worthy’, *legnom > lignum ‘wood’, and *tegnom > tignum ‘timber’, just like *tengere > tingere ‘tinge’; (ii) the omission of hni before hgi in igno: tus ‘unknown’ < *en-gno: -tos, and cogna: tus ‘related by birth’ < *kom-gna: -tos suggest that hgi alone represented [ŋ]; (iii) later inscriptional

182

Assimilations

TABLE 6.2 Assimilation in nasality and place C1

Nasal C2 Labial

Coronal

Dorsal

*sekmentom > segmentum = [gm] ‘piece’

*deknos > dignus = [ŋn] ‘worthy’

Labial

*supmos > summus ‘highest’

*swepnos > somnus ‘sleep’

Coronal

*kaidmentom > *kaimmentum > caementum ‘rubble’

*atnos > annus ‘year’

= regressive nasal assimilation. = regressive nasal and place assimilation.

spellings which used hn(n)i instead of hgni, thus sinnv (CIL 9.2893) for signum ‘sign’, mana (CIL 6.14672.12) for magna: ‘great (fem. abl.)’, indicate that the sequence started with a nasal; (iv) later inscriptional spellings such as singnifer (CIL 6.3637) for signifer ‘adorned with images’ and dingnissime (CIL 14.1386) for dignissime: ‘most worthy’, spelt out the velar nasal in the conventional way as hngi. Further supporting evidence from early Latin is perhaps seen in Plautus’ play on words at Rud. 767 between ignem magnum ‘great fire’ and inhu: ma: num ‘mortuary sacrifice’. In contrast, the absence of raising before hgmi (segmentum) therefore provides evidence for the retention of the stop, without nasal assimilation, in that sequence. Word-initially, when the sequence formed a complex onset, not coda + onset, the pronunciation of the sequence is more difficult to reconstruct. From early Latin, other than in the name Gnaeus, the sequence only occurred initially if it had analogical support from word-internal instances, thus gna: rus ‘knowing’ after igna: rus ‘ignorant’, but *gna: ra: se > narra: re ‘tell’ (see Chapter 3 for the etymology) (Sommer and Pfister 1977: 177; Stephens 1978: 291). By classical Latin, the first element hgi was deleted, thus gna: tus ‘born; son’ > na: tus. The question of the phonetic value of orthographic hgi arises. Assuming that it was pronounced, on the basis of the orthographic difference between forms such as gna: rus and narra: re, and the analogical parallel of the sequence word-internally, where the hgi did have phonetic value, the likely options for the pronunciation of hgi are [g] or [ŋ]. There is no clear evidence for either. Hermann (1919: 257) and Leumann (1977: 188) conclude that [ŋ] is more likely than [g] on the basis of its later loss, a reasoning that Stephens (1978: 294)

Nasality

183

describes as ‘an informal assessment of naturalness in sound change’. However, on the basis of a typological assessment of attested initial sequences, Stephens (1978) comes to the same conclusion: initial hgni in Latin was pronounced [ŋn], since the data examined by Greenberg (1965) point to an implicational universal whereby languages which have initial [gn] also have initial [kn]; as early Latin shows no evidence for [kn], the sequence written hgni cannot have been [gn] and therefore must have had its word-internal value of [ŋn].10 Nasal assimilation therefore occurred in complex onsets as well as coda + onset, a formulation which is consistent with the conclusion reached for voice (ple: bs > ple: ps) and continuance (*mi: lets > mi: less > mi: les): all these regressive assimilations in a biconsonantal sequence occurred regardless of syllable structure. The generalization appears to be this: stop C1 assimilated in nasality to nasal C2, and also in place, in accordance with the Place Hierarchy. Regressive assimilation in nasality can be straightforwardly accounted for by considering the relevant articulatory gestures once again. The gesture of lowering the velum to articulate a nasal is relatively slow compared to the articulation of major place features, which can result in a timing mismatch between the opening of the velic aperture and the intended start of the nasal consonant (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 104–6). Such an effect is seen in the common nasalization of vowels before nasals. Where a stop precedes, it can be realized partially or fully as a nasal if the velum lowers early; the paucity of cues for the stop manner could then result over time in the phonologization of the nasalization of the stop as a nasal. There is an exception to nasal assimilation in Latin: the sequence dorsal + /m/ remained intact, with C1 keeping its articulation as a stop (heterorganic in place with the nasal, as would be expected per the Place Hierarchy), thus *sekmentom > segmentum = [gm] ‘piece’. There are consequences arising from this gap: the syllable-based approach could postulate that Latin coda stops came to be unspecified for nasality and therefore underwent nasal assimilation when followed by a specified nasal in an onset. However, a coda dorsal stop must be stipulated to have maintained its non-nasal specification before a labial nasal onset. This is quite clearly an unsatisfactory formulation. A more parsimonious approach would do away with reference to syllable position, referring only to linear sequence. In investigating the occurrence of the gap in nasal assimilation, consideration of the robustness of the cues to the manner of articulation

10 Cser (2011: 70–71, 78), however, points out that initial [ŋn] would be the only onset cluster containing (i) a nasal and (ii) two sonorant consonants, and concludes that in the intermediate stage between very early initial [gn] and eventual simple [n] (when, he argues, the lexical representations of these words contained a stem-initial floating C-Place node), the pronunciation ‘must have involved a degree of variation [between [gn] and [n]] whose details are no longer fully recoverable’.

184

Assimilations

in different sequences provides a better starting-point. If regressive nasal assimilation results from the early lowering of the velum, while the preceding stop is being articulated, it follows that a slower stop articulation will have less of its articulation time overlapped by the opening of the velic aperture. As non-coronals, and arguably dorsals, have the slowest gestures, with long transitions (see }6.3), it is unsurprising that dorsal stops escaped assimilation to the nasal. However, they did assimilate before /n/, the coronal nasal, and this can again be explained with reference to relative timing: the lowering of the velum could have occurred early before the slowly articulated labial nasal, but due to the time taken to articulate the labial place, the early opening of the velic aperture fell mainly within the time taken to articulate the nasal itself and not the preceding stop. Nasal assimilation in labial stop + labial nasal can be accounted for by the homorganicity in place: the articulators were already in position for labial place, and therefore the early lowering of the velum could only encroach upon the labial stop gesture and not the time taken to form the place of articulation of the nasal, as it had already been formed. This rather complex set of affairs can be neatly illustrated by Figure 6.1, where the curved lines represent the articulatory gestures associated with formation of place of articulation, as in Jun (2004: 63, 65). The articulators start moving towards the place of articulation of the nasal while the stop is still being articulated (the beginning of the second curve in each diagram). Coronals are rapidly articulated and therefore reach their target (the peak of the second curve) before labials. However, the velum also starts to lower to ensure the achievement of nasal manner by that target time (the curve peak), illustrated by the arrow pointing leftwards. In Latin, where the nasal was a slowly articulated labial (Figure 6.1a), the velic lowering encroached upon the dorsal only partially, allowing the accurate perception of a preceding dorsal stop. However, where the nasal was a rapidly articulated coronal (Figure 6.1b), the velic lowering encroached upon the dorsal stop sufficiently for a listener to perceive a dorsal nasal, resulting over time in its phonologization as a nasal (which formulation maintains a perceptually driven analysis).

a. Dorsal stop + Labial nasal

/g/

/m/

Early lowering of the velum Realized [g] [m]

b. Dorsal stop + Coronal nasal

/g/

/n/

Early lowering of the velum Realized [ŋ] [n]

Figure 6.1 Regressive nasal assimilation

Analysis: a linear hypothesis

185

Traces of the effects of the long, slow transition between a dorsal stop and /m/ can perhaps be detected in the early Latin phenomenon of vocalic epenthesis in these sequences; thus Greek drachmá: ‘drachma’ was borrowed into Latin with an alternative form drac(h)uma, containing an epenthetic vowel separating the sequence (see }5.1). Similarly, we find the native Latin word tegmen ‘covering’ with the alternative spellings tegimen/tegumen, resulting finally in regular tegimen. Contrast the mythological name Procne: , found in Latin both in this form, borrowed accurately from Greek with internal [kn], but also as Progne: , no doubt pronounced with [ŋn], showing the expected nasal assimilation before a coronal nasal.

6.5 Analysis: a linear hypothesis The linear approach is more successful than the syllable-based approach in accounting for the assimilations in voice, place, continuance, and nasality. The statement in (7) formulates this approach succinctly in phonological terms, with reference to feature specifications. (7)

Feature x, if poorly cued to a sufficient degree relative to an adjacent more robustly cued value of that feature, was assimilated to that value, where x is taken to range over [voice], [place], [continuant], and [nasal].

Note the relativity of this formulation. It is not the case that a less robustly cued feature always assimilated to a more robustly cued value of that feature, which would have resulted in unconstrained assimilation of all features in all consonantal sequences. Therefore, the difference in the robustness of the two values of the feature is relevant. Only where a feature was poorly cued by a sufficient degree relative to that feature in an adjacent segment did assimilation occur. Recall from }6.1 that perceptual cues can be divided into internal and external cues. The most salient family of external cues we have witnessed resides in the release into a vowel; this affords a listener place, manner, and voice cues in the stop release burst, place and manner cues in the CV formant transitions, and voice cues in aspiration noise and VOT (Wright 2004: 37–41). It is the absence of these often relatively robust cues in C1 that resulted in the more robust cuing of C2 over C1 to trigger regressive, and not progressive, assimilation. The Place Hierarchy is based mainly upon external VC transition cues in sequences of V1C1C2V2, with dorsal and labial C2 being capable of affecting the transitions from V1 to C1 due to their long, slow gestures. Conversely, the Manner Hierarchy results mainly from internal cues (e.g. frication noise), although the position of stops above nasals on the hierarchy resides in the weak external cues to place in the nasalized vowels preceding nasal consonants.

186

Assimilations

6.6 Voice assimilation in TR 6.6.1 Sonorant voice specification Recall from }6.2 that every member of an obstruent sequence came to agree in voice in Latin regardless of syllabification. Latin also inherited a series of sonorant consonants, the liquids and nasals /r l m n/, whose voice we might expect to be cued robustly by periodicity in the signal during their articulation (an internal cue), granting the sonorants immunity to voice assimilation when in C1. Alternatively, the other robust manner cues for a sonorant—nasals: nasal murmur, nasal pole and zero, nasalization of the previous vowel; liquids: relative gradualness of transitions, presence of formant structure throughout their peak of stricture (Wright 2004: 39–40)—could render the vibration of the vocal folds by the speaker redundant in providing cues for the nature of the consonant, resulting in partial devoicing of the sonorant in voiceless environments, itself an external cue for the voice specification of an adjacent voiceless segment (Steriade 1999b). Such considerations have often led phonologists to treat sonorants as redundantly voiced on the surface, or underspecified for voice in their underlying representation (e.g. Kiparsky 1995: 644–7), in languages where sonorants do not contrast for voice. If we treat sonorants as lexically underspecified for voice in Latin, then it is possible to extend the range of the voice assimilation formulation to ‘every part of a consonantal sequence (not just obstruents) came to agree in voice’, as underspecified voice in the sonorant could permit an adjacent voiced or voiceless stop. Such a formulation is in accord with the occurrence of a voice contrast in obstruent C2 (8)

Voice contrast in obstruents after sonorants a. /r/ + stop: verpa ‘penis’ : verba ‘words’ b. /l/ + stop: mulce: re ‘soothe’ : mulge: re ‘milk’ c. /m/ + stop: computa: re ‘calculate’ : combu: rere ‘burn up’ d. /n/ + stop: pontus ‘sea’ : pondus ‘weight’

We argue on this basis that sonorants were underspecified for voice pre-consonantally: the cues to their manner were sufficiently robust for their identification, leaving anticipatory contextual devoicing as a possibility in voiceless environments.11 Perseverative contextual devoicing could just as easily provide a robust cue for an obstruent C1 when the sonorant was C2, thus allowing a voice contrast to surface in the obstruent C1, and this is indeed the situation we find where C2 was a liquid (i.e. TR). Contrast obstruent + obstruent sequences discussed in }6.2, where C1 could never contrast for voice.

11 The sonorant could have remained underspecified for voice on the surface (Keating 1988), resulting in gradient contextual devoicing.

Voice assimilation in TR (9)

187

Voice contrast in obstruents before liquids a. Stop + /r/ a: cri: ‘sharp (dat.)’ : agri: ‘field (gen.)’ b. Stop +/l/ planta ‘shoot’: blanda ‘flattering (fem.)’ *manu-pl-os > manipulus ‘handful’: *pata-blom > patibulum ‘gibbet’ (Chapter 5)

Based on the evidence in (9), liquids appear to have been underspecified for voice in TR as well as in RT (8). However, we have seen plentiful evidence to the contrary in previous chapters: regressive voice assimilation in heterosyllabic Tl (}}5.3.1, 5.4.3), internal */sr/ > /br/ with intermediate voicing to [zr] or [ðr] (}4.3.1), and /s/-loss with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel before any voiced consonant, including /l/ (}3.6.2). All three phenomena suggest that the liquid in these instances was specified as [+voice]. (10)

Voice assimilation in obstruents before liquids a. Heterosyllabic Tl *neklegese > neglegere ‘neglect’ *poplikos > *poblikos > *poublikos > pu: blicus ‘public’ b. Internal */sr/ > /br/ *kerasrom > cerebrum ‘brain; understanding’ *fu: nesris > fu: nebris ‘funereal; fatal’ *temasra: i > tenebrae ‘darkness’ c. /s/-loss with compensatory lengthening in */sl/ *preslom > *[prezlom] > pre: lum ‘wine-/oil-press’ *edoslis > *eduslis [eduzlis] > edu: lis ‘edible’

These developments also indicate a chronological difference in voicing in /r/ and /l/. Internal */sr/ did not survive into archaic Latin, having merged with Proto-Italic *[ðr] or similar12 and developed to /br/ at a prehistoric stage (Stuart-Smith 2004). The merger of */sr/ and voiced fricative + /r/ is a strong indicator that the sibilant in the former was voiced at that prehistoric stage, suggesting in turn a prehistoric [+voice] specification of the triggering /r/. In contrast, /sl/ survived into archaic Latin, to judge from the merger of */sl/ with the voiceless sequences */ksl tsl n(d/s)sl stl/ (Leumann 1977: 207–8), whereas the Latin reflex of voiced *[ðl] was /bl/ (e.g. the mediative suffix *-dʰlom > *-blom > -bulum), in the same way as *[ðr] > [br]. The divergence of /s/ and *[ð] before /l/ firmly indicates that /s/ was not voiced in this

12 *[ð] was the regular Proto-Italic reflex of PIE */dʰ/, merging with *[β] from PIE */bʰ/ in some contexts, e.g. before liquids.

188

Assimilations

context in prehistoric times. The conclusion that emerges from these patterns is that /r/ in the above forms came to be actively voiced at a prehistoric stage, whereas /l/ only became actively voiced in archaic Latin. This chronology is corroborated by voicing in heterosyllabic Tl, which we attributed to the 4th–3rd centuries bc (}5.8), and the relative lateness of compensatory lengthening before */sl/, which only occurred after the 3rd-century raising */o/ > /u/ in closed syllables (}4.2.1), as shown by *edoslis > *eduslis > edu: lis. The change from a [Øvoice] to a [+voice] specification of /l/ in these forms, resulting in regressive assimilation, plausibly occurred in the 4th century, with voiced *[edozlis] persisting until after raising to give *[eduzlis], and eventually edu: lis. Further evidence for the later phonological voicing of /l/ comes from prehistoric consonantal epenthesis in /m/ + sonorant sequences. In /mr/, the epenthetic stop was voiced /b/, whereas in /ml/ it was voiceless /p/. (11)

Voiced versus voiceless consonantal epenthesis in /m/ + sonorant /mr/: *gʰeimrinos > *heimbrinos > hi: bernus ‘wintry’ /ml/: *exemlom > exemplum ‘example’

Given the consistent appearance of /m/ in C1 in these sequences, the different voicing of the epenthetic stop can only have been the result of the voicing of the liquid C2. We can conclude that the liquid in obstruent + liquid came to be actively voiced by prehistoric (/r/) or archaic (/l/) times, triggering regressive voice assimilation in the obstruent. However, if [Øvoice] > [+voice] was simply an unconditioned development, the many examples of a voice contrast in the obstruent (9), suggesting underspecification in voice, would remain unexplained. I argue in }6.6.2 that syllable structure is the conditioning influence dividing the two sets of words. The situation among nasals was slightly different, with active voicing appearing to be consistent in TN in archaic Latin. The only stop + nasal sequence in which we can expect to detect voice assimilation, due to the failure of nasal assimilation, is dorsal + /m/ (see }6.4). Strikingly, nasal C2 appears to have triggered regressive voice assimilation in the formation below which arose within Latin (i.e. not inherited). (12)

Voice assimilation in obstruents before nasals (Dorsal) stop + /m/: *sekmentom > segmentum ‘piece’

This evidence suggests that /m/ came to be actively voiced in TN within the history of Latin, i.e. from ‘[+nasal] ) [Øvoice]’ (contrast in preceding stop) to ‘[+nasal] ) [+voice]’ (assimilation in preceding stop). This feature specification change did not occur pre-consonantally, allowing a voice contrast in the stop to remain in NT (pontus : pondus), instead of triggering progressive assimilation. I analyse this difference in }6.6.2 as a syllable-based conditioning of the distribution of [voice]. Unlike in TR (planta : blanda), there are no instances of a voice contrast persisting in

Voice assimilation in TR

189

the stop in TN. Phonetically, this divergence among the sonorant consonants might be attributed to the easier detection of cues to voicing of obstruents released into liquids than into nasals (Steriade 1999b), but such an account leaves unexplained why voice assimilation did sometimes occur in TR. Further evidence for voice assimilation in TN comes, as with /sl/, from /s/-loss with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel (}3.6.2), e.g. *kasnos > *[kaznos] > ca: nus ‘white(-haired)’. Compensatory lengthening also allows us to attribute voicing in /sN/ to the archaic period on the basis of the very early, and only, attestation of the sibilant in cosmis (CIL 12.4) from the second half of the 6th century bc, with internal hsi presumably indicating [kosmis] or [kozmis], which developed to co: mis ‘friendly’. The development of a [+voice] specification in nasals in TN was therefore probably an early archaic phenomenon. As with /l/, a possible indication of an earlier time without active voicing might be detected in the epenthetic voiceless /p/, rather than voiced /b/, in an /m/ + nasal sequence: autumnus > autumpnus ‘autumn’ (a variant form). Two questions arise from these data. Why do liquids display a split between forms which allowed a voice contrast in TR and those which assimilated, if all the sonorants came to be actively voiced pre-vocalically by an early stage of the language? And why do nasals in TN not show such a split, showing consistent regressive voice assimilation? 6.6.2 Analysis: syllable-based distribution of [voice] The phonotactics of liquids and nasals provide a basis for accounting for their behaviour. Nasals appeared in either onset or coda position, a structural difference which can explain their behaviour pre-vocalically and pre-consonantally. Nasals were lexically underspecified for [voice], but were allocated a surface [+voice] specification in the onset, triggering regressive voice assimilation, and remained [Øvoice] in the coda, permitting a voice contrast in a following obstruent. (13)

Syllable-based distribution of [voice] in nasals a. Syllable-initial: Onset [+voice] /m/: *sek.men.tom > segmentum, *kos.mis > *[kozmis] > co: mis /n/: *kas.nos > *[kaznos] > ca: nus b. Non-syllable-initial: Coda [Øvoice] /m/: com.pu.ta: .re : com.bu: .re.re /n/: plan.ta : blan.da, pon.tus : pon.dus

The crucial difference between liquids and nasals resides in their permissible structural configurations: obstruent + liquid was a permitted complex onset, whereas obstruent + nasal was not. Therefore, whereas nasals could appear in the onset or the coda, liquids could appear either in the coda, or in two positions in the onset: syllable

190

Assimilations

initially in a simple onset, or in second position in complex TR. Voice assimilation was conditioned by these two onset possibilities, as shown by two clear indicators: (i) every instance of voice assimilation (indicating [+voice] in the liquid) occurred in forms where we can confidently reconstruct heterosyllabicity of TR (see Chapters 4 and 5), and therefore a syllable-initial liquid, and (ii) a voice contrast (indicating [Øvoice]) appeared in word-initial TR, and after an internal long vowel, when the liquid was not syllable-initial, as the sequence was unambiguously tautosyllabic. The coda liquid, similarly non-syllable-initial, also permitted an adjacent voice contrast. The absence of [+voice] in tautosyllabic TR is further corroborated by the development of wordinitial, hence complex onset, */sr/ > /fr/, e.g. *sri: gos > fri: gus ‘cold’, retaining the original voicelessness of the fricative, as opposed to internal, heterosyllabic */sr/ > /br/.13 (14)

Syllable-based distribution of [voice] in liquids a. Syllable-initial [+voice] /r/: *ke.ras.rom > cerebrum, *fu: .nes.ris > fu: nebris /l/: *nek.le.ge.se > neglegere, *pres.lom > *[prezlom] > pre: lum b. Non-syllable-initial [Øvoice] i. TR onset /r/: a: cri: : agri: , *sri: gos > fri: gus /l/: planta : blanda ii. Coda /r/: verpa : verba /l/: mulce: re : mulge: re

Therefore, the inception of voice assimilation in obstruent + sonorant sequences (prehistoric for /r/, early archaic for /m n/, late archaic for /l/), was motivated by a diachronic change in the surface specification of voice in sonorants, from underspecification for voice both underlyingly and on the surface in any position, to being specified as [+ voice] syllable-initially (any onset nasal, simple onset liquid), while remaining [Ø voice] elsewhere. This formulation captures the distributions that we find in liquid and nasal clusters. However, recall from }4.5.2 that we reconstructed default heterosyllabicity of TR in archaic Latin, in the absence of an immediately preceding, synchronically transparent, morpheme boundary. Several words not showing voice assimilation therefore 13 This development also shows that the voicing of /s/ before sonorants internally was not simply due to the absence of phonemic /z/, allowing /s/ to be contextually voiced to provide an external voicing cue to the following sonorant, but also the voice specification of the /r/. Initial */sl sm sn/ developed to /l m n/, thus*sleubrikos > lu: bricus ‘slippery, *smi: ka: > mi: ca ‘particle’, *snigʷʰs > nix ‘snow’ (Leumann 1977: 189–90), presumably due to the less robust cues to the presence of the fricative before /l m n/ than before more vowel-like /r/, which was probably an approximant in archaic Latin (to judge from intervocalic rhotacism).

Voice assimilation in TR

191

had heterosyllabic TR in archaic times. All such forms had /r/ as the liquid, as formations in morpheme-initial /l/ were lacking (}4.4). (15)

Counterexamples to voice assimilation in heterosyllabic Tr a. Deverbative -trum: fulgetrum ‘flash of lightning’, palpetra ‘eyelid’ Original suffix -ro-/-ra: -: *sak-ro-s = sakros (CIL 12.1) > sacer ‘sacred’, derivatives co: nsecra: re ‘consecrate’, obsecra: re ‘beseech’, resecra: re ‘implore again’ Possibly *kap-ro-s > caper, -ri: ‘goat’, and derived capra ‘she-goat’, if not a loanword (EDL 89) b. Root-final Tr: patr-a: re ‘accomplish’, and derivatives im-/perpetra: re ‘obtain by request/complete’

The sole presence of /r/ as the liquid invites the hypothesis that the prehistoric syllable-initial [+voice] specification in the rhotic reverted back to [Øvoice] by archaic Latin, at a time when the other sonorants were developing this specification. Therefore, by the time the heterosyllabic treatments reconstructed in Chapter 4 came about, voice assimilation in Tr was no longer active. The prehistoric failure of voice assimilation in these forms, while the [+voice] specification was in place, must be attributed to tautosyllabic TR based on transparent morpheme boundaries in prehistoric (rather than archaic) Latin and default tautosyllabicity of TR, as in early Latin, but unlike archaic default heterosyllabicity. We concluded in }4.5.2 that forms with the inherited suffixes *-ro- and *-ri- after s- or stop-final stems (cerebrum, fu: nebris) all had heteromorphemic TR, resulting in prehistoric heterosyllabic TR due to the alignment of morpheme and syllable boundaries, while they remained transparent. When the suffixes ceased to be productive and transparent (before the start of the literary period), heterosyllabicity remained, but was reinterpreted as the default treatment of TR, in the absence of a conditioning morphological context. Therefore, while heterosyllabicity relied upon an intervening morpheme boundary, we might presume that the default treatment of prehistoric TR was tautosyllabic, resulting in non-syllable-initial TR in such forms. On this basis, the forms in (15a) with deverbative -trum had prehistoric tautosyllabic TR because the suffix was still transparent at that stage (unlike in archaic Latin). Root-final TR in (15c) must have been tautosyllabic by default, and the liquid therefore did not trigger voice assimilation. The divergent behaviour of forms in (15b) containing the suffix *-ro-/-ra: -, but without voicing, and those with voicing (cerebrum, fu: nebris, etc.) can be explained by independent phonological developments. Voiceless *sakros/*kapros (nom. sg.) became at some point in Latin *sakr̩ s/ *kapr̩ s with syncope of the final-syllable vowel, and the development of syllabic [r̩ ] (Sihler 1995: 70; Meiser 1998: 73). It is clear from the subsequent development to sacer/caper that this resulted in a light first syllable, with /k p/ becoming the onset of

192

Assimilations

the second syllable, thus */sa.kr̩ s/ > */sa.kers/ > /sa.ker/. The rhotic was therefore in non-syllable-initial position when syllable-initial /r/ became [+voice].14 The oblique case forms (e.g. sacri: ) may similarly have developed a light initial syllable by paradigmatic levelling, treating TR as tautosyllabic, given that it was impossible for their heterosyllabicity to be analogically implemented in the nominative, given universal principles of syllabification (i.e. syllabifying CVCV as CVC.V against the onset-first principle). Tautosyllabicity in the stem may in turn have resulted in a loss of transparency of the *-ro-/-ra: - element, both in base forms and in their well-established derivatives, rendering them morphologically opaque and subject to the default syllabification of TR of that period: tautosyllabic while syllable-initial [+voice] persisted, heterosyllabic thereafter, by the time of archaic Latin vowel reduction. Contrast forms such as *fu: nes-ris > fu: nebris (cf. fu: nus ‘funeral’) with unproblematic /r/-initial suffixes in prehistoric times, resulting in morphologically conditioned heterosyllabicity, the foundations for the later default treatment. The counterexamples to heterosyllabic voice assimilation in TR can therefore all be attributed to prehistoric tautosyllabicity. We can detect a further prehistoric voice-related phenomenon before /r/: onset fortition through devoicing (see Weiss 2009: 163). (16)

Prehistoric onset devoicing in Tr *dʰragʰ- > *dragʰ- > trahere ‘drag’ *taid-ro-s (cf. taedet ‘disgusts’) = */tai.dros/ > */tai.tros/ > taeter ‘foul’ *udr-i-s = */u.dris/ > u.tris > uter ‘water-skin’ *udr-a: = */u.dra:/ > lu.tra ‘otter’ *wedr-o-m = */we.drom/ > vi.trum ‘glass’

The first form contained word-initial onset Tr, and the last three forms contained root-final Tr, tautosyllabic by default. The second contained heteromorphemic Tr, which was arguably tautosyllabic after a diphthong to avoid a superheavy syllable ({/taid.ros/). This development pre-dated syllable-initial voicing, as devoicing in tautosyllabic Tr at that later (prehistoric) time would have incorrectly yielded { acer, -cri: for ager, -ri: ‘field’ (cf. sacer, -ri: above). Alternatively, it only affected onset /dr/, not sequences with other stops, due to the very low functional load of the cluster compared with voiceless /tr/.15 Conversely, when /dr/ was heterosyllabic, as at prefix + root boundaries, it ultimately underwent total regressive assimilation to /rr/, thus *ad-rapese > arripere ‘seize’, *ad-roga: se > arroga: re ‘misappropriate’ (see }6.7). It is certainly clear that /r/ in second position in the complex onset was not

14 Early archaic inscriptional sakros is therefore probably orthographically conservative, representing an earlier pronunciation, or a contemporary one with a syllabic rhotic. 15 All Latin words with initial /dr/ were either loans, e.g. Dru: sus from Celtic, or onomatopoeic, e.g. dre: nsa: re ‘whoop like a swan’, drindra: re ‘squeak’ (Weiss 2009: 163).

Voice assimilation in TR

193

actively voiced, and if anything was [–voice] to trigger devoicing, at an early period of Latin prehistory. The fluctuating nature of the voice specification of /r/ might also be seen in /l/, where we reconstructed [+voice] syllable-initially only from late archaic times, and [Øvoice] everywhere before then. At an earlier prehistoric stage, when the suffix *-lo-/-la: -, like *-ro-/-ra: -, was morphologically transparent, there is possible evidence for regressive voice assimilation in a preceding stop. It is uncontroversial that */dl/, resulting from the *-lo-/-la: - suffix, hence always heteromorphemic, consistently underwent total regressive assimilation to /ll/: *sed-la: > sella ‘seat’ (Meiser 1998: 123).16 More controversially, it is possible that heteromorphemic */tl/ underwent the same development, and this identical behaviour might be interpreted as evidence for an earlier merger through voice assimilation to */dl/. (17)

Possible prehistoric voice assimilation in */t-l/ *put-lo-s > *pud.los? > pullus ‘young of any animal; chicken’ (Nyman 1982; 1984) (cf. Skt. putráh,̣ Osc. puklum ‘son’)

Total regressive assimilation in this form seems to have occurred when /t/ was root-/ stem-final, preceding suffix-initial /l/, thus *put-lo-s (although the etymology is not generally accepted, despite the comparative evidence).17 We might hypothesize that while the suffix was transparent, /tl/ was heterosyllabic, aligning syllable and morpheme boundaries, despite default tautosyllabicity in prehistoric times. If syllableinitial /l/ went through a prehistoric period of [+voice] (before becoming [Øvoice], and reverting back to [+voice] in early archaic times), we could explain voice assimilation to */dl/, a merger that would subsequently result in identical total regressive assimilation to /ll/. Conversely, morpheme-initial and hence complex onset */tl/ developed to /kl/ in prehistoric times: *po: tlom > po: clom > po: culum ‘cup’. Although this hypothesis must remain tentative given that the evidence is minimal and disputed, it cannot be discarded on phonological grounds, as there is independent evidence for the fluctuation of (i) syllabification in TR, and (ii) the specification of [voice] in sonorants. A final piece of evidence suggests that we can extend the sonorant syllable-initial [+ voice] specification to glides. The differerence in the voicing of the stop between quattuor ‘four’ and quadrum ‘square’, quadrupe: s ‘four-legged animal’, quadruplex ‘fourfold’ must be attributed to the syllabification of the original */t/ and the following etymological */w/.

16

Motivations for total assimilations involving liquids in Latin are left aside in this chapter. Contra Nyman, Meiser (1998: 119) and EDL (502–3 s.v. putus) reconstruct *put-slo-s, based on reconstructed *put-slo-lo-s > pusillus for the diminutive. 17

194 (18)

Assimilations Voice assimilation before syllable-initial */w/ *kʷetwr-o-m = */kʷet.wrom/ > quadrum ‘square’ In contrast: *kʷetw̩ or = */kʷe.tw̩ .or/ > */kʷet.tw̩ .or/ > quattuor ‘four’

The TR sequences in the outcome were originally separated by /w/, and the etymological voiceless stop was in coda position before a syllable-initial sonorant onset in the former, but not in the monomorphemic latter, where syllabic /w̩ / (or simply /u/) was inherited (EDL 505). We conclude that a syllable-initial, simple onset sonorant came to be phonologically voiced on the surface in prehistoric/archaic Latin, whereas a sonorant which was not syllable-initial, but either a liquid in a complex TR onset or any sonorant in a syllable coda, remained underspecified for voice. The divergent voice specifications of liquids in simple versus complex onsets can find a phonetic basis in the crosslinguistically common allophonic distribution of voiceless liquids, notably /l/, in complex TR. Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 237) note that ‘voiceless allophones of rhotics are quite common, especially in utterance-final position, and after voiceless stops’, the second of which could be either in a simple onset or in complex TR. The behaviour they report for laterals is even more suggestive: /l/ has been well documented in many languages to be subject not only to considerable coarticulatory effect from adjacent voiceless consonants, especially preceding stops, and adjacent vowels, but also to variation attributable to syllable and morpheme position (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 192 with references). Selkirk (1982: 359–60) and Cruttenden (2001: 201, 205) report that in English, voiceless stop + /l/ is realized as aspirated voiceless stop + voiceless [l ̥] when a complex syllable onset, but as unaspirated voiceless stop + voiced [l] when heterosyllabic, thus incline [In.khl ̥ajn] versus ink-line [Iŋk.lajn].18 In Latin, the prominence of the syllable-initial position possibly resulted in the speaker ensuring that sonorants were articulated robustly in that location, maximizing the number and salience of cues to their character, whereas other positions did not demand such prominence and were therefore left with underspecified voice.19 The resulting regressive voice assimilation can be attributed to [+voice] in syllableinitial sonorant C2 being more robustly cued than [–voice] in obstruent C1 (compromised release cues, only weaker VC and internal cues) to a sufficient degree to be assimilated to that [+voice] value, following the formulation in }6.5. We therefore acknowledge that syllable structure determined the surface distribution of [voice] in sonorants, but retain the generalization for voice assimilation based on linear segmental sequence in }6.2: ‘every member of a consonantal sequence came to agree in voice.’ 18 The variable pronunciations probably depend on other contextual factors to a large degree, and are not simply due to syllabification. 19 All sonorants presumably remained underspecified for voice in their underlying representation, and only acquired positive voice specifications when they were syllabified.

Conclusions

195

6.7 Morphological structure To complete the picture regarding assimilations in the early history of Latin, we must take into consideration morphological pressures beyond the alignment of grammatical and prosodic constituents considered above (e.g. *nek-legese > neg.le.ge.re). Both further manifestations of faithfulness to morphological structure in Latin result from the greater prominence of roots over affixes. First, we find more thoroughgoing regressive assimilation at prefix + verbal root contacts.20 For example, although we expect to find the sequence /br/ to survive intact in Latin (e.g. e: brius ‘drunk’) both across a syllable boundary and as a complex onset, in contrast, at a prefix + root boundary it underwent total regressive assimilation to /rr/, thus *sub-regese > surrigere ‘rise’, and even syncopated surgere. Second, there is generally more faithful retention of root shape in the verbal morphology of Latin than elsewhere, particularly at morpheme boundaries within the paradigm. Thus, beside expected *kemtom > centum ‘hundred’, with place assimilation in nasal C1 in a monomorphemic form, we find *sum-tos > su: mptus ‘assumed’ (not {suntus), the past participle in *-to- in the paradigm of su: mere ‘assume’. Consonantal epenthesis seems to have been the victorious repair strategy over place assimilation where the latter would have broken the uniformity of the paradigm. Both instances of morphological sensitivity indicate that derivational levels in the synchronic phonology of archaic Latin played a role in the developments, suggesting a framework such as Lexical Phonology (Kiparsky 1982; 1985) or Stratal Optimality Theory (Bermúdez-Otero 2006; forthcoming). The above developments can be attributed to the lexical phonology, when derivational affixes are added to the stem, in contrast with the more general assimilation processes in the post-lexical phonology, blocked by the derivationally prior lexical processes.

6.8 Conclusions on assimilations This investigation evaluated two approaches claiming to account for assimilations, the syllable-based approach and the linear approach, from a diachronic perspective in relation to the early history of Latin. We found that assimilations were driven by linear segmental sequence alone, whereas syllable structure was relevant only in the distribution of features, a synchronic process which could in turn feed diachronic assimilations. A feature in a segment, if poorly cued to a sufficient degree relative to the value of that feature in an adjacent segment, was assimilated to that other value. Likely cues that we may identify for the language in this long-gone era, from a close 20 Cser (2012) provides a much more detailed discussion and (syllable-based) analysis of total assimilation at prefix + root boundaries.

196

Assimilations

re-examination of the data and typological evidence, included internal cues, such as frication noise or nasal murmur, as well as external cues, such as formant transitions in neighbouring vowels. The data allowed us independently to construct two hierarchies for the resistance to assimilation in place in Latin, based upon a combination of internal and external cues phonologized in the language: the Place Hierarchy (dorsal » labial » coronal) and the Manner Hierarchy (Fricative » Stop » Nasal). However, we found that although the syllable was irrelevant in correctly formulating the contexts for assimilations, syllable structure was still of relevance through governing the distribution of the actively voiced allophones of sonorant consonants to syllable-initial position. These, but not the allophones underspecified for voice, could trigger voice assimilation, due to their resistance to contextual devoicing in a prominent position, compromising the external cues to voicing in a preceding obstruent. Finally, morphology could magnify the straightforward phonetic pressures involved in assimilations, resulting in either more thoroughgoing assimilation, such as the total assimilation found at prefix + verbal root boundaries, or greater resistance, demanding an alternative repair strategy, as at verbal root + paradigmatic suffix boundaries. Such phenomena indicate the role of derivational levels in synchronic structure on sound change. Presumably, total assimilation and consonantal epenthesis were more general phenomena at an earlier stage, but became restricted to derivational affixes by archaic Latin. Furthermore, morphology could influence assimilations in a role two steps removed via the alignment of morpheme boundaries with syllable boundaries and the resulting active voicing of sonorants. The syllable-based distribution of [voice] in sonorants is analogous to that of [back] in laterals (Chapter 2). Whereas /l/ was underlyingly underspecified for [back], but on the surface became [+back] in the coda, [–back] in geminates (doubly linked to the coda and onset), and [Øback] in the onset, sonorants likewise were lexically underspecified for [voice], but came to be [+voice] in syllable-initial position, remaining [Øvoice] elsewhere. Syllable-initial devoicing at a very early stage might have been triggered by an early prehistoric [–voice] specification of /r/ in TR onsets, but the evidence is obscure. Thereafter, /r/ was the first to be assigned [+voice] syllable-initially, in prehistoric times (triggering */sr/ > /br/), but also ceased to be actively voiced first, by archaic times (no assimilation in archaic heterosyllabic Tr). The nasals /m n/ became voiced syllable-initially early in the archaic period, and /l/ in late archaic times (triggering compensatory lengthening through /s/-loss, and voice assimilation in stops). In sum, whereas linear segmental sequence governed assimilations, syllable structure had a significant role through the distribution of features, phonetically conditioning the realization both of the segment itself and of adjacent sounds through coarticulation and the enhancement or impoverishment of perceptual cues.

7 Conclusions Reconstructing phonological change Methodical investigation of the data pertaining to five long-standing problems in Latin phonology, with a focus on establishing the relative conditioning influences of synchronic phonological structure and robustly reconstructed phonetics, has permitted us to formulate analyses which satisfactorily explain the patterns and idiosyncrasies identified. Elaborating upon the formulation in Chapter 1, our methodology for evaluating the role of syllable structure in diachronic phonology broadly consisted of the following steps. (1)

Methodology for reconstructing phonological change in Latin a. Identifying problematic phenomena which were potentially sensitive to synchronic phonological structure, here syllable structure b. Refining the problems by isolating known phonetic and phonological conditioning factors identified in studies of each phenomenon across languages c. Methodically examining the Latin evidence pertinent to each phenomenon, after ‘cleaning’ the data by detailed philological investigation d. Identifying patterns and exceptions in the data for each phenomenon, through systematically categorizing the evidence according to the identified phonetic and phonological parameters, as well as chronology e. Reconstructing (i) synchronic phonological structure through independent evidence and the behaviour of sounds in the phenomenon and (ii) the phonetics of the language pertinent to the time period of each phenomenon through general phonetic principles, and the findings of specific experimental phonetic studies f. Evaluating the roles of synchronic phonetic pressures and phonological structure in motivating and guiding each phenomenon, and addressing the implications of the reconstructed explanations for diachronic change for both Latin phonology and phonological theory

Each step is summarized in the following sections, with reference to the five studies in this volume.

198

Conclusions

7.1 Identifying and refining problems (1a,b) This book investigated five phenomena in Latin —vowel colouring before clear and dark /l/, inverse compensatory lengthening, vowel reduction before stop + liquid, vocalic epenthesis in stop + /l/, and diachronic assimilations—all of which appear to have been governed in some way by syllable structure, to judge from languageinternal and cross-linguistic evidence. Where the problems are long-standing, the difficulties came in several guises. In Chapter 2, we found that there was no satisfactory formulation of the distribution of dark /l/, and in particular the behaviour of onset /l/, although the relevance of the syllable was recognized as early as Pliny the Elder in the 1st century ad. In Chapter 3, it was pointed out that the very existence of the littera-rule has been questioned, and that there is widespread disagreement regarding the chronology, phonology, and sociolinguistic nature of the phenomenon. ‘Inverse compensatory lengthening’ (Hayes 1989) has been recognized as a class of CL—a process commonly considered to be illustrative of weight preservation—but not thoroughly investigated. However, Kavitskaya’s (2002) phonologization approach to CL invited us to focus on parameters such as the manner and voice of the consonant, the quality of the preceding vowel, stress, and syllable shape. In Chapter 4 the syllabification of stop + liquid in archaic Latin was shown to be unclear, which resulted in the absence of a comprehensive set of diachronic rules for vowel reduction, a phenomenon which is agreed to have been sensitive to syllable shape: open versus closed (see Sen 2012b). We acknowledged that the alignment of morphological and syllable structure, found across languages and in a constrained fashion in early Latin, was a parameter requiring investigation, as well as non-local rhotic resonance effects, supported by phonetic studies and local effects within Latin. In Chapter 5, we found that the phonological context for vocalic epenthesis in Tl had simply not been thoroughly investigated. Again, epenthesis has been argued to be sensitive to syllable structure (e.g. Ito 1989). We aimed to identify the participating stops, the syllable structure of the input, the chronology of the development, and the reasons underlying the spread across contexts. Finally, in Chapter 6, we investigated whether syllable structure or linear segmental sequence governed assimilations in voice, place, continuance, and nasality, contributing to a more general debate in the phonological literature (e.g. Steriade 1999a; Blevins 2003). In particular, voice assimilation triggered by liquid consonants requires investigation, given that they could appear in several structural positions.

7.2 Examining evidence and identifying patterns (1c,d) In each chapter, an examination of the forms revealed illuminating patterns. In Chapter 2, we needed to establish the behaviour of Latin /l/ in coda, geminate, and

Phonetics and synchronic structure

199

onset positions, particularly settling the question of /l/-darkness before /e/ and /e:/. The backing of vowels preceding /l/ was found to be consistently present and greatest before coda /l/, and consistently absent before geminate /ll/; before onset /l/, backing was gradient, greater preceding onset /l/ before back and central vowels than onset /l/ before /e(:)/, but absent before /li(:)/. Vowels were more resistant to colouring in the stressed initial syllable of archaic Latin. In Chapter 3 (and the Appendix), a form-byform examination revealed that there was some evidence for a diachronic littera-rule and some for synchronic variation. On the whole, those showing a diachronic change had ‘high vowel + voiceless stop’, whereas those which varied had ‘/a/ + sonorant’; further forms showing suffixal replacement and some evidence for a diachronic development had ‘front vowel + /l/’. In Chapter 4, we pinpointed all the formations that resulted in TR, and considered the natures of the stop, liquid, and preceding vowel, and the location of the morpheme boundary. Open-syllable reduction was found consistently before Tl (only tautomorphemic formations attested), and occasionally before morpheme-initial Tr. Vowels before non-morpheme-initial Tr consistently underwent closed-syllable reduction, but so apparently did some forms with the sequence morpheme initially (e.g. -bra). In Chapter 5, vocalic epenthesis was found to occur in /bl/ (4th century bc), /kl/ (4th–2nd centuries bc), and /pl/ (3rd–2nd bc), but not with any regularity in /gl/. Epenthesis appears to have occurred only in complex onsets, with regressive voice assimilation the development in heterosyllabic Tl (e.g. *nek-legese > neglegere). In Chapter 6, using well-established data, we ascertained that assimilations were primarily sensitive to linear segmental sequence—confirmed by the importance of place and manner, and idiosyncrasies in the patterns (e.g. /gm/)—except voice assimilation from sonorant triggers, which was sensitive to syllable-internal position.

7.3 Reconstructing phonetics and synchronic structure (1e) With reference to phonological analyses of lateral darkness and the handful of ternary contrasts in the world’s languages, we reconstructed a three-way surface contrast in Latin /l/ in Chapter 2 in order to account for the vowel-colouring pattern identified: [+back] in the coda, [–back] in geminates, and [back] (underspecified) in the onset. Alternatively, the bigestural account of laterals invited us to hypothesize that coda /l/ had a specified back dorsal gesture (i.e. velarized), geminate /ll/ had a specified front dorsal gesture (i.e. palatalized), and onset /l/’s dorsal gesture was underspecified, allowing its secondary articulation to be contextually determined. Thus, /l/ before /i/ was contextually palatalized, accounting for its identical behaviour to geminate /ll/, palatalized by specification. Dark resonance in liquids is acknowledged to be inversely correlated with F2, explaining the gradient backing (i.e. lowering of F2) of vowels before onset /l/ according to the degree of darkness of the lateral, conditioned by coarticulation with the following vowel.

200

Conclusions

In Chapter 3, inverse compensatory lengthenings were found to be phonologically plausible, according to a phonetically based phonologization account of CL. The patterns identified in the data matched phonetic predictions, if we took into account the typologically uncommon fact that Latin closed-syllable vowels were longer than their open-syllable counterparts (Sen 2012b): phonologically long high vowels in open syllables before voiceless obstruents (phonetically shortest contexts) could be interpreted as phonologically short in closed syllables, resulting in the lengthening of the voiceless consonant, more amenable to lengthening than voiced obstruents, to achieve that syllable closure. Conversely, phonetically long /a/ could be interpreted as either phonologically long or short before nasals or /r/, predicting synchronic variation. The alignment of syllable and morpheme boundaries was invoked in Chapter 4, incorporating the proviso, of great importance for diachronic studies, that the morpheme had to be synchronically transparent for alignment to occur. The conditioning by /r/ of non-adjacent segments together with its limitations, and specifically its lowering effect on vowels, was found to be corroborated by parallel findings in the phonetic literature. Such environmental sensitivity was argued to be much more likely in open syllables, where vowels were of lower duration, a hypothesis which matched the alignment account. In Chapter 5, we concluded that vocalic epenthesis occurred only in complex onset Tl, whereas regressive voice assimilation resulted when the sequence was heterosyllabic, and morphological structure could again condition syllable boundaries. Metrical structure was found to be an important factor in /pl/: the absence of epenthesis after the head of a well-formed foot could be explained by a stronger stress in this context, indicating in turn that /pl/-epenthesis was phonetically motivated, unlike /kl/-epenthesis, which showed no such sensitivity to stress. This hypothesis was consistent with the frequencies of the words affected, allowing us to reconstruct two different diachronic motivations: (i) structurally motivated change in /kl/, extending the environment from /bl/ to /kl/, based on morphological analogy (mediative suffixes), then phonological analogy (internal onsets), affecting the least frequent words first, and spreading slowly through the lexicon, and (ii) phonetically motivated change, extending the environment in voice only from /bl/ to /pl/, affecting the most frequent forms first, and spreading quickly through the lexicon. Both types show precisely the patterns predicted by lexical diffusion (e.g. Phillips 2001). In Chapter 6, we contributed Latin evidence to the debate regarding the role of the syllable in consonantal phonotactic development, demonstrating that linear segmental sequence alone was necessary and sufficient to account for Latin assimilations. The robustness of perceptual cues was deemed to govern the licensing of contrasts, and the paucity of cues in some instances (e.g. the identifiability of a stop in /gn/) was argued to have an articulatory explanation. However, the distribution of [+voice] in sonorants, only in syllable-initial position, demonstrated the relevance of syllable

Explanations in diachronic phonology

201

structure; the phonetic realization of feature specifications resulted in phonetic tokens which either created the conditions for perceptual recategorization or did not. The cross-linguistically well-attested devoicing of liquids in T[–voice]R onsets was argued to motivate the absence of phonological [+voice] in sonorants in this position.

7.4 Evaluating explanations in diachronic phonology (1f) The investigations are overall consistent with a reductionist view of sound change, under which developments are motivated and guided by the demands of speech production and perception alone, without being constrained by synchronic phonological structure, such as syllable structure and weight. Phenomena that are commonly analysed with reference to syllable structure, such as consonantal assimilations, were necessarily and sufficiently explained by articulation and perception alone. However, syllable structure was usually reconstructed as having performed a role one step removed from the mechanism of the change itself, through governing the distribution of categorical (e.g. dark /l/) and gradient (e.g. vowel duration) variants. Compensatory lengthening, usually explained by weight preservation, was phonetically driven, with pre-existing binary distinctions in vowel and consonant length the main aspects of phonological structure involved—an instance of structural analogy. However, vowel durations expected by the listener in open and closed syllables also played a role, indicating that synchronic structure influenced aspects of perception as well as production. Furthermore, a phonetically based approach envisages that inverse CL, and other types such as CV:CV > CVC CL, are more likely in languages which, like Latin, have longer vowels in closed syllables than in open ones—a prediction which can be tested. On the other hand, vocalic epenthesis in /kl/ was not phonetically driven, even though its regular outcome appears indistinguishable from the other changes which were. This observation invites caution when reconstructing explanations for diachronic changes, as even if a phonetic explanation is forthcoming (e.g. there may have a short vocalic transition in /kl/), it may not have been the cause of the development. We therefore need to exercise due care when establishing historical motivations, examining the influences on the change. For example, sensitivity to phonetic factors, such as degree of stress in /pl/-epenthesis, or the consonantal and vocalic environment in vowel reduction before TR or dark /l/, implies a phonetically based change, whereas the absence of such sensitivity, combined with patterns in the lexical diffusion of a development, indicates an analogically initiated, structurally based change, where the speaker needed to perform some sort of syntactic, morphological, or phonological analysis (e.g. Phillips 2001). We can maintain a reductionist view of diachronic phonology by treating such phenomena as instances of ‘analogy’, beside the phonetically driven ‘sound changes’, while acknowledging that analogy would then be a very wide-ranging category,

202

Conclusions

encompassing numerous types of structure-based analysis extending from phonetic to phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic analogies. In this light, it is perhaps more useful to consider these developments as different types of speakerdependent, structurally based sound change (each with its own mechanisms and constraints), whereas phonetically based developments might be predominantly listener-oriented, through mechanisms such as hypo- and hypercorrection, as when (Chapter 2) the palatalized specification of geminate /ll/ was interpreted as coarticulatory before /i/, resulting in its degemination (e.g. mi: lia).

7.5 Latin phonology and philology We have demonstrated both how phonetic research and phonological theory can shed light on a dead language and, in turn, how Latin evidence can continue to illuminate problems in phonological theory—e.g. features, compensatory lengthenings, vowel reductions, and the role of the syllable in diachronic phonology—as it has done throughout the history of linguistics. The language’s phonology had phonetic implications (e.g. [+voice] syllable-initial sonorants triggering perceptually driven assimilations), and its phonetics in turn influenced the development of its phonology (e.g. colouring by dark /l/ resulted in the categorical perception of different vowels). The findings in these chapters pave the way for investigating other recalcitrant prosodic phenomena in the light of our conclusions, such as the change in position and perhaps nature of the Latin accent, syncope from archaic to late Latin (see Sen 2012a), the development of syllabic sonorants in archaic and early Latin, and shortening and lengthening processes like Lachmann’s Law and iambic shortening. Most notably, the methodology developed and explored here can be used to research the phonetics and phonology of any non-current language with similar attestations to those of Latin, assisting us in analysing historical phenomena with as much rigour as possible, and thus incorporating the evidence they offer when evaluating phonological theories (both diachronic and synchronic) and testing the phonological universals at the heart of a non-reductionist approach to sound change. Finally, the studies in this book contribute to our understanding of the history of Latin from Proto-Italic to classical times. We are better equipped to evaluate purported etymologies and developments, and we reached conclusions regarding the histories of problematic forms throughout the book. Appeals to the littera-rule should now be restricted according to the sequences and chronology identified. We are closer to a comprehensive understanding of archaic vowel reduction, now that we know the roles of morphology and the conditioning effects of /r/ and the preceding vowel. Etymologies should only invoke vocalic epenthesis in complex onset /bl/, /kl/, and /pl/, the last with further metrical constraints. Conversely, regressive voice

Latin phonology and philology

203

assimilation in TR must be restricted to heterosyllabic sequences, and restricted to specific time periods according to the sonorant consonant. Purported place and manner assimilations must obey the Place and Manner Hierarchies. All such new insights significantly contribute to the ongoing exploration of Latin from its Proto-Indo-European roots to the development of the Romance languages.

Appendix: Examination of littera-rule forms This appendix provides discussion of and judgements on all 89 forms which may provide evidence for the littera-rule (see }3.4). General patterns are identified on the basis of these results in }3.5. Each form is briefly discussed, then classified under one of the following categories. Fuller discussion of each form can be found on the website. (1) Categorization of littera-rule candidates a. Not littera-rule i. Insufficient evidence for the existence of either V:C or VCC. ii. VCC by analogy on another form, or borrowing. iii. VCC arising through other change (e.g. glide formation, spontaneous gemination). b. Diachronic development probable/possible i. Probable: There seems to have been a diachronic development V:C > VCC which cannot be otherwise explained. ii. Possible: There may have been a diachronic development V:C > VCC, but there are also other possible explanations, or some source of uncertainty regarding the form. c. Synchronic variation possible i. There is evidence of variation between a V:C and VCC form at a given period, but little evidence of a development from one to the other. d. Replacement of V:C suffix with VCC suffix i. The form shows a change from V:C to VCC, but this might be due to the replacement of the suffix. The forms appear in alphabetical order, with each entry in the following format. Box 1.1 VCC form : V: C form ‘translation’ VCC—The evidence for a VCC form. V:C—The evidence for a V:C form. Discussion (where required). Categorization.

accipiter: *a: ku-peter? ‘hawk’ VCC—All MSS (OLD 22), earliest: Pl. Per. 409, Ter. Ph. 330; Romance developments based on acceptor (REW 68).

Examination of littera-rule forms

205

V:C—Possible etymology *o: ku-ptr- ‘swift + flying’ (DELL 5, EDL 21); but possibly also *akupeter < *HHk- (Schrijver 1991: 77), or *aku-peter (LEW 1.6) < *h2ek- (LIV 261) with a short V. VCC (< *VC) most probably by analogy on accipere ‘grasp; receive’ (see Pl. Per. 409, Lucil. 1170, Isid. Orig. 12.7.55). See also de Lamberterie (1990: 2.562) for the semantics. Only one of many possible etymologies yields original *V:C. Not littera-rule: VCC by analogy. allium : a: lium ‘garlic’ VCC—Inscriptional allio (CIL 4.5246); well-attested in MSS (Graur 1929: 147), earliest: Col. 10.314; Hesychius: álle: n; lákhanon Italoí ‘alle: n = vegetables among the Italians’; Gk. allâs ‘sausage’?; Romance developments (DELL 21, REW 366). V:C—Inscriptional alia (CIL 12.560, but V length unclear) and most MSS (OLD 101), earliest: Pl. Poen. 1314; Sanskrit a: luh ̣ ‘sort of bulbous plant’? (but u-stem). Three possible explanations: diachronic development (V:C earlier, but VCC basis of Romance forms), synchronic variation, and spontaneous gemination in a plant name (}3.3.2.4), with possible retention of V:ll (}3.3.1). Unclear etymology (EDL 33). Diachronic development possible; synchronic variation possible. allu: cina: ri: : a: lu: cina: ri: ‘wander in mind’ VCC—A few MSS (Graur 1929: 147), notably all of Cic. Att. 15.29.2; later borrowings (e.g. Fr. halluciner). V:C—Most MSS (OLD 111), showing singleton C, but unclear V length (both /a/ and /u/). Unclear etymology (Mignot 1969: 347–51), possibly indicating original short V (cf. Gk. alúo: ‘I wander; am distraught’; Aulus Gellius 16.12.3). Aspiration and nasalization in MSS (hal(l) ucinor, al(l)uncinor) might indicate a popular register, where spontaneous gemination is more likely (Graur 1929: 93–9). Weiss (2010) describes the VCC form as ‘bad very late spelling’. Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for V:C or VCC. ammentum : a: mentum ‘throwing-strap’ VCC—Regularly in MSS (DELL 28: ancient MSS have ammentum); possible etymology *apment-om > ammentum (DELL 28, EDL 30–31 and OLD 119 suggest *ag-mentum, but /gm/ did not assimilate, Chapter 6). V:C—β family MSS of Caes. Gal. 5.43.5; all MSS of Cic. de Orat. 1.242, Brut. 271, Ov. Met. 7.788, 12.321; Romance developments from a simple consonant (REW 417); singleton C, but unclear V length (although EDL 30–31 and OLD 119 list V:C as a variant); possible etymology *absment-om > a: mentum. Possible reverse littera-rule VCC > V:C, or diachronic development V:C > VCC, but with both forms in classical Latin. Weiss (2010) conversely has short-V amentum after an unclear ‘reduction’. Synchronic variation possible; diachronic development possible.

206

Appendix

ammissam : a: missam ‘lost’ VCC—Very few MSS (Lindsay 1894: 118). V:C—Regularly in MSS (the only form recognized by OLD 118 and DELL 408, s.v. mitto: ); possible etymology *abs-mitto: > a: mitto: ‘I dismiss; lose’ (Niedermann 1997: 159; Sommer and Pfister 1977: 218). The later scantily attested ammissam could have arisen as a variant of V:C. Synchronic variation possible. bacca : ba: ca ‘berry’ VCC—Very frequent in MSS (Graur 1929: 151–2); Var. L. 7.87: vinum in Hispania bacca; Romance (REW 862: *bacca, *baccu; 863b: baccea; 866: bacci: num); borrowings: LG back, and OHG bekkin. V:C—Regularly in MSS and Romance (REW 859), and in derivatives (DELL 63). Insufficient evidence for a connection between VCC and the original V:C. Unclear etymology of both bacca (see TLL 2.1657.14–15) and ba: ca, but possibly from a Mediterranean, non-IE origin (see EDL 67); bacca was possibly an Iberian word unconnected with ba: ca (see Varro quotation, and different meaning). If it arose from V:C, there are numerous explanations from contamination (Gk. Bakkhós ‘Bacchus’, bákkar (an aromatic plant), Lat. baccar). Weiss (2010) treats VCC as a ‘bad, late spelling’. Not littera-rule: VCC by analogy or borrowing. balbutti: re : balbu: ti: re ‘speak obscurely, stammer’ VCC—Numerous MSS (Graur 1929: 153). V:C—Numerous MSS (Graur 1929: 153); etymology via *balb-u: tus (de Lamberterie 1990: 2.738–9 on the suffix) (cf. Skt. name Balbu: tháh). VCC variant arose from earlier V:C, which survived; both acknowledged by OLD 224 and DELL 65 (s.v. balbus), cf. similar variation in effu: ti: re ‘chatter’, mutti: re ‘mutter’ (V in stem; see stems below), caecu: ti: re ‘become blind’ (V in suffix); friguttio: ‘sing; chatter’ shows only VCC. Onomatopoeic spontaneous gemination possible, given similar ‘talking’ semantics of these words (see also Mignot 1969: 19 fn. 2, 72), and identical vocalism across syllables in cognates (EDL 68, s.v. balbus). Diachronic development possible; synchronic variation possible. ballaena : ba: laena ‘whale’ VCC—Most MSS have this or balle: na (Graur 1929: 153–4); Romance developments from the latter (REW 910); etymological evidence from related Greek phállaina with short V. V:C—Some MSS (Graur 1929: 153), one MS of Plin. Nat. 10.210 and a handful of others of only late texts, but no evidence to suggest the vowel was long. Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for V:C.

Examination of littera-rule forms

207

bassium : ba: sium ‘kiss’ VCC—Very few MSS (Graur 1929: 155, most examples from Martial). V:C—Regularly in MSS (only form acknowledged by OLD 226, DELL 67). If real, VCC could have arisen by expressive gemination. Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. bellua : be: lua ‘beast’ VCC—Some MSS (Graur 1929: 156; DELL 68 has VCC as lemma); Romance (REW 1026: It. belva, OPort. belfa). V:C—Some MSS (DELL 68; all quotations at OLD 229), earliest: Pl. Rud. 543, Trin. 952, Truc. 689; all derivatives. Development: *be: s-lua (cf. be: stia ‘beast’; EDL 70) > *be: llua with */sl/ > /ll/ after long V/ diphthong, possibly being represented by earlier VCC attestations (Sommer and Pfister 1977: 174 fn. 2) > be: lua with degemination from classical Latin (}3.3.1) > late Latin [bellwa] (belva and belba DELL 68, REW 1026) with gemination from glide-formation (}3.3.2.2; also V:llC was never permitted so vowel shortened) > Romance forms. Spontaneous gemination also possible in animal names and pejorative nicknames (used in this way, meaning ‘imbecile’). Not littera-rule: VCC through glide formation. *betta : be: ta ‘beet’ VCC—No evidence within Latin; required by some Romance forms (DELL 69, REW 1064). V:C—All MSS (OLD 231) and derivatives. *V:C > VCC by Proto-Romance; possible spontaneous gemination (plant names, particularly vegetables). Diachronic development possible. bracca : bra: ca ‘trousers’ VCC—Very few MSS (Graur 1929: 159); Hesychius brákkai; aígeiai diphthérai parà Kéltais ‘ “brakkai” = prepared hides of goats among the Celts’; OIce. bro: k (DELL 75). V:C—Regularly in MSS (the only form recognized by OLD 240); doublet bra: ce: s more ancient per DELL 75; derivatives in Latin; Romance (REW 1252 and 1258). V:C borrowed from Gaulish (DELL 75); likely variation in borrowing, particularly over the wide geographical expanse of the Celto-Germanic world. Weiss (2010) describes the VCC form as ‘late and bad spelling’. Not littera-rule: very minor VCC variant in borrowing.

208

Appendix

bracchium : bra: chium ‘arm’ VCC—Inscriptional bracchis = bracchiis (CIL 9.3018), bracchiatorv[m] (CIL 5.8760); wellattested in MSS (e.g. Pac. trag. 186; see OLD 240–41, DELL 75); Celtic borrowings: Ir. brac, Brit. braich (DELL 75). V:C—Inscriptional bracio (CIL 12.583.52 (123/122 bc), braciola (CIL 4.5296); well-attested in MSS (OLD 240–41); Romance (REW 1256). Borrowing from Gk. brachío: n without long V. Biville (1990–95: 1.159–60) discusses the four forms encountered in Latin: bracium is attested by inscriptions and substandard writing; brachium is a Hellenizing form with the aspiration noted and is frequent in late poets and Christian inscriptions; bra: chium is probably the form found in Plautus and is regular in the dactylic poets; finally, bracc(h)ium is found in many MSS and inscriptions and is the regular classical form; the geminate was not the regular reflex of the Greek aspirate. Both V:C and VCC arose from VC through metrical necessity in verse, yielding a dactyl (Biville 1990–95: 1.172–6). Not littera-rule: V:C and VCC through metrical necessity. buccina : bu: cina ‘trumpet’ VCC—Inscriptional bvccinam (CIL 6.315.66, Augustan), CIL 9.3772a; some MSS, e.g. Cass. Var. 1.45.6, and MSS of derivatives (OLD 244). V:C—Regularly in MSS (only form recognized by DELL 77); Romance developments, which also attest buci: na (REW 1368); possible etymology *bou-kana: (DELL 77), but initial *gʷ > b suggests borrowing from Sabellian. Gemination due to contamination of bucca, which in popular language came to be extended from ‘cheek’ to ‘mouth; mouthful’, and was itself formed by spontaneous gemination (common for parts of the body; cf. Skt. bukkati). Not littera-rule: VCC by analogy. calli: go: : ca: li: go: ‘darkness, mist’ VCC—Very few MSS (Graur 1929: 162); some Romance developments (REW 1516.3); ‘caligo non calligo’ in the Appendix Probi. V:C—Regularly in MSS (the only form recognized by OLD 259); the majority of Romance developments require singleton C (REW 1516), but provide no evidence for V length; possible etymology (OLD 259), denied by DELL 87. Given that around half of the MSS attestations are for late texts, VCC is very late (Weiss 2010), and it is probable that the geminate arose after vowel length distinctions had been eroded. Weiss also suggests that there was contamination between ‘fulligo’ (see below), ‘pulligo, ferrugo, pollinem’, and ‘calligo’, rendering it difficult to ascertain the source of the geminate. Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC within Latin.

Examination of littera-rule forms

209

camellus : came: lus ‘camel’ VCC—MSS of republican texts (e.g. Pompon. Com. 112; Cic. N.D. 2.123), although DELL 89 states VCC is later; some Romance developments, and Celtic borrowings (REW 1544.2–3). V:C—Regularly in MSS; derivatives came: li: nus, came: la: rius, came: lopardalis; some Romance (REW 1544.1); borrowed from Gk. káme: los. Romance also continues came: llus (REW 1544.2), but the most likely motivation for VCC is the morphological replacement of the suffix -e: lus with the much more common diminutive suffix -ellus (see Gradenwitz 1904: 498–9), for expressive reasons (hence also the geminated V:CC variant). Not littera-rule: replacement of V:C with VCC suffix. *cappo: : ca: po: ‘capon’ VCC—Romance, e.g. It. cappone, Fr. chapon, Sp. capón etc. (REW 1641, 2.); Germanic borrowings, e.g. OHG kappo (DELL 98). V:C—All MSS, but not attested until Martial (3.58.38), where the first syllable must be scanned long (DELL 98 believes we should read cappo, but recognizes a V:C form); Romance: South It. dialect kapune, Campidanese kaboni show singleton C, but no evidence for V length (REW 1641). The earliest form is capus (e.g. Var. R. 2.7.15 and Col. 8.2.3), but the length of the first V is unclear: long per OLD 274, EDL 91, short per DELL 98. VCC probably arose very late after vowel length distinctions had been eroded, possibly as a result of spontaneous gemination, common in animal names. Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for V:C or VCC within Latin. carrectum : ca: rectum ‘sedge’ VCC—Only in the glosses (CGL 326.26; 401.18; 473.2) and the grammarian Cledonius (33.1). V:C—Regularly in MSS (the only form recognized by OLD 277 and DELL 100, s.v. ca: rex); Romance (REW 1688, 1689). Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC within Latin. carrere : ca: rere ‘card (wool)’ VCC—Not clearly attested (DELL 101); some editions correct carere in MSS of Var. L. 7.54 to carrere, where the author quotes Pl. Men. 797, the MSS of which have carpere (better sense); etymology PIE *(s)ker-s- (TLL 3.497, EDL 95) > *kars- > carr-; carrio: in a gloss (Graur 1929: 163). V:C—Regularly in MSS (although rare); etymological connection with ca: rex ‘sedge’ (DELL 101 and 100); cario: in the glosses; Logudorese kar-yare ‘knead’ (REW 1688b). Possible reverse littera-rule VCC > V:C; early VCC for regular V:C indicates some variation. Synchronic variation possible.

210

Appendix

casseus : ca: seus ‘cheese’ VCC—One gloss (CGL 5.362.35—one MS has VC). V:C—Regularly in MSS (the only form recognized by OLD 280, DELL 103, EDL 96-7); Romance (REW 1738). Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. cella : *ke: la ‘store room, chamber’ VCC—Inscriptional evidence (CIL 12.1000; 13.5708.6; 3.7342; 8.828; 9.3351); all MSS; Romance (REW 1802); borrowed into Germanic and Celtic (DELL 110); possible etymology *kelja: (cf. OIr. cuile < *kulja: ) possibly > cella in some dialects (cf. development suggested in Osc. allo < *alja: , although Untermann (2000: 81) denies this etymology). V:C—Possible etymology: connection with ce: la: re ‘hide’ (DELL 110, 111–12 s.v. ce: lo: , EDL 104–5), Skt. śa: la: ‘hut, residence’, but all clear attestations of the root *kel- ‘hide’ are Western Indo-European; name of Roman goddess Ce: la; Var. L. 6.162: a celando cellam appellarunt ‘they called it a cella from “hiding” ’. Numerous verbs in Latin with the *-a: - suffix are denominative, suggesting *ke: la as the base of ce: la: re. Cella bore the additional idea of hiding, although this may be due to popular etymology. However, to explain the long V, *ke: la itself is most likely deverbative, built upon a lengthened-grade present root *k’e: l- (Watmough 1997: 126–7; see Isebaert 1992 on ‘Narten presents’). Watmough argues that Latino-Faliscan *ke: la gave Faliscan cela and Latin cella, and was borrowed into Etruscan as a specialized term for a tomb chamber (Breyer 1993: 341–2 prefers an Etruscan origin). The simple root *k’el- is found in Lat. occulere ‘conceal’ < *ob-k’el-, and Skt. śa: la: could have developed from *k’ola: by Brugmann’s Law (Watmough 1997: 126–7; LIV 322). Diachronic development possible. cippus : Ci: pus ‘post, stake’ VCC—Inscriptional cippos (A. Epig. 1941: 61a; c. 25 BC), cipporvm (CIL 6.826.2); regularly in MSS; Romance (REW 1935); borrowings into Germanic and Celtic (DELL 122). V:C—Inscriptional ceip[ . . . ] (CIL 12.5), in an unintelligible inscription, cipo[m] (CIL 12.2660), probably from before the time of regular double-writing of geminates; name of legendary praetor Ci: pus (Ov. Met. 15.565); etymological connection with sci: pio: (DELL 122), comparative evidence of Sanskrit and Greek. Etymology *keipos > *ki: pos (cf. Ci: pus) > cippus is uncertain but plausible. Initial /s/ in sci: pio: ‘sceptre’, Gk. skoîpos (Hesychius) could be ‘s-mobile’ (Gk. o-grade as opposed to the Latin e-grade). Skt. śe: pah ‘tail, penis’ might be connected (EDL 115). However, Clackson and Horrocks (2007: 112–13) interpret inscriptional ceip[ . . . ] as ce: p(et) (classical ce: pit) ‘he captured’, with plausible non-etymological heii for [e:], and Untermann (2000: 381) suggests that the word is Marsian, possibly meaning ‘here’. Spontaneous gemination is a possibility in popular speech (Aulus Gellius 16.7, 9 reproaches Laberius’ use of the word), or technical

Examination of littera-rule forms

211

vocabulary (‘sharpened stake driven into the ground to arrest the enemy advance’, Caes. Gal. 7.73.4), or a nickname (‘upright stone’ resembling a tall man, cf. Ci: pus). Diachronic development possible. coppula : co: pula ‘bond’ VCC—Very few MSS: coppulum in one MS of Pl. Mil. 653, coppulat in one MS of Pl. Poen. 655. V:C—Regularly in MSS (the only form recognized by OLD 443, DELL 141); Romance (REW 2209, 2211). Romance evidence points to a form *klo: ppa (REW 2209), suggesting that the vowel in the late VCC variants was long. Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. crocodillus : crocodi: lus ‘crocodile’ VCC—Some MSS and variant forms corcodillus, cocodrillus, corcodrillus, crocodrillus etc. V:C—Some MSS; expected monophthongization after borrowing of Gk. krokódeilos. Variation in the borrowing process might suggest that the word was considered segmentable as crocod-il(l)us, so influenced by the Latin suffixes -illus and -i: lus. Not littera-rule: replacement of V:C with VCC suffix. culleus : cu: leus ‘sack’ VCC—Most MSS (the only form recognized by DELL 155, EDL 150); Romance developments from culliola (REW 2375). V:C—Very few MSS, recognized by OLD 465, but not Graur (1929). Very little evidence for V:C; apparent Greek cognate koleós ‘scabbard’ has short V. Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for V:C. cunnus : *ku: nus ‘female pudenda’ VCC—Regularly in MSS (the only form recognized by OLD 472, DELL 158, EDL 154–5); Romance (REW 2399); possible etymology *kut-no-s (EDL 154–5). V:C—Inscriptional forms with a simple consonant: CIL 12.2541.2.5, 4.1261; MS of Catul. 97.8; possible etymology *kutsnos > *ku: nus (Graur 1929: 46, who rejects it only because V:C > VCC is denied). No good basis for the etymology *kutsnos. Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for V:C. cuppa : cu: pa ‘goblet, barrel, niche’ VCC—Numerous MSS (OLD 472); pan-Romance continuations (DELL 158, REW 2409); cognates or borrowings OHG kopf, OEng. cuppe and Ir. copp (DELL 159).

212

Appendix

V:C—Inscriptional cvpa (CIL 2.6178), cvpam (CIL 8.12593), both in inscriptions where double writing of geminates is expected; some Romance (REW 2401); borrowings into Germanic and Celtic; comparative evidence Skt. ku: pah ‘hole, well, shaft’, Gk. kúpellon ‘drinking vessel’, OIce. húfr ‘ship’s hull’, OEng. hyf ‘beehive’ (DELL 158). The wealth of cognates points to a V:C origin (Weiss 2010 concurs), but there is a strong indication that the two forms split, and were different (but confusable) words within late Latin: cuppa ‘goblet’, cu: pa ‘barrel’ (different words in DELL, REW).1 Romance continues both forms, often within the same language: cu: pa > Fr. cuve, Sp. cuba, and possible It. cupo ‘dark’, with a change in gender and semantic development via ‘hollow, cave’ (REW 2401; Parise et al. 2003: 78); cuppa > Fr. coupe, It. coppa, Rom. cupă. DELL recognizes confusion between the two, noting that cu: pa was sometimes written cuppa (TLL 4.1140.55), possibly under the influence of cappa. EDL 155 has them as variants of the same word, with V:C as the lemma, describing it as a non-IE loanword *kūp̆ -, borrowed by and from many languages, thus explaining the vacillating vowel length. Etruscan kupe is obscure in origin. Spontaneous gemination in a common word designating a utensil is possible. Diachronic development possible; synchronic variation possible. cuppe: s : *ku: pe: ds ‘gluttonous’ VCC—All MSS (TLL 4.1436). V:C—Etymology *koup-e: d-s (compound with second element as in edo: ‘I eat’) > *ku: pe: d-s (EDL 155); cu: pe: dia/cu: pi: dia (for cuppe: dia), cu: pe: do: (for cuppe: do: ) in some MSS (OLD 473, EDL 155). Etymology (insecure) suggests *V:C. Vowel length of the singleton-C variants is uncertain as they are not found in verse (e.g. Var. L. 5.146), and EDL notes that a short V may reflect PIE stative *kup-eh1-. Spontaneous gemination is possible, as cognomen Cuppe: s suggests that the word could be an insult or nickname (DELL 158; cf. flaccus, gibber, vorrus). However, the derivatives cuppe: dia ‘delicacies’, cuppe: do: ‘desire; gourmanderie’ would then have to be formations after gemination, although they are attested from early times. Diachronic development possible. damma : da: ma ‘deer’ VCC—Most MSS (OLD 483); diminutive dammula in Apuleius (DELL 163). V:C – Some MSS (Graur 1929: 171); name Da: ma, common for male slaves; borrowings into Germanic (DELL 163); Romance (REW 2466) from *damus with singleton C, but no evidence for V length. Sufficient evidence to accept V:C beside regular VCC, but no evidence for a diachronic development. Unclear etymology (probably a borrowing, possibly from Celtic per DELL 163). A Latin gloss suggests a third form copa: CGL 5.584.1: copa vas vinarium, quod volgo per u et duo pp proferunt, sed melius o et per unum p dicunt copam, copon siquidem Graeci dicunt profundum, a quo copam dicimus; vas vero balnearium non copa per o, sed cupa per u, eo quod nos intra se capiat. 1

Examination of littera-rule forms

213

Germanic forms not necessarily borrowed from Latin and name Da: ma not necessarily connected. Synchronic variation possible. dumme: tum : du: me: tum ‘thicket’ VCC—One MSS of Verg. G. 1.15. V:C—Regularly in MSS alongside analogically formed dumectum (DELL 187 s.v. du: mus, OLD 579); etymological evidence from MSS of Liv. Andr. 31.35 dusmo (EDL 182–3). Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. fella: re : fe: la: re ‘suck’ VCC—Most MSS (DELL 224; lemma at OLD 684); Romance development fellatę in the Abruzzo dialect (REW 3237). V:C—Most inscriptional attestations, nearly all of which are vulgar (DELL 224); etymology PIE root *dheh1- (EDL 210), cf. fe: cundus, fe: mina, fe: lix, fi: lius; cognates e.g. Gk. the: lé: (DELL 223 s.v. fe: cundus). Etymology indicates original V:C, but both forms well-attested. Spontaneous gemination in an obscene word is the most likely explanation (secondary meaning ‘fellate’). Contrast the failure of gemination in fe: lix ‘lucky’ (same root, l-initial suffix, but without vulgar usage). DELL 224 suggests that the vowel remained long after gemination. V length in Romance is unclear (Weiss 2010), but if short may be due to a late shortening in V:ll, which survived intact in classical Latin. Not littera-rule: VCC through spontaneous gemination. fillius : fi: lius ‘son’ VCC—Inscriptional evidence (CIL 3.14092; 6.13484 (twice); 8.15813; 12.2246); grammarian Virgilius Maro, Epistle 1 (Huemer 1886: 113.15–16): multi etiam dicunt fillius pro eo quod sit filius; one MS of Horace (Graur 1929: 173). V:C—Regularly in MSS and inscriptions, e.g. feil- at CIL 12.795, 1215, 1253, 1536, 1799 and 2105; Romance (REW 3303); etymology (DELL 234, 223 s.v. fe: cundus). Sufficient evidence to accept VCC beside regular and original V:C. Although the short V is not confirmed, long V before /lli/ is unlikely as it simplified to /Vli/ reasonably early (}3.3.1). Diachronic development possible; synchronic variation possible. flamma : fla: ma ‘flame’ VCC—Almost all MSS; Romance (REW 3350); borrowings into Germanic and Celtic (DELL 239). V:C—Inscriptional flama at CIL 12.2540a.3 (OLD 710 reports this with long V); some MSS attestations in Catullus and Vergil (Graur 1929: 173); possible etymology *bhleg-s-ma (see DELL 239 *flagsma (curiously rejected); cf. fulge: re ‘shine’, but unexplained -s-) > *fla: ma (cf. *jouksmentom > iu: mentum ‘beast of burden’); cognates Gk. phlégma, phlegmós ‘flame’.

214

Appendix

Some evidence for original V:C which developed into VCC. MSS attestations of V:C could indicate synchronic variation. The single hmi in the verse inscription can be read either as an omission of the second hmi (‘defective spelling’ per Weiss 2010) or as an indication of the length of the hai. Composers’ grasp of versification in verse graffiti is, however, notoriously irregular. Diachronic development possible; synchronic variation possible. flammen : fla: men ‘priest, blast’ VCC—Very few MSS. V:C—All inscriptions and regularly in MSS (only form recognized by OLD 710, DELL 239). Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. flocce: s : flo: ce: s ‘lees of wine’ VCC—Regularly in MSS (although rare; DELL 241). V:C—Very few MSS; Romance: Lucchese fiogia (DELL 241, REW 3376). Rare, technical viticultural word, likely to have a non-IE, Mediterranean origin like faeces ‘dregs’, frace: s/flace: s ‘lees of olive oil’, whose termination it shares. A single Romance reflex, if trustworthy, might support a barely attested dialectal V:C variant. If VCC is not original, contamination from floccus ‘tuft of wool, object without value’ (etymology uncertain) could have motivated it. Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for V:C. fulli: go: : fu: li: go: ‘soot’ VCC—MSS of glosses: CGL 2.74.11; CGL 3.563.59 has folliginem (cf. 3.612.10 foliginem), whose /oll/ is confirmed by Sardinian dialectal developments, but supposed Romance developments of /ull/ (REW 3558.2) are ambiguous (Weiss 2010). V:C—Regularly in MSS (only form recognized by OLD 744); some Romance (REW 3558.1), e.g. It. fuliggine; etymology (DELL 259). VCC variant seems to have existed in very late, but not classical, Latin, but shows other unusual phonological variation. Weiss (2010) suggests contamination between ‘fulligo’, ‘pulligo, ferrugo, pollinem’, and ‘calligo’ (see above), rendering it difficult to ascertain the source of the geminate. Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC within Latin. futtilis : fu: tilis ‘brittle, futile’ VCC—Numerous MSS (OLD 751, Graur 1929: 175–6). V:C—Well-attested in MSS; etymology *gheu- ‘pour’ (cf. fu: tis ‘vase’, fundere ‘pour’, Gk. khû: los, khu: mós ‘sap’, Goth. giutan ‘pour’; EDL 253). Original V:C survived and varied with VCC. Diachronic development possible; synchronic variation possible.

Examination of littera-rule forms

215

ganneo: : ga: neo: ‘glutton’ VCC—Two late MSS only (Graur 1929: 176). V:C—Regularly in MSS (DELL 267 s.v. ga: neum, OLD 754, EDL 254 s.v. ga: neum); Romance (REW 3672 ganeum). Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. garri: re : *ga: ri: re ‘chatter’ VCC—All MSS; derivatives (OLD 754, DELL 267); Romance (REW 3691); borrowings into Greek and Germanic (DELL 267). V:C—Possible etymology PIE *g’eh2r- > *ga: r- (cf. Gk. ge: rúo: ‘speak, cry’; LIV 161, EDL 255). Etymology might be V:C, or simply VC if from PIE *g’ar- or *g’h2r- > *gar-, as seen in many cognates (e.g. OIr. gairid ‘to shout’, Goth. kara). A handful of fourth conjugation denominative verbs are onomatopoeic and contain geminates, e.g. ganni: re, glutti: re, grunni: re, mutti: re (Mignot 1969: 70). V:C > VCC is possible, but original VC might have yielded VCC by onomatopoeic spontaneous gemination. Diachronic development possible. glittus : *gli: tus ‘sticky’ VCC—Only one clear occurrence: Cato Agr. 45.1; glittis in Paul. Fest. p. 98M; Hesychius glítton ‘gum’ (possible based on Lat. form; EDL 267); only form recognized by OLD 766. V:C—Possible etymology *glh1i-to- or *gleh1i-to- (cf. glu: ten ‘glue; paste’ < *gloiten-, cognates Gk. gloiós ‘gum’, glía ‘glue’; EDL 267). No trace of V:C in Latin, but etymology (or similar, DELL 277) generally accepted, although its extreme rarity invites caution. Little support for spontaneous gemination (despite DELL). Diachronic development possible. glutti: re : *glu: ti: re ‘swallow’ VCC—Only form in MSS (from Plautus). V:C—Possible (insecure) etymology if related to gula ‘throat’, but development is difficult to pinpoint. EDL 267, 275 states that the relatedness of glut- to gula cannot be demonstrated, and both might have an onomatopoeic root *gul-/*glu- (no etymology). Possible expressive gemination in a nickname (cf. glutto: ‘glutton’, DELL 278). Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for V:C. gracculus : gra: culus ‘jackdaw’ VCC—Very few late MSS (Graur 1929: 179; DELL 279 has ‘gracc-?’); name Gracchus. V:C—Regularly in MSS (OLD 769, DELL 279, EDL 268); Romance (REW 3830).

216

Appendix

The VCC name arose through spontaneous gemination (nickname). Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. guttur : *gu: tur ‘throat’ VCC—Only form in MSS (Naevius onwards). V:C—Possible (insecure) etymology, but development is difficult to pinpoint (EDL 276) No trace of V:C in Latin, and such an etymology is difficult to reconstruct. EDL 276–7 notes that possible Hittite and Germanic cognates are uncertain, and prefers an onomatopoeic interpretation of guttur (see glutti: re above, also related to the throat). DELL 286 treats it as ‘expressive’. Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for V:C. guttus : gu: tus ‘narrow-necked flask’ VCC—Some MSS, e.g. Var. L. 5.124 (twice); Romance (REW 3931). V:C—More common in MSS (OLD 779); possibly from Sicilian Gk. kô: thos (Biville 1990–95: 1.167–8). V:C original, yielding some variation with VCC, although Weiss (2010) treats the latter as ‘bad spelling’, due to the folk-etymological influence of gutta ‘drop’. Contamination from this and guttur ‘throat’ (which Weiss conversely accepts as due to the littera-rule) is possible, but their geminates are also problematic (EDL 276). Diachronic development possible; synchronic variation possible. Iuppiter : Iu: piter ‘Jupiter’ VCC—Regularly in MSS and inscriptions (earliest CIL 2.172, 37 ad); Romance (REW 4628). V:C—Rare spelling Iupiter (OLD 983) found in some MSS of Plautus, Lucr. 6.401 MS Q, Catul. 64.171, Hor. Epod. 16.63 (γ) (Graur 1929: 182); firm etymology (EDL 315–16): *djeu-pater (cf. Gk. Zeû páter, Skt. dyaúḥ pitá: , Umb. Iupater) > *jou- oblique stem (cf. Osc. dat. Diúveí, Umb. Iuve); cognomina Iovi: nus, Iovia: nus, Iu: lius < *jou-il-. V:C original > VCC, although its etymological history might also suggest expressive spontaneous gemination. The original nominative Die: spiter (Pl. Poen. 739, Var. L. 5.66, 9.75, 9.77, CIL 12.568 dies pater)2 was replaced by vocative *jou- presumably because it was the most commonly used form in prayers and incantations, i.e. expressively (see Appel 1909: 10–13). Diachronic development possible. lammina : la: mina ‘thin sheet, strip; leaf ’ VCC—Well-attested in MSS (OLD 998).

2

Die: m is the old accusative form. Lat. die: s ‘day’ continues the original nominative.

Examination of littera-rule forms

217

V:C—Well-attested in MSS (OLD 998); MHG la: mel borrowed from la: mella, continued in Romance (REW 4866); possible (insecure) etymological connection with *stla: tos > la: tus ‘wide’ (EDL 325). Romance continues either lamina or lamna (no evidence for original V length). Synchronic variation possible. lippus : *li: pus ‘having watery or inflamed eyes’ VCC—Only form in MSS and derivatives (Plautus onwards); Romance: Italian dialect (REW 5075). V:C—Possible etymology PIE *leip- ‘be sticky, fat’ (cf. Gk. lípos ‘fat’; EDL 345). No trace of V:C in Latin, and etymology is uncertain, but possible. Possible spontaneous gemination (physical defect; DELL 362, EDL 345). Diachronic development possible. littera : li: tera ‘letter, character; literature’ VCC—Regularly in inscriptions (e.g. litteras CIL 12.588.10, 78 bc, CIL 12.590.1.3, 70s bc) and MSS (OLD 1036); Romance, e.g. It. lettera, Fr. lettre (REW 5087); Celtic borrowings Ir. liter, W. lythyr (DELL 363); MSS of various derivatives in Latin. V:C—Inscriptional leiteras (CIL 12.583, 34) and literai (CIL 12.595, 6); some MSS: in verse, Pl. Am. 70 (B), Ba. 730 (P), 801 (C D), 941 (D F), 991 (D), Mer. 303 (P), Mo. 126 (C), Ps. 27 (C), 42 (C D), Tri. 915 (C), Tru. 735 (D) and Hor. Epi. 2.2.7 (σ g), Epo. 8.17 (γ λ ψ B); in prose, Caes. B.G. 5.11.2 (M T); possible etymology (see below). VCC is regular from the 1st century bc; earlier V:C is not certain, but the weight of MSS evidence leads OLD, DELL, LEW, and TLL to accept it. Some verse MSS show simple C at the end of heavy syllables (suggesting V:C), but all MSS do not agree for any verse. A likely candidate for V:C is inscriptional leiteras in the Lex Repetundarum, 123–122 bc (CIL 12.583.34): et sei qva tabvlas libros leiterasve. In contrast, the immediately preceding word with a short /i/ is spelt libros. Long /i:/ is often indicated by heii in this long inscription, though not always (conqvaesiverit in the same line). Furthermore, short /i/ is at one point incorrectly spelt heii: seine at l. 54 for sine. The short vowel is otherwise consistently spelt hii. Given the juxtaposition of the short-vowel libros and the generally consistent use of hii and heii, leiteras is probably an intended representation of a long vowel, rather than a mistake as in seine. The Florence Fragment A has literaive (Crawford 1996, inscription 5; CIL 12.595.6). This statute can be dated to before the Social War (91–88 bc), but after the Lex Repetundarum (123–122 bc), the period during which the double writing of geminate consonants became regular, although this inscription contains no orthographic geminates or indeed (other) forms which would have contained a geminate. In the parts of the text available to us, the orthography heii is used only to indicate [ejj] (2 x eivs) and /i:/ (qvei, deica[t], vtei).3 Long /i:/ is 3

heii in sibei would represent a long vowel if iambic shortening had not taken place.

218

Appendix

also represented using simple hii once ([p]etiverit). Otherwise, simple hii only indicates the short vowel. Therefore, the vowel in literaive is more likely to be short. In the Florence Fragment B (Crawford 1996, inscription 6; CIL 12.596), from roughly the same time, we find [ . . . ]terae on l. 13 and li[ . . . ] on l. 14, both of which have been interpreted as literae on the grounds of letter spacing, interpretation, and each other. Long /i:/ is represented using both hii and heii in the inscription, hence we cannot establish vowel length where the former is used. However, l. 14 li[ . . . ] is immediately preceded by pileis, in which /i/ is represented as hii and /i:/ as heii. This inscription also includes an orthographic geminate in the form nvllvs. Crawford (1996: 1.190) chooses not to reconstruct orthographic geminates in our two forms, possibly on the grounds of available letter space. It is therefore unclear what the spellings in this inscription represent. On balance, inscriptional evidence only provides one good example of V:C: leiteras in the Lex Repetundarum. The etymology of the word is difficult to establish. The most likely origin, suggested by connections in form and meaning, is *l(e)iH- (LIV 277–8), the laryngeal root in lino: , -ere, le: vi: , litum ‘smear, daub’, which would have yielded a long V in Latin in either the zero or full grade. Semantic similarities and the use of a nasal infix to form the present tense confirm that this root has cognates: Gk. (rare) limpáno: and alíno: , Skt. lina: ti, OIr. lenaid ‘stay attached’ (the latter two require a laryngeal). Greek also shows a full-grade root in aleípho: ‘anoint, besmear’ (cf. zero-grade lípos ‘grease’).4 Skt. li: yati ‘stick to’ has a long vowel which can be explained by short V + root-final laryngeal. The Latin perfect passive participle litus (short V) is problematic (EDL 346),5 but could be analogical, based on the many perfect participles with the same vowel length as the present tense, e.g. sino: : situs ‘allow’. The remainder of *li: tera would appear to originate in a suffix *-tes- followed by the denominative *-a: suffix, cf. *opes-a: > opera beside opus (Vaniček 1881: 236, accepted by eminent linguists per Deroy 1975: 48 fn. 9). The semantics could have developed from something akin to ‘besmeared’ (the original meaning seems to have been ‘mark’, supporting this connection) to specifically ‘writing’ and ‘letter (in both senses)’. A problem with this reconstruction is that the suffix *-tes- cannot be established for either Latin or Proto-IndoEuropean (note its absence from the list of suffixes in Brugmann and Delbrück 1897–1916: 2.148–574). However, on balance, etymological evidence suggests the root *l(e)iH-, which would yield a V:C form, supported by MSS and some inscriptional evidence.6 Diachronic development probable. littus : li: tus ‘coast, shore’ VCC—Some MSS of mainly republican texts (Graur 1929: 184), and recognized as an inferior variant by OLD 1037, DELL 364. 4 Linere itself never indicates writing (Sandoz 1991: 217). However, the semantic connection of the root with writing in Greek, in one region at any rate, is evident in the Hesychius gloss aleipté: rion; grapheión. Kúprioi ‘ “aleipterion” = pencil; Cyprian’. 5 Schrijver (1991: 19) argues that litus legislates against the reconstruction of a laryngeal-final root. 6 There are other, more unconvincing, etymologies. E.g. (i) Gk. diphthéra via Etruscan (Sandoz 1991; Breyer 1993: 263–5) requires too many leaps of faith (*/pt/ > */ft/ > Lat. /tt/?); (ii) Etruscan *litara (Deroy 1975) is not attested, so must remain tentative (Breyer 1993: 264).

Examination of littera-rule forms

219

V:C—Most MSS and derivatives; etymology (DELL 364, EDL 346); Romance: only Venetian lido (DELL 364). V:C was earlier and regular; VCC was a variant and later. Diachronic development possible; synchronic variation possible. loquella : loque: la ‘utterance, word’ VCC—Some MSS of mainly late texts (Graur 1929: 185). V:C—Most MSS (DELL 366 s.v. loquor only acknowledges this form); Romance: Italian dialects (REW 5122). Regular loque: la was archaic and poetic (DELL 366). Very late VCC (mainly in the glosses) was probably by replacement of the rare suffix -e: la with the much more commonly occurring productive diminutive suffix -ella (see Gradenwitz 1904: 292–3). Not littera-rule: replacement of V:C with VCC suffix. macchina : ma: china ‘machine, platform’ VCC—Very few MSS (Graur 1929: 185); Romance (REW 5205). V:C—Regularly in MSS (only form recognized by OLD 1057, DELL 376). VCC arose very late, possibly as a learned attempt to render a Greek aspirate, after vowel length distinctions had been neutralized. The VCC form does not feature in Biville’s (1990–95: 1.159–78) discussion of Greek voiceless aspirates represented by a voiceless geminate in Latin. Romance forms reflect a geminate or a form with a nasal infix, a common late Latin variation. Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC within Latin. mercenna: rius : merce: na: rius ‘working for pay, hired’ VCC—Numerous MSS (Graur 1929: 188), but the V length is unclear. V:C—Some MSS (Graur 1929: 188); etymology: base form merce: s, -e: dis ‘payment’, and its derivatives merce: da: rius, merce: dimerus, merce: di: nus, merce: dula etc.; OLD 1101 has a long vowel. Etymology *merce: d(i)-na: rius > (syncope and assimilation) merce: nnarius with V:CC, probably the form attested in the geminate occurrences (DELL 400; Lindsay 1894: 118). The V:CC form then degeminated regularly to V:C (OLD 1101). Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. mittere : *mi: tere ‘send’ VCC—All MSS; regularly in inscriptions from republican times; Romance developments, e.g. Fr. mettre and It. mettere. V:C—Etymology PIE *méith2- (LIV 430, EDL 383–4); early archaic inscriptional mitat (CIL 12.4, 12.2658), early mitat (CIL 12.584.31, c.117 bc); dimitere (CIL 12.583.71, 123–122 bc); one MS of Juv. 14.147.

220

Appendix

V:C is reconstructed mainly on etymological grounds and is not clearly attested in Latin. PIE root *méith2- is supported by Lat. perfect mi: si: (cf. ameiservnt in Lex Antonia De Termessibus (Crawford 1996: inscription 19; CIL 12.589), where heii represents /i:/). Gothic bi-smeitan ‘smear, anoint’, OHG mi: dan, and Eng. smite suggest an original diphthong or long V, but all are too distant in meaning to be certain cognates.7 Avestan mae: θ- (which DELL 408 reports Bartholomae as translating simply mittere, expressing the proximity in meaning) might regularly continue *meith2-. Comparative evidence therefore provides some support, though not clear-cut.8 A related verb mita: re is perhaps found in mitat, twice in early archaic Latin (Duenos inscription CIL 12.4, Tibur inscription CIL 12.2658), where double consonants would not be expected, once in early Latin (Sententia Minuciorum CIL 12.584.31), where geminates were written sporadically (mittei l.44). The word does not appear to mean ‘send’, but rather ‘make’ or ‘dedicate’. LIV (430 fn. 7) explains it as a derivative of the same root in the zero-grade, an analogical replacement for an original o-grade: *mith2-éje- > *mitaje- > mita: - (cf. mu: ta: re ‘change’ from o-grade (causative-iterative) of same root). This would be consistent with an original simple consonant. dimitere in the Lex Repetundarum may indicate either a singleton or geminate. In late Latin, the semantic range of mittere was expanded at the expense of po: nere, loca: re, etc., suggesting its popularity in the spoken language. Its register could coincide with that in which we find spontaneous gemination, but the very early appearance of the geminate renders this explanation unlikely. Diachronic development probable. muccus : mu: cus ‘mucus, mould’ VCC—Inscriptional exmvcco (Pompeii CIL 4.1391); some MSS of e.g. Pl. Epid. 494, Mil. 647 and Mos. 1109, and Catul. 23, 17; Romance: from mucca: re, *mucceus, mucco: sus, and muccus (REW 5706–9). V:C—Some MSS (Graur 1929: 189); Romance: from mu: ce: re, mu: cidus and mu: cor (REW 57105712); related mu: gil ‘sticky, slimy thing’; etymology *(s)me/ouk-o-s and possible cognates across IE, e.g. Gk. múxa ‘mucus’ (EDL 392). V:C was probably earlier. Both forms are well-attested and present simultaneously in Latin, and the possible specialization of the meaning of the two provides some motivation: only mu: cus = ‘mucus’, whereas either may mean ‘mould’, a differentiation corroborated by some of the Romance evidence (DELL 417). Possible spontaneous gemination (terms to do with the body); however, that the word is not found in high literature is probably due to its meaning rather than its register. Diachronic development possible; synchronic variation possible.

7 Festus’ (Paul. Fest. 59.5) attribution to the antiqui of cosmittere (for committere ‘bring together’) might be Latin evidence for the initial /s/ in Gothic and English. 8 LIV’s (430) second suggested explanation for VCC posits that the present tense was formed using the zero-grade root and a nasal infix, which underwent progressive assimilation, thus *mit-ne- > *mitte-. However, assimilation in a /tn/ cluster was regressive, as in *at-no-s > annus ‘year’ (alternatively > */nd/; see }3.3.2.1); this combined with the lack of any certain cognate formations allows us to reject the etymology.

Examination of littera-rule forms

221

mu: stella : mu: ste: la ‘weasel; certain fish (burbot)’ VCC—Well-attested in MSS; some Romance (REW 5778); etymology (see below). V:C—Well-attested in MSS; some Romance (REW 5778), e.g. OFr. mostoile (Weiss 2010). Both variants fairly well-attested, but VCC was probably original (Schaffner 2006; EDL 396–7): *mu: s-tre-la: - (diminutive of *mu: s-tra: ) ‘small mouse-like mammal’ developed to mu: stella. V:C arose through confusion of suffixes (see loquella, querella, although reverse development here indicates confusion could go either way). Synchronic variation possible. mutto: : mu: to: ‘penis’ VCC—Some MSS, also of mutto: nium and muttu: nus (Graur 1929: 190); apparent Roman name Mutto (e.g. at Cic. Scaur. 23). V:C—Some MSS; the name of the deity Mu: tu: nus or Mu: ti: nus (OLD 1150-1151; DELL 426); cognates Ir. moth ‘penis’ (DELL 426), Skt. maithunam ‘mating’ (if Lucil. 78 moetino signo (obscure sense) is connected), Hitt. mu: ri- ‘bunch’, mu: wa- ‘awe-inspiring quality’ (EDL 398 with references). V:C was probably earlier (cf. Roman deity symbolizing the union of the sexes in marriage Mu: tu: nus Tutu: nus, corresponding to Ir. moth ‘male member’ + toth ‘female member’). Both forms existed in Latin. Possible spontaneous gemination (body part; possibly nickname), in which case the vowel may have remained long after gemination (EDL 398). Diachronic development possible; synchronic variation possible. muttus : mu: tus ‘speechless, dumb, inarticulate’ VCC—Very few MSS of late texts (Graur 1929: 191); muttós in Hesychius, although this is unlikely to render a Latin form. V:C—Regularly in MSS (only form recognized by OLD 1151, DELL 427, EDL 398); Romance (REW 5798). Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. muttuus : mu: tuus ‘mutual’ VCC—One gloss only (CGL 5.644.27). V:C—Regularly in MSS (the only form recognized by OLD 1151, DELL 426 s.v. mu: to: , EDL 398–9); one Romance continuation (REW 5799). Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. narra: re : *gna: ra: re ‘tell’ VCC—All MSS; Romance (REW 5829); approved by Caper (G.L. 7.96.6).

222

Appendix

V:C—Naro in all MSS of Pl. Vid. 70; OLD 1155 reports variant na: ro: , presumably based on grammarians (Velius Longus G.L. 7.80.9, Cassiodore G.L. 7.159.8, 7.212.4, Victorinus G.L. 6.17.12, Albinus G.L. 7.305.34 quoting Var. L. 6.51); etymology *gna: ra: se, denominative of gna: rus ‘known’ (DELL 278, EDL 267); Umb. naratu (Untermann 2000: 486–7). V:C etymology is supported by Var. L. 6.51, who first connects narro: with na: rum ‘known’, then defines narra: tio: as per quam cognoscimus rem gesta[m] ‘narration’ is ‘through which we get to know an occurrence’ (the approval of numerous grammarians of V:C appears to stem from this opinion). Paul. Fest. 85.1 (‘gnarigavit in Livy signifies narravit, [and] gnarivisse [signifies] narrasse’) suggests *gna(: )riga: re and *gna(: )ri: re (not *gna: ra: re), but still shows a connection with the root. The grammarians’ statements suggest that the original connection did not pass out of memory in learned circles, although we cannot rule out false etymology. Similarly, the carefully written inscription of Claudius (from Lyon, 48 ad) has nárrem, with an apex over the hai possibly indicating a long vowel. [na:rr-] would be highly unusual phonologically (}3.3.1), particularly as no other form in the paradigm had long V (contrast no: lle). Presumably the long vowel of gna: rus was adopted by analogy in hypercorrect learned contexts.9 Diachronic development probable. nassus : na: sus ‘nose’ VCC—Inscriptional attestation of the name nasso at CIL 4.3204; some MSS of republican texts only (Graur 1929: 191, recognized by OLD 1157). V:C—Most MSS; Romance developments (REW 5842) from a simple consonant. The geminate forms were not Vss, but V:ss (DELL 431, e.g. Pl. Mer. 310, Men. 195), confirmed by the failure of rhotacism (cf. na: re: s ‘nostrils’), before classical degemination to V:s (}3.3.1). Na: ssus itself possibly arose through spontaneous gemination (terms to do with the body). EDL 400 alternatively suggests that the non-rhotacized form could have survived from a different social layer. Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. nummus : nu: mus ‘coin’ VCC—Regularly in MSS (DELL 451 recognizes only this form). V:C—Inscriptional evidence (CIL 12.25.13, 14, 2.3664, 6.9706, 9707, 9714); various MSS from Plautus to late Latin (Graur 1929: 192, recognized by OLD 1204); Osc. and Umb. numer (Untermann 2000: 501–2). The evidence suggests that both forms existed in Latin. The Romans believed it to be a Greek borrowing (DELL 451), possibly via Sicily (Var. L. 5.173), although Sicilian Gk. noûmmos (DELL 451) could have been borrowed from Latin. Possibly ultimately related to Gk. nómos, with

9 An alternative etymology *gna: ruro: > (syncope) *(g)na: rro: (with both long V and C) is supported by gna: ruris at Pl. Poen. Prol. 40, Mos. 100. This might have had an original causative sense, which developed to mean simply ‘say’ (DELL 278). However, gna: ruris is itself a highly unusual formation and it is difficult to see how this would have been the basis for a causative verb. Weiss (2010) rejects this etymology, partly on the basis of Sardinian naro, etc. with a singleton, as *gna: ruro: would have given geminates throughout.

Examination of littera-rule forms

223

original meaning ‘regular or statutory unit of currency’ (OLD 1204), but by no means certain and explains neither form. Gk. nómimos ‘legal’ ! *nommos > nummus is very tentative (DELL 451). Synchronic variation possible. omassum : oma: sum ‘tripe’ VCC—MSS of Plin. Nat. 8.180 only; recognized by OLD 1247, DELL 461. V:C—Regularly in MSS. Celtic origin (OLD 1247, DELL 461), possibly resulting in a minor VCC variant through confusion in the borrowing process. Alternatively, geminate forms may be V:ss, which would have survived until classical degemination to V:s (}3.3.1). Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. parret : pa: ret ‘it is clear’ VCC—Attested in MSS (OLD 1299 ‘an incorrect or antiquated form’), notably Petr. 137.9.1.7: iurisconsultus ‘parret, non parret’ habeto ‘let a lawyer have “it is clear, it is not clear” ’; censured by grammarian Fest. p. 233M (see below); glossed by Paul. Fest. p. 221M: parret significat apparebit (see DELL 482); some inscriptions (Weiss 2010) V:C—Inscriptions (CIL 12.582); numerous MSS, including those of early texts (Ennius per DELL 482); regular for other forms of the paradigm; Romance developments (REW 6235) indicate an original simple consonant. VCC only appears as a variant in the specialized impersonal 3rd person singular (separate from the rest of the paradigm which retained V:C), probably in a legal register. V:C is regular elsewhere, but has no clear etymology (EDL 445 has *pa: s-e: -). Festus crucially confirms an ‘incorrect’ VCC pronunciation for ‘correct’ V:C: parret quod est in formulis debuit et producta priore syllaba pronuntiari, et non gemino r scribi, ut fieret paret, quod est invenitur; ut comparet, apparet. Possible expressive spontaneous gemination if its restriction to one part of the paradigm indicates that it was emphatic. Diachronic development possible; synchronic variation possible. parrici: da : pa: rici: da ‘murderer of a near relation/parent’ VCC—Inscriptional parricidiales (CIL 3.427, c.200 ad) (Sommer and Pfister 1977: 156); numerous MSS (lemma in OLD 1299); possible etymology. V:C—Some MSS, with numerous examples from Sallust in the republican era (Graur 1929: 194), and notably paricidas (nom. sg.) at Font. Iur. p. 10; most common etymology *pa: sokaida: (LEW 2.253, cf. Doric Gk. pa: ós, Attic-Ionic pe: ós ‘relative’) > *pa: riki: da. VCC is far better attested, although paricidas in an old legal text might indicate a V:C variant (V length unclear). Weiss (2010) rejects V:C on the basis that there is no clear etymology, and the singleton forms are simply early so did not write the double consonant. Etymology *pa: sokaida: suggests V:C and satisfactorily explains the various meanings (‘killer of a parent/father/

224

Appendix

relative’). EDL 447–8 prefers a connection with pa: r ‘equal’, also yielding V:C, an origin found in the glosses (DELL 483: qui homines occidit pares natura).10 An alternative etymology yields VCC (DELL 483 cites Wackernagel): *parso-kaida: ‘killer of a man’ (cf. Gk. andro-phónos, middle Indic posa-, purisa-, purus ̣a-, which suppose Skt. *purs ̣a- ‘man’) > parrici: da (cf. ferre ‘to bear’ < *ferse). However, V:C etymologies enjoy more support. Diachronic development possible; synchronic variation possible. pellex : pe: lex ‘mistress’ VCC—Inscriptional evidence (CIL 9.5771); some agreement in MSS of Cic. Clu. 199, Or. 108, and late texts (Graur 1929: 195); possible connection with Gk. pállax, pallakís, pallaké: , whose origins are uncertain (OLD 1281, DELL 474). V:C—Some MSS where the reading is established e.g. Curt. 3.8.24, 5.7.2 and Paul. Fest. p. 222M (OLD 1281); original paelex (DELL 474, EDL 439). Paelex is the older form, with a variant pe: lex. VCC probably arose by analogy on pellis ‘skin’ (cf. scortum ‘skin; prostitute’), or pellicere ‘seduce’ < *per-lak-. Not littera-rule: VCC by analogy. pilleus/m : pi: leus/m ‘felt cap (mark of manumission)’ VCC—Best attested by MSS (DELL 506); derivatives pillea: tus and pilleolus (OLD 1379); Romance developments from pilleum (REW 6504). V:C—Some MSS of both republican and imperial texts (Graur 1929: 196); likely connection with Gk. pîlos ‘felt (cap)’. Both variants attested. Unclear etymology, but probably a borrowing (possibly Gk., possibly via Etruscan), indicated by uncertain gender, and -eus termination (in several words of unclear origin: balteus, clipeus, puteus; DELL 506). Various confusions therefore arose in the borrowing process. Spontaneous gemination possible on the basis of its occurrence in similar clipeus ‘shield’, attested by MSS (Graur 1929: 167), the place name Clippea (Caes. Civ. 2.23.2) and Romance continuations (for the name of a fish). Synchronic variation possible. pittui: ta : pi: tui: ta ‘mucus, discharge, resin’ VCC—One gloss (CGL 4.143.32). V:C—Regularly in MSS (only form recognized by OLD 1384, DELL 510, EDL 468). Romance (REW 6549) indicates simple VC pitui: ta (not directly continued) > *pipi: ta e.g. It. pipita, Log. pibita, Fr. pépie. Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC.

10 The Romans associated the word with pater ‘father’ (DELL 483, gloss ‘patroktónos’, qui patrem occidit sive matricida), which would be difficult phonologically, and with pare: ns ‘parent’ (e.g. Cic. S. Rosc. 25.70, Mil. 7.17).

Examination of littera-rule forms

225

pullus : *pu: lus ‘chicken; foal’ VCC—All MSS (only form recognized by OLD 1518, DELL 544); Romance (REW 6828); etymologies *putslos > pullus (e.g. Sommer and Pfister 1977: 187), or *put-los > pullus (Nyman 1982; 1984; see Chapter 6). V:C—Uncertain connection with Gk. pôlos ‘foal’; possible etymology. No evidence for V:C in Latin, and the connection with Gk. is not certain. Most common etymology *putslos (cf. diminutive pusillus) is claimed to give /ll/ regularly, although we alternatively might expect *putslos > *pusslos (cf. *quat-sos > quassus ‘shaken’) > *puslos > *pu: lus with compensatory lengthening. Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for V:C. puppa : pu: pa ‘little girl; doll’ VCC—Inscriptional evidence (CIL 10.4315); MSS of Mart. 4.20.1, 2 only; some Romance (REW 6854). V:C—Inscriptional evidence (CIL 4.4353, 4.6842, 6.2254); most MSS (OLD 1521, EDL 500 only acknowledge this form); derivatives pu: pula, pu: pilla, pu: pilla: ris, etc. (DELL 546); some Romance (REW 6852, 6853a, 6856). Both forms attested and continued into Romance, but VCC is possibly by spontaneous expressive gemination (infant language, names for relatives). V:C was original. Diachronic development possible; synchronic variation possible. querella : quere: la ‘complaint’ VCC—Inscriptional qverellam (CIL 6.10284.8), qvaerella (CIL 9.6290); well-attested in MSS of Plautus onwards (Graur 1929: 200; OLD 1546–7). V:C—Well-attested in MSS probably as the older form (DELL 555). As with loquella : loque: la above, best explanation for VCC is suffixal replacement. Not littera-rule: replacement of V:C with VCC suffix. ruffus : ru: fus ‘red(-haired)’ VCC—Seven inscriptional occurrences; five MSS of Catul. 69.2 (as a name) (Graur 1929: 201); otherwise, very few MSS (of late texts) (Graur 1929: 200–201). V:C—Regularly in MSS (only form recognized by OLD 1666, DELL 579, EDL 528); Romance (REW 7425). Only good evidence for VCC is as a name, where best explanation is spontaneous gemination. Not littera-rule: VCC by spontaneous gemination.

226

Appendix

ruppe: s : ru: pe: s ‘rock, cliff ’ VCC—One MSS of Verg. A. 5.180. V:C—Regularly in MSS (only form recognized by OLD 1669, DELL 581 s.v. rumpo: , EDL 530 s.v. rumpo: ); Romance (REW 7451). Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. siccus : *si: kus ‘dry’ VCC—Only form in MSS and derivatives (Cato onwards); Romance (REW 7898); possible (insecure) etymology *sikw-ko-s (cf. *seikw- ‘pour’) ‘defective regarding water’ (DELL 623). V:C—Possible (insecure) etymology *seik- ‘dry’. No trace of V:C in Latin; very uncertain etymology: EDL 562 has *siskwo-?, acknowledging difficulties, and rejects ‘semantically cumbersome, and morphologically unusual’ *sikw-ko-. Weiss (2010) reports and rejects the root *seik- (scant evidence). Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for V:C. stellio: : ste: lio: ‘lizard; deceitful person’ VCC—Well-attested in MSS (Graur 1929: 205); derivatives (e.g. stellionatus). V:C—Inscriptional evidence (CIL 4.2448); numerous MSS of texts from Vergil onwards (Graur 1929: 205). Etymology *h2ste: r-la: (cf. Gk. asté: r, Skt. ta: rah, OEng. steorra) > ste: lla ‘star’ with V:ll, which survived into classical Latin (OLD 1817, DELL 646, EDL 585; cf. star shape on back of certain types of lizard). Degemination in V:ll occurred earlier before /i/ (}3.3.1), but ste: llio: possibly survived longer by analogy on more common ste: lla. Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. stippa: re : sti: pa: re ‘crowd, cram’ VCC—One inscription (CIL 6.1649); very few MSS, Isidore only (Graur 1929: 206). V:C—Regularly in inscriptions and MSS (only form recognized by OLD 1821, DELL 650, EDL 588); Romance (REW 8263). Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. stlatta : stla: ta ‘large cargo-boat, barge’ VCC—Inscriptional stlattis (CIL 8.27790); most MSS, though rare (Graur 1929: 206, OLD 1823, DELL 651); possible cognates OIr. slat ‘rod, lath’, W. llath < *stlatta: (Weiss 2010 with references). V:C—Very few MSS (Graur 1929: 206), a few MSS of stlatarius alongside stlattarius; possible etymology from la: tus ‘wide’ (cf. OCS st’lati ‘spread out’; EDL 329–30 s.v. la: tus); Paul. Fest. p. 312M: stlatta genus navigii latum magis quam altum, et a latitudine sic appellatum, sed a

Examination of littera-rule forms

227

consuetudine qua stlocum pro locum et stlitem pro litem dicebant ‘ “stlatta” is a type of boat which is wider than it is tall, and is called thus due to its width, but through habit they used to say “stlatta”, like stlocum for locum and stlitem for litem’. V:C might not be real, and even if so, was presumably by a false association with la: tus. Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for V:C. strenna : stre: na ‘auspicious sign; New Year’s gift’ VCC—Possible Romance evidence (DELL 655). V:C—Inscriptional evidence (CIL 15.6265); some MSS (only form recognized by EDL 591, OLD 1826–7 alongside stre: nua); censured by Consentius (DELL 655 s.v. stre: nua); Romance (REW 8296, but forms can be from stre: na or strenna per DELL 655); possible etymology *stregsno(EDL 591). Per Weiss (2010), all direct Romance forms from V:C; It. strenna possible from *strenwa, Fr. étrenne replaces OFr. estreine. Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. succi: dia : su: ci: dia ‘joint of pork’ VCC—Some MSS (Graur 1929: 207, OLD 1857); possible etymology *sub-kaid-. V:C—Very few MSS, but unclear V length (DELL 670); possible etymology *su: s ‘pig’ + *kaid‘cut’ (EDL 603). Oblique stem of ‘pig’ su- (short V) found in compounds (e.g. subulcus ‘swineherd’; EDL 603), so form was probably suci: dia. VCC probably by false composition (*sub-kaid-). Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for V:C. succus : su: cus ‘juice, sap’ VCC—Inscriptional svccos (CIL 3.188), late per Sommer and Pfister (1977: 156); numerous late MSS (Graur 1929: 207; DELL 662); Romance: Fr. souche (DELL 662). V:C—Most MSS and derivatives (OLD 1859, only form in EDL 596); Romance (REW 8419, 8414a, 8418a); borrowing into Celtic (DELL 662); possible (insecure) etymology *souko- (cf. su: gere ‘suck’; possible cognates Ir., Brit. súg, OHG su: gan, Latv. su: zu, su: kt; EDL 596, DELL 596). VCC is common and well-attested in the later period; V:C is early and classical. Unclear etymology, as possible cognates might be borrowings from Latin (DELL 662). Gk. opós < *sokwos ‘juice’, Slavic sokŭ may be connected, but the phonology is difficult. Diachronic development possible; synchronic variation possible. suggilla: re : su: gilla: re ‘bruise, insult’ VCC—Some MSS, e.g. Plin. Nat. 20.55 (DELL 664, OLD 1863); possible etymology *sub-gilla: re (suggested by MSS of derivative subgilla: tio: alongside suggilla: tio: and sugilla: tio: ). V:C—Some MSS; etymology if related to su: gere ‘suck’ (OLD 1863, EDL 598).

228

Appendix

Both variants attested, and unclear which is original (possible etymologies for either). Other verbs in -illo: show a prefix before the root (e.g. scri: bo: : co: nscri: billo: , stringo: : obstringillo: ), hence the geminate suggests prefix sub- to some verbal root, lost to us through syncope (possibly subigere ‘impel, tame, conquer’ given the semantics), giving VCC, which yielded a V:C variant. However, V:C is the more commonly accepted etymology, and the most likely explanation for VCC is false composition (prefix sub-). Synchronic variation possible. suppus : *su: pus ‘lying on one’s back, upside down’ VCC—Only form in MSS (Lucilius onwards); derivative suppa: re ‘turn on their back’. V:C—Possible etymology *soupos (internal derivative of *sup ‘below, downwards’), with cognates Umb. sopa, supa, etc. ‘part of the sacrificed animal, guts’ (Weiss 2009: 144; EDL 601–2). No trace of V:C in Latin, but etymology is possible. Expressive gemination (DELL 669) is unsupported. Diachronic development possible. tallus : ta: lus ‘ankle or knuckle bone’ VCC—Very few MSS of late texts. V:C—Regularly in MSS (only form recognized by OLD 1902, DELL 675, EDL 605–6); Romance (REW 8544 s.v. *talo, -o: ne). Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. *tottus : to: tus ‘whole, all’ VCC—Consentius (discussion on barbarismi, whereby a ‘letter’ is added): tottum pro toto (G.L. 5.391–2). V:C—All inscriptions and MSS; Romance: Sp., Port. todo (REW 8815). No firm evidence for VCC. Romance provides evidence for V:CC (REW 8815), probably the form censured by Consentius. This probably arose through late expressive gemination when contrastive V length had been lost, resulting in the quality of the formerly long V, without its quantity: to: tum > *totO(m) ! *tottO.11 Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. Varro: : va: rus ‘Varro (a Roman cognomen)’ : ‘bent outwards, bow-legged’ VCC—All MSS where the cognomen is intended.

*to: -to: tus with expressive reduplication > to: ttus (cf. ma: tu: ti: nus ‘in the morning’ > Romance *mattinus) (REW 8815; Juret 1921: 155) is unconvincing due to an unattested intermediate form and an unparalleled reduplication. 11

Examination of littera-rule forms

229

V:C—All MSS where the adjective is intended; in early texts (OLD 2013); etymology (EDL 655). Spontaneous gemination in names is the best explanation. The name either derived from V:C va: rus ‘bow-legged’ or VC varus ‘pimple’, both with plausible semantics. Short V in the latter is not certain, but perhaps corroborated by varius with original meaning ‘having two or more contrasting colours especially regarding the skin of humans or animals’ (OLD 2013, DELL 713). Va: rus was also a cognomen/name of a river (OLD 2013), but did not geminate, possibly because it was not a popular, expressive name, unlike Varro, whose suffix *-o: n- is characteristic of popular, expressive language (Graur 1929: 89). Not littera-rule: VCC by spontaneous gemination. vassis : va: sis ‘vessel, receptacle (genitive)’ VCC—Very few MSS (Graur 1929: 213). V:C—Regularly in MSS (only form recognized by OLD 2014, DELL 714, EDL 655). Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. vellum : ve: lum ‘sail; drape’ VCC—Very few MSS (Graur 1929: 213). V:C—Regularly in MSS (only form recognized by OLD 2024, DELL 718–19, EDL 660); Romance (REW 9183–4). Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. verbenna : verbe: na ‘leafy branch or twig from aromatic tree’ VCC—One gloss (Graur 1929: 214). V:C—Regularly in MSS and derivatives (only form recognized by OLD 2033, DELL 722, EDL 664 s.v. verbera); Romance (REW 9219). Not littera-rule: insufficient evidence for VCC. vessi: ca : ve: si: ca ‘bladder; bulb’ VCC—Numerous MSS of Plautus onwards (Graur 1929: 214), and only reading in some instances (recognized by OLD 2047, DELL 728); Romance (REW 9276 and 9277–8). V:C—Inscriptional evidence (CIL 10.8249.11); most MSS; only form recognized by EDL 669 (alongside ve: nsi: ca). Both variants existed in Latin, with V:C more common, and VCC perhaps later (into Romance), although Plautine MSS suggest an early existence. Spontaneous gemination (terms to do with the body) is likely, particularly as the word was also a slang term for ‘vagina’ (OLD 2047). Diachronic development possible; synchronic variation possible.

230

Appendix

vitta : *vi: ta ‘linen headband; woollen band’ VCC—Only form in MSS (Plautus onwards); Romance (REW 9404). V:C—Possible etymology *viH-ta: (old part. of vie: re ‘plait, weave’, cf. Skt. vyáyati, part. vi: tá-) (EDL 669, DELL 742). No trace of V:C in Latin, but etymology generally accepted. Little support for spontaneous gemination in a religious technical term (as suggested by DELL 742). Diachronic development probable.

References See also ‘Note on website’ on p. xi. Allen, W. S. (1973). Accent and rhythm: prosodic features of Latin and Greek. A study in theory and reconstruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Allen, W. S. (1978). Vox Latina: a guide to the pronunciation of classical Latin, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Andrade, A. (1999). On /l/ velarization in European Portuguese. In J. J. Ohala, Y. Hasegawa, M. Ohala, D. Granville, and A. C. Bailey (eds), Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 1999. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley, 1.543–6. Appel, G. (1909). De Romanorum Precationibus. Giessen: Toepelmann. Bagley, W. C. (1900). The apperception of the spoken sentence: a study in the psychology of language. American Journal of Psychology 12(1): 80–130. Beckman, J. N. (1997). Positional faithfulness, positional neutralisation and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology 14: 1–46. Beckman, J. N. (1999). Positional faithfulness: an Optimality Theoretic treatment of phonological asymmetries. New York: Garland. Benediktsson, H. (1960). The vowel syncope in Oscan-Umbrian. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 19: 157–295. Bermúdez-Otero, R. (2006). Phonological change in Optimality Theory. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Elsevier, 497–505. Bermúdez-Otero, R. (2007). Diachronic phonology. In P. V. de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 497–517. Bermúdez-Otero, R. (forthcoming). Stratal Optimality Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bernardi Perini, G. (1974). Due problemi di fonetica latina, I: Muta cum liquida; II: S finale. Rome: Ateneo. Biville, F. (1990–95). Les emprunts du latin au grec: approche phonétique. Louvain: Peeters. Blevins, J. (1993). Klamath laryngeal phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 59(3): 237–79. Blevins, J. (1995). The syllable in phonological theory. In J. A. Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 206–44. Blevins, J. (2003). The independent nature of phonotactic constraints: an alternative to syllablebased approaches. In C. Féry and R. F. van de Vijver (eds), The syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 375–403. Blevins, J. (2004). Evolutionary phonology: the emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blevins, J. (2008). Natural and unnatural sound patterns: a pocket field guide. In K. Willems and L. De Cuypere (eds), Naturalness and iconicity in language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 121–48.

232

References

Breyer, G. (1993). Etruskisches Sprachgut im Lateinischen unter Ausschluss des spezifisch onomastischen Bereiches. Leuven: Peeters. Browman, C. P., and Goldstein, L. (1989). Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology 6(2): 201–51. Browman, C. P., and Goldstein, L. (1990). Tiers in articulatory phonology, with some implications for casual speech. In J. Kingston and M. E. Beckman (eds), Between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 341–76. Brugmann, K., and Delbrück, B. (1897–1916). Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen: kurzgefasste Darstellung der Geschichte des Altindischen, Altiranischen (Avestischen u. Altpersischen), Altarmenischen, Altgriechischen, Albanesischen, Lateinischen, Oskisch-Umrischen, Altirischen, Gotischen, Althochdeutchen, Litauischen und Altkirchenslavischen, 2nd edn. Strassburg: Trübner. Bybee, J. (2002). Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14: 261–90. Campbell, N. (1999). A study of Japanese speech timing from the syllable perspective. Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan 3(2): 29–39. Carnoy, A. J. (1917). The reduplication of consonants in Vulgar Latin. Modern Philology 15(3): 159–80. Carter, P. G. (2003). Extrinsic phonetic interpretation: spectral variation in English liquids. In J. K. Local, R. A. Ogden, and R. A. Temple (eds), Phonetic interpretation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 237–52. Carter, P. G., and Local, J. K. (2007). F2 variation in Newcastle and Leeds English liquid systems. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 37(2): 183–99. Chen, M. Y., and Wang, W. S. (1975). Sound change: actuation and implementation. Language 51(2): 255–81. Cholin, J., Levelt, W. J. M., and Schiller, N. O. (2006). Effects of syllable frequency in speech production. Cognition 99(2): 205–35. Chung, S. (1983). Transderivational relationships in Chamorro phonology. Language 59(1): 35–66. CIL = (1862–). Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin: Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften apud G. Reimerum. Clackson, J. (2006). Voiced aspirates in Latin. Review of J. Stuart-Smith, Phonetics and philology: sound change in Italic. Classical Review, n.s. 56(1): 144–5. Clackson, J., and Horrocks, G. C. (2007). The Blackwell history of the Latin language. Oxford: Blackwell. Clements, G. N. (1986). Compensatory lengthening and consonant gemination in LuGanda. In L. Wetzels and E. Sezer (eds), Studies in compensatory lengthening. Dordrecht: Foris, 37–77. Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In J. Kingston and M. E. Beckman (eds), Between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 283–333. Clements, G. N., and Keyser, S. J. (1983). CV phonology: a generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Cole, R. A., and Cooper, W. E. (1975). Perception of voicing in English affricates and fricatives. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 58(6): 1280–87.

References

233

Collinge, N. E. (1985). The laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Colonna, G. (1980). L’aspetto epigrafico. In C. M. Stibbe (ed.), Lapis Satricanus: archaeological, epigraphical, linguistic, and historical aspects of the new inscription from Satricum. ’s-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij, 41–69. Corssen, W. P. (1858–9). Über Aussprache, Vokalismus und Betonung der lateinischen Sprache. Leipzig: Teubner. Cravens, T. D. (2002). Comparative Historical Dialectology: Italo-Romance clues to IberoRomance sound change. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Crawford, M. H. (1974). Roman republican coinage. London: Cambridge University Press. Crawford, M. H. (1996). Roman statutes. London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London. Cruttenden, A. (2001). Gimson’s pronunciation of English, 6th edn. London: Arnold. Cser, A. (2001). Diphthongs in the syllable structure of Latin. Glotta 75: 172–93. Cser, A. (2011). The floating C-Place node in Latin. Journal of Linguistics 47(1): 65–85. Cser, A. (2012). The role of sonority in the phonology of Latin. In S. Parker (ed.), The sonority controversy. Berlin: de Gruyter, 39–63. de Brosches, C. (1765). Traité de la formation mécanique de langues, et de principes physiques de l’étymologie. Paris: Chez Saillant, Vincent, Desaint. de Chene, B., and Anderson, S. R. (1979). Compensatory lengthening. Language 55(3): 505–35. de Lamberterie, C. (1990). Les adjectifs grecs en -υς: sémantique et comparaison. Louvainla-Neuve: Peeters. Delattre, P. (1966). A comparison of syllable length conditioning among languages. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 4: 183–98. DELL = A. Ernout, A. Meillet, and J. André (1985). Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine: histoire des mots, 4th edn. Paris: Klincksieck. de Melo, W. D. C. (2007). The Early Latin verb system: archaic forms in Plautus, Terence, and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Deroy, L. (1975). ‘Lettre’ et ‘litre’: deux mots d’origine étrusque. Études classiques 153: 45–58. de Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. Devine, A. M., and Stephens, L. D. (1977). Two studies in Latin phonology. Saratoga, Calif.: Anma Libri. Dunkel, G. (1979). Reciprocus und Verwandtes. Indogermanische Forschungen 84: 184–95. EDL = de Vaan, Michiel Arnoud Cor (2008). Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages. Leiden: Brill. Flobert, P. (1990). Le témoignage épigraphique des apices et des I longae sur les quantités vocaliques en latin impérial. In G. Calboli (ed.), Latin vulgaire, latin tardif, II: Actes du IIème Colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Bologne, 29 août–2 septembre 1988. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 101–10. Fudge, E. C. (1969). Syllables. Journal of Linguistics 5: 253–87. Giannelli, L., and Cravens, T. D. (1997). Consonantal weakening. In Martin Maiden and Mair Parry (eds), The dialects of Italy. London: Routledge, 32–40. Giannini, S., and Marotta, G. (1989). Fra grammatica e pragmatica: la geminazione consonantica in latino. Pisa: Giardini editori e stampatori in Pisa. Goldberg, S. M. (2006). Ennius after the banquet. Arethusa 39(3): 427–47.

234

References

Goldsmith, J. A. (1990). Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell. Gradenwitz, O. (1904). Laterculi Vocum Latinarum: voces Latinas et a fronte et a tergo ordinandas. Leipzig: Hirzel. Graur, A. (1929). Les consonnes géminées en latin. Paris: Champion. Greenberg, J. H. (1965). Some generalizations concerning initial and final consonant sequences. Linguistics 18: 5–34. Habinek, T. N. (2005). The world of Roman song: from ritualized speech to social order. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hall, T. A. (2006). Neutralization. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier, 605–6. Han, M. S. (1994). Acoustic manifestations of mora timing in Japanese. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96(1): 73–82. Hannahs, S. J. (2013). The phonology of Welsh. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hansen, B. B. (2004). Production of Persian geminate stops: effects of varying speaking rate. In A. Agwuele, W. Warren, and S. Park (eds), Proceedings of the 2003 Texas Linguistics Society Conference. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 86–95. Hawkins, J. A., and Cutler, A. (1988). Psycholinguistic factors in morphological asymmetry. In J. A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining language universals. Oxford: Blackwell, 280–317. Hayes, B. (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 253–306. Hayes, B., and Steriade, D. (2004). Introduction: the phonetic bases of phonological markedness. In B. Hayes, R. M. Kirchner, and D. Steriade (eds), Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–33. Heid, S., and Hawkins, S. (2002). An acoustical study of long domain /r/ and /l/ coarticulation. In P. Hoole, M. Honda, and C. Mooshammer (eds), Proceedings of the 5th Seminar on Speech Production: ‘Models and data’, 1st–4th May 2000, Kloster Seeon, Germany. London: Elsevier Science, 77–80. Henderson, E. J. A. (1948). Notes on the syllable structure of Lushai. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 12: 713–25. Hermann, E. (1919). Eine Charakteristik des lateinischen Lautsystems. Nachrichten von der Königliche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-Historische Klasse 3: 229–86. Hock, H. H. (1986). Compensatory lengthening: in defense of the concept ‘mora’. Folia Linguistica 20: 431–60. Hockett, C. F. (1947). Componential analysis of Sierra Popoluca. International Journal of American Linguistics 13(4): 258–67. Hoenigswald, H. M. (1992). Silbengrenze und Vokalschwächung im Lateinischen. In O. Panagl and T. Krisch (eds), Latein und Indogermanisch: Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Salzburg, 23–26 September 1986. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 81–5. Holt, E. D. (1997). The role of the listener in the historical phonology of Spanish and Portuguese: an Optimality-Theoretic account. Ph.D. dissertation, University of South Carolina.

References

235

Honeybone, P., and Salmons, J. C. (2014). The Oxford handbook of historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hooper, J. B. (1972). The syllable in phonological theory. Language 48(3): 525–40. Hooper, J. B. (1976). Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In W. M. Christie (ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics: proceedings of the Second International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Tucson, Ariz., 12–16 January 1976. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 95–105. Hornblower, S., Spawforth, A., and Eidinow, E. (eds) (2012). The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huemer, J. (1886). Virgilii Maronis Grammatici Opera. Leipzig: Teubner. Hura, S. L., Lindblom, B., and Diehl, R. L. (1958). On the role of perception in shaping phonological assimilation rules. Language and Speech 35: 59–72. Hyman, L. M. (1985). A theory of phonological weight. Dordrecht: Foris. Idemaru, K., and Guion, S. G. (2008). Acoustic covariants of length contrast in Japanese stops. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 38(2): 167–86. Inkelas, S., and Orgun, C. O. (1995). Level ordering and economy in the lexical phonology of Turkish. Language 71(4): 763–93. IntraText Digital Library (2009). www.intratext.com. Isebaert, L. (1992). Spuren akrostatischer Präsensflexion im Lateinischen. In O. Panagl and T. Krisch (eds), Latein und Indogermanisch: Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Salzburg, 23–26 September 1986. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 193–205. Ito, J. (1986). Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Ito, J. (1989). A prosodic theory of epenthesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7(2): 217–59. Jakobson, R., Fant, C. G. M., and Halle, M. (1952). Preliminaries to speech analysis: the distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, Mass.: Acoustics Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Jannedy, S. (1995). Gestural phasing as an explanation for vowel devoicing in Turkish. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 45: 56–84. Jespersen, O. (1904). Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig; Berlin: Teubner. Jun, J. (1995). Perceptual and articulatory factors in place assimilation: an Optimality Theoretic approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Jun, J. (2004). Place assimilation. In B. Hayes, R. M. Kirchner and D. Steriade (eds), Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 58–86. Juret, É. A. (1921). Manuel de phonétique latine. Paris: Hachette. Juret, É. A. (1938). La phonétique latine, 2nd edn. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Kavitskaya, D. (2002). Compensatory lengthening: phonetics, phonology, diachrony. New York: Routledge. Kawahara, S. (2006). A faithfulness ranking projected from a perceptibility scale: the case of [+voice] in Japanese. Language 82(3): 536–74. Kaye, J., Lowenstamm, J., and Vergnaud, J. (1985). The internal structure of phonological elements: a theory of charm and government. Phonology Yearbook 2: 305–28.

236

References

Keating, P. A. (1985). Universal phonetics and the organization of grammars. In V. A. Fromkin (ed.), Phonetic linguistics: essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged. London: Academic Press, 115–32. Keating, P. A. (1988). Underspecification in phonetics. Phonology 5(2): 275–92. Kelly, J., and Local, J. (1989). Doing phonology: observing, recording, interpreting. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Kim, Y. (2002). Phonological features: privative or equipollent? BA dissertation, Harvard University. Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In H. van der Hulst and N. Smith (eds), The structure of phonological representations, pt 1. Dordrecht: Foris, 131–75. Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2: 85–138. Kiparsky, P. (1995). The phonological basis of sound change. In J. A. Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 640–70. Kiparsky, P. (2006). The Amphichronic Program vs. Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32(2): 217–36. Kiparsky, P. (2008). Universals constrain change; change results in typological generalizations. In J. Good (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 23–53. Klingenschmitt, G. (1992). Die lateinische Nominalflexion. In O. Panagl and T. Krisch (eds), Latein und Indogermanisch: Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Salzburg, 23–26 September 1986. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 89–135. Kohler, K. J. (1990). Segmental reduction in connected speech in German: phonological facts and phonetic explanation. In W. J. Hardcastle and A. Marchal (eds), Speech production and speech modelling. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 69–92. Kopkallı-Yavuz, H. (2003). Interaction between syllable structure and vowel length: example from Turkish /a/. In A. S. Özsoy, D. Akar, M. Nakipoğlu-Demiralp, E. E. Erguvanlı-Taylan, and A. Aksu-Koç (eds), Studies in Turkish linguistics: proceedings of the Tenth International Conference in Turkish Linguistics, August 16–18, 2000. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press, 19–27. Ladefoged, P., and Maddieson, I. (1996). The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell. Lass, R. (1993). How real(ist) are reconstructions? In C. Jones (ed.), Historical linguistics: problems and perspectives. London: Longman, 156–89. Lehiste, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Lehmann, C. (2005). Latin syllable structure in typological perspective. In G. Calboli (ed.), Latina Lingua! Proceedings of the Twelfth International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics (Bologna, 9–14 June 2003). Rome: Herder, 127–47. Lehtonen, J. (1970). Aspects of quantity in standard Finnish. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University Press. Leumann, M. (1917). Die lateinischen Adjektiva auf -lis. Strassburg: Trübner. Leumann, M. (1977). Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. Munich: Beck. Levin, J. (1985). A metrical theory of syllabicity. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

References

237

LEW = A. Walde and J. B. Hofmann (1938–56). Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 3rd edn. Heidelberg: Winter. Lindau, M. (1985). The story of /r/. In V. A. Fromkin (ed.), Phonetic linguistics: essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged. London: Academic Press, 157–68. Lindsay, W. M. (1894). The Latin language: an historical account of Latin sounds, stems, and flexions. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lindsay, W. M. (1900). The Captivi of Plautus, 2nd edn. London: Methuen. LIV = H. Rix and M. Kümmel (2001). Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen, 2nd edn. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Lloyd, P. M. (1987). From Latin to Spanish, vol. 1: Historical phonology and morphology of the Spanish language. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Lombardi, L. (1995). Laryngeal neutralization and syllable wellformedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13(1): 39–74. Lombardi, L. (2001). Why place and voice are different: constraint-specific alternations in Optimality Theory. In L. Lombardi (ed.), Segmental phonology in Optimality Theory: constraints and representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 13–45. Lowenstamm, J., and Kaye, J. (1986). Compensatory lengthening in Tiberian Hebrew. In L. Wetzels and E. Sezer (eds), Studies in compensatory lengthening. Dordrecht: Foris, 97–132. LSJ = H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. S. Jones (1996). A Greek–English lexicon, 9th edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Maddieson, I. (1985). Phonetic cues to syllabification. In V. A. Fromkin (ed.), Phonetic Linguistics: essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged. London: Academic Press, 203–22. Maiden, M. (1995). A linguistic history of Italian. London: Longman. Maniet, A. (1975). La phonétique historique du latin dans le cadre des langues indo-européennes, 5th edn. Paris: Klincksieck. Marotta, G. (1999). The Latin syllable. In H. van der Hulst and N. A. Ritter (eds), The syllable: views and facts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 285–310. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., and Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition 8(1): 1–71. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., and Welsh, A. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology 10(1): 29–63. McCarthy, J. J. (1985). Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. New York: Garland. McCarthy, J. J., and Prince, A. (1993). Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 79–153. Meillet, A. (1948). Esquisse d’une histoire de la langue latine, 5th edn. Paris: Hachette. Meiser, G. (1986). Lautgeschichte der umbrischen Sprache. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Meiser, G. (1998). Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Mester, R. A. (1994). The quantitative trochee in Latin. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 1–61. Mignot, X. (1969). Les verbes dénominatifs latins. Paris: Klincksieck. Moreton, E. (2004). Realization of the English postvocalic [voice] contrast in F1 and F2. Journal of Phonetics 32(1): 1–33.

238

References

Niedermann, M. (1997[1906]). Précis de phonétique historique du latin, 5th edn. Paris: Klincksieck. Nielsen, B. (2004). On Latin instrument-nouns in */-lo-/. In J. Clackson and B. A. Olsen (eds), Indo-European word formation: proceedings of the conference held at the University of Copenhagen, October 20th–22nd 2000. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 189–213. Nyman, M. (1982). Positing a lautgesetz: Latin capillus, pullus and kindred issues. Folia Linguistica Historica 3(1): 87–108. Nyman, M. (1984). On evaluation, causation and validation: pre-Latin *-tl-. Folia Linguistica Historica 5(1): 185–91. Odden, D. A. (2005). Introducing phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ohala, J. J. (1992). What’s cognitive, what’s not, in sound change. In G. Kellermann and M. D. Morrissey (eds), Diachrony within synchrony: language history and cognition. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 309–55. Ohala, J. J., and Kawasaki-Fukumori, H. (1997). Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. In S. Eliasson and E. H. Jahr (eds), Language and its ecology: essays in memory of Einar Haugen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 343–66. Ohala, J. J., and Ohala, M. (1993). The phonetics of nasal phonology: theorems and data. In M. K. Huffman and R. A. Krakow (eds), Nasals, nasalization, and the velum. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press, 225–49. OLD = P. G. W. Glare (ed.) (1996). Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Olive, J. P., Greenwood, A., and Coleman, J. S. (1993). Acoustics of American English speech: a dynamic approach. New York: Springer. Olsen, B. A. (1988). The Proto-Indo-European instrument noun suffix *-tlom and its variants. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Padgett, Jaye (2009). Systemic contrast and Catalan rhotics. Linguistic Review 26: 431–63. Parise, M., Federico, A., Delle Rose, M., and Sammarco, M. (2003). Folk karst terminology from Apulia (southern Italy). Acta Carsologica 32(2): 65–82. Parker, H. N. (1988). Latin *sisō > serō and related rules. Glotta 66: 221–41. Parker, S. (2012). The sonority controversy. Berlin: De Gruyter. Parry, M. (1997). Piedmontese. In Martin Maiden and Mair Parry (eds), The Dialects of Italy. London: Routledge, 237–44. Perseus = Gregory R. Crane (ed.) (2009), The Perseus Digital Library: http://www.perseus.tufts. edu/hopper. Phillips, B. S. (1984). Word frequency and the actuation of sound change. Language 60: 320–42. Phillips, B. S. (1998a). Lexical diffusion is not lexical analogy. Word 49(3): 369–81. Phillips, B. S. (1998b). Word frequency and lexical diffusion in English stress shifts. In R. M. Hogg and L. van Bergen (eds), Historical Linguistics 1995: selected papers from the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester, August 1995, vol. 2: Germanic linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 223–32. Phillips, B. S. (2001). Lexical diffusion, lexical frequency, and lexical analysis. In J. L. Bybee and P. J. Hopper (eds), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 123–36. Phillips, B. S. (2006). Word frequency and lexical diffusion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

References

239

Phillips, B. S. (2014). Lexical diffusion in historical phonology. In P. Honeybone and J. C. Salmons (eds), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pike, K. L., and Pike, E. V. (1947). Immediate constituents of Mazateco syllables. International Journal of American Linguistics 13(2): 78–91. Prince, A., and Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Pulgram, E. (1970). Syllable, word, nexus, cursus. The Hague: Mouton. Pulgram, E. (1975). Latin–Romance phonology: prosodics and metrics. Munich: Fink. Recasens, D., and Espinosa, A. (2005). Articulatory, positional and coarticulatory characteristics for clear /l/ and dark /l/: evidence from two Catalan dialects. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35(1): 1–25. Recasens, D., Fontdevila, J., and Pallarès, M. D. (1995). Velarization degree and coarticulatory resistance for /l/ in Catalan and German. Journal of Phonetics 23(1,2): 37–52. REW = W. Meyer-Lübke (1968). Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 4th edn. Heidelberg: Winter. Rix, H. (1966). Die lateinische Synkope als historisches und phonologisches Problem. Kratylos 11: 156–65. Rix, H. (1992). Historische Grammatik des Griechischen: Laut- und Formenlehre, 2nd edn. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Rix, H. (1995). Il latino e l’etrusco. Eutopia 4(1): 73–88. Rix, H. (1996). Variazioni locali in Osco. In L. del Tutto Palma (ed.), La tavola di Agnone nel contesto italico: convegno di studi, Agnone 13–15 aprile 1994. Florence: Olschki, 243–61. Rix, H. (1998). Bemerkungen zu den lateinischen Verbformen des Typs faxo faxim. In J. H. Jasanoff, H. C. Melchert and L. Oliver (eds), Mír Curad: studies in honor of Calvert Watkins. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 619–34. Rix, H. (2004). I nomi delle figure dei miti greci nelle lingue dell’Italia arcaica. The first traces of Achilles and Hercules in Latin. In J. H. W. Penney (ed.), Indo-European perspectives: studies in honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 436–46. Rix, H., and Meiser, G. (1991). Etruskische Texte: editio minor. Tübingen: Narr. Rubach, J. (1996). Nonsyllabic analysis of voice assimilation in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry 27(1): 69–110. Sandoz, C. (1991). Le nom de la ‘lettre’ et les origines de l’écriture à Rome. Museum Helveticum 158: 216–19. Schaffner, S. (2006). Lateinisch mūstēla ‘Wiesel; Quappe’ und die Wortbildungtyp vedisch aśvatará-. International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 3: 147–85. Schmid, W. (1955). Anaptyxe, Doppelschreibung und Akzent im Oskischen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 72: 30–46. Schrijver, P. (1991). The reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals in Latin. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Selkirk, E. O. (1982). The syllable. In H. van der Hulst and N. Smith (eds), The structure of phonological representations. Dordrecht: Foris, 337–83.

240

References

Sen, R. (2012a). Exon’s Law and the Latin syncopes. In P. Probert and A. Willi (eds), Laws and rules in Indo-European. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 205–26. Sen, R. (2012b). Reconstructing phonological change: duration and syllable structure in Latin vowel reduction. Phonology 29(3): 465–504. Serbat, G. (1975). Les dérivés nominaux latins à suffixe médiatif. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1979). Speech errors as evidence for a serial-ordering mechanism in sentence production. In W. E. Cooper and E. C. T. Walker (eds), Sentence processing: psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 295–342. Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1987). The role of word onset consonants in speech production planning. In E. Keller and M. Gopnik (eds), Motor and sensory processes of language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 17–51. Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1992). The role of word structure in segmental serial ordering. Cognition 42: 213–59. Sievers, E. (1881). Grundzüge der Phonetik: zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen, 2nd edn. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel. Sihler, A. L. (1979). The Latin ‘tool’ suffixes and the formation of rēgula, tēgula, and trāgula. Indogermanische Forschungen 89: 157–74. Sihler, A. L. (1995). New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. New York: Oxford University Press. Smith, C. L. (1991). The timing of vowel and consonant gestures in Italian and Japanese. Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of the Phonetic Sciences 4: 234–7. Smith, C. L. (1995). Prosodic patterns in the coordination of vowel and consonant gestures. In B. Connell and A. Arvaniti (eds), Phonology and phonetic evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 205–22. Sommer, F. (1948). Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre: eine Einführung in das sprachwissenschaftliche Studium des Lateins, 2nd edn. Heidelberg: Winter. Sommer, F., and Pfister, R. (1977). Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre: eine Einführung in das sprachwissenschaftliche Studium des Lateins, 4th edn. Heidelberg: Winter. Sproat, R., and Fujimura, O. (1993). Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics 21: 291–311. Stephens, L. (1978). Universals of consonant clusters and Latin GN-. Indogermanische Forschungen 83: 290–300. Steriade, D. (1982). Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Steriade, D. (1999a). Alternatives to syllable-based accounts of consonantal phonotactics. In B. Palek, O. Fujimura, and B. D. Joseph (eds), Proceedings of LP ’98: ‘Item order in language and speech’, Columbus, The Ohio State University, September 15–20, 1998. Prague: Karolinum Press, 2.205–45. Steriade, D. (1999b). Phonetics in phonology: the case of laryngeal neutralization. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 25–146. Steriade, D. (2001). Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: a perceptual account. In E. V. Hume and K. Johnson (eds), The role of speech perception in phonology. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press, 220–50. Stevens, K. N. (1989). On the quantal nature of speech. Journal of Phonetics 17: 3–45.

References

241

Stuart-Smith, J. (2004). Phonetics and philology: sound change in Italic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sturtevant, E. H. (1940). The pronunciation of Greek and Latin, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America, University of Pennsylvania. TLL = (1900–). Thesaurus Linguae Latinae: index librorum scriptorum inscriptionum ex quibus exempla afferuntur. Leipzig: Teubner. Tyler, L. K., and Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1986). The effects of context on the recognition of polymorphemic words. Journal of Memory and Language 25(6): 741–52. Untermann, J. (2000). Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen. Heidelberg: Winter. Vaniček, A. (1881). Etymologisches Wörterbuch der lateinischen Sprache, 2nd edn. Leipzig: Teubner. Vaux, B. (2010). Feature analysis. In P. Hogan (ed.), Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 304–7. Vaux, B., and Wolfe, A. (2009). The appendix. In E. Raimy and C. E. Cairns (eds), Contemporary views on architecture and representations in phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 101–43. Vendryes, J. (1902). Recherches sur l’histoire et les effets de l’intensité initiale en latin. Paris: Klincksieck. Vine, B. (1991). Notes on the Corcolle altar fragments. Glotta 69: 219–34. Wachter, R. (1987). Altlateinische Inschriften: sprachliche und epigraphische Untersuchungen zu den Dokumenten bis etwa 150 v. Chr. Bern: Lang. Wang, W. S. (1969). Competing changes as a cause of residue. Language 45(1): 9–25. Watmough, M. M. T. (1997). Studies in the Etruscan loanwords in Latin. Florence: Olschki. Weiss, M. (2009). Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Beech Stave Press. Weiss, M. (2010). Observations on the littera rule. Paper presented at East Coast IndoEuropean Conference 29, Cornell University, 19–20 June. West, P. (1999). Perception of distributed coarticulatory properties of English /l/ and /r/. Journal of Phonetics 27(4): 405–26. Whitney, W. D. (1873). Oriental and linguistic studies. New York: Scribner, Armstrong. Wright, R. (2001). Perceptual cues in contrast maintenance. In E. V. Hume and K. Johnson (eds), The role of speech perception in phonology. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press, 251–77. Wright, R. (2004). A review of perceptual cues and cue robustness. In B. Hayes, R. M. Kirchner, and D. Steriade (eds), Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 34–57. Yu, A. C. L. (2006). Sound change: phonetics. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 525–8. Zec, D. (1995). Sonority constraints on syllable structure. Phonology 12: 85–129. Zimmermann, J. (1986). La fin de Falerii Veteres: un témoignage archéologique. J. Paul Getty Museum Journal 14: 37–42. Zirin, R. A. (1971). The phonological basis of Latin prosody. The Hague: Mouton. Zucchelli, B. (1970). Studi sulle formazioni latine in -lo- non diminutive: e sui loro rapporti con i diminutivi. Parma: Università degli studi, Istituto di lingua e letteratura latina.

Index of Latin words Page references in italics refer to figures and tables. Entries in small caps refer to inscriptional forms. Inverse compensatory lengthening forms (littera-rule) are ordered according to their VCC form, although entries can refer to either or both V:C or VCC (see Chapter 3 and Appendix). ab 93 Abas 51 abbas 51 abluere 125 abole:re 26 abole:scere 26 abolitus 26 n. 18 abripio: 93 abrumpo: 93 acceptor 204 acciarium 62 accie:s 51 accipere 205 accipio: 83 accipiter 49, 204–5 ace:re 97 n. 26 ace:tum 97 n. 26 acie:s 51 acqua 54 a:cri: 187, 190 acula 25 ad 135 addor 51 adductus 81 aditus 81, 86 adminiculum 101, 161, 164, 166 adole:scere 16, 26 ador 51 adule:sce:ns 26–7 adultus 16, 27 aescolapio 133 Aescula:pius 124, 128–9, 132, 151, 159 n., 160, 161, 163, 165, 166 afferre 177, 178

agellus 28 ager, -ri: 51, 109, 192 agger 51, 53 aggerere 82 aggro 54 agilis 131 n. 13 agolum 153 agri: 187, 190 aisclapi 133 Aiscla:pios 124, 127 aiscolapio 23, 133 alacer, -cris, -cre 85, 88–9, 95, 107, 112, 116 alapa 85, 107 alba 6, 18 alebris 95, 106, 112, 113, 116 alere 27, 106 alia 205 alibilis 105 alius 28 allio 205 allium : a:lium 59, 60–1, 205 allu:cina:ri: : a:lu:cina:ri: 49, 205 al(l)uncinor 205 alterum 18 altus 19 alveolus 23 ambula:crum 90 ameiservnt 220 amiculum 131 ammentum : a:mentum 58–9, 62, 65, 205 ammissam : a:missam 58, 62, 65, 206 a:mitto: 206 amplus 137, 140, 149 ampulla 29, 82

244

Index of Latin words

amurca 82 Amyclae 128 anas, -atis 85, 107 ancilia 150 n. 34 ancla:bris 106, 129, 154, 159 n. anc(u)la:re 129 anculus 17, 21, 129 animal 70 anite:s 85 anna 56 annus 51, 53, 74, 182, 220 n. 8 Anticle:a 128 antiqui 220 n. 7 a:nulus 28 anus 51 a:nus 74 apiculum 101–2 apio: 102 aplustre 138 apparebit 223 apparet 223 appendiculum 102 n. 33 applica:re 135 aqua 54 aquila 22, 26 Aquile:ia 26 aquilentus 25–6 aquilus 22, 25–6 aquola 25 ara:trum 90 arbiter 98 arculus 17 argi:lla 52 arripere 53, 192 arroga:re 192 ars lu:dicra 103 n. 34 ascendibilis 105–6, 112 Ascle:piade:s 128 assecla 129 assecula 129 atta 56 aurifex 83 auris 61 aurufex 83

autumnus 180, 189 autumpnus 189 avonculus 20 n. 6 avunculus 20 n. 6 bacca : ba:ca 74, 206 baccar 206 baccifer 49 baccula 49 baculum 131–2 balbutti:re : balbu:ti:re 49, 58, 61, 63, 65, 206 ballaena : ba:laena 206 balle:na 206 balluca 62 balteus 224 barbarismi 228 barbarus 85 bassium : ba:sium 207 battuo: 56 belba 207 bellua : be:lua 54, 207 belva 207 be:stia 207 *betta : be:ta 59, 60–1, 207 bibulus 125 n. blanda 187–90 blandi:ri: 125 blandus 125, 154 blati:re 125 bracca : bra:ca 207 bracchiatorv[m] 208 bracchiis 208 bracchium : bra:chium 208 brachium 208 bra:ce:s 207 bracio 208 braciola 208 bracium 208 brattea 62 bucca 49, 54, 56, 208 buccina : bu:cina 54, 208 buccula 54 buci:na 208 bu:cina 54

Index of Latin words bu:cula 54 bvccinam 208 cado: 80 caecu:ti:re 206 caementum 182 Caesar, -aris 85 calamita:s 85, 107 calcitra:re 88, 90, 98–9, 115 calidus 54 callidus 54 calli:go: : ca:li:go: 208, 214 calor 22 calx 99 camara 85 came:la:rius 209 came:li:nus 209 camellus : came:lus 58, 65, 209 came:llus 209 came:lopardalis 209 camera 85 candela:brum 115 n. cannabis 85 canta:re 46 cantasso: 46 cantile:na 26 cantio: 26 cantiuncula 26 ca:nus 189 caper, -ri: 191 capillus 29, 41 capitis 81, 86 cappa 212 *cappo: : ca:po: 209 capra 191 capus 209 ca:ra 43 carere 209 ca:rex 209 carpere 209 carrectum : ca:rectum 209 carrere : ca:rere 58, 60, 65, 209 carrus 74 cartibulum 100

245

ca:rus 74 casa: 51 cassa: 51 casseus : ca:seus 210 cassus 74, 176, 180 ca:ssus 52 castus 176, 180 ca:sus 48, 52, 74 cattus 51, 56 catulus 56 catus 51 causa 52 caussa 52 cavssa 52 cecidi: 80–1, 86 ceda:re 162 ceip[ . . . ] 210 Ce:la 210 celeber, -bris 27, 95, 106, 108, 116 celer 22, 27–8 cella : *ke:la 22 n. 10, 58, 60, 62, 64–5, 74, 210 ce:lo:, -a:re 22 n. 10, 210 celo:x 22, 28 celsus 20 ce:na:culum 161, 166 ce:nsor 68 centum 180, 195 ce:pit 210 cerebrum 94–5, 108, 187, 190–1 certa:runt 47 cerussa 62 cesor 68 cette 162, 178 cineris 82 cingulum 153 cingulus 153 ciniflo:ne:s 91 cipo[m] 210 cipporvm 210 cippos 210 cippus : Ci:pus 58, 65, 74, 210–11 ci:vicus 144 ci:vis 144 cla:mo:, -a:re 154

246

Index of Latin words

cla:mor 154 cla:rum 16 n., 84 cla:rus 128, 154 clam 154 clandesti:nus 154 classis 62 claudere 128 cle:me:ns 154 cliens, -entis 154 clipeus 224 Clippea 224 cli:tellae 154 cloa:ca 154 clueo:, -e:re 154 cluere 154 clu:ra 154 clu:ri:nus 154 coa:gulum 153 coc(h)lea 128 Cocles, -itis 129–30 cocodrillus 211 coctus 178 n. 5 Cocules 130 n. 11, 134 n. 17 Coculitum 129–30 coculum 131 co:gita:sti: 47 cogna:tus 181 colere 23 collis 29, 53 colo: 22 n. 9 colubra 95, 110–11, 113 columen 22 combu:rere 186, 189 co:mis 66, 69, 189 committere 220 n. 7 comparet 223 computa:re 186, 189 conciliaboleis 126 concilia:buli:s 126 co:ncutio: 23 n. 11 co:ndemno: 83 conditor 104 conditri:x 104 co:ndumno: 83

co:nfirma:re 82 congenucla:re 129, 159 n. conqvaesiverit 217 co:nscri:billo: 228 co:nsecra:re 94–5, 109, 191 co:nsile:scere 26 consol 68 consolto 21 consolvervnt 17, 21, 23, 84 co:nspectus 81 co:nsul 19, 68, 72, 180 co:nsulue:runt 16–17, 21, 84 convola:re 22 convolnera:re 20 convolsio: 20 convolvolus 20 convulnera:re 20 convulsio: 20 copa 212 n. coppula : co:pula 211 coppulat 211 coppulum 211 corcodillus 211 corcodrillus 211 corpulentus 24 corpus, -oris 24 cosmis 66, 69, 189 cosmittere 220 n. 7 cosol 19 n. 4, 68 co:sul 68 cothurnus 82 covr[avervnt] 11 cra:pula 21 crocodillus : crocodi:lus 58, 60, 65, 211 crocodrillus 211 cubiclum 84, 88 cubiculum 84 cubiculum 88, 94–5, 101–2, 161, 163, 165–6 cubitus 102 cubui: 102 culleus : cu:leus 211 culliola 211 culmen 22 culpa 20

Index of Latin words cunnus : *ku:nus 211 cu:pe:dia 212 cu:pe:do: 212 cupere 55 cu:pi:dia 212 cupidita:s 81, 86 cuppa : cu:pa 46, 49, 58, 62, 65, 74, 211–12 cuppe:dia 61, 212 cuppe:do: 212 cuppe:s : *ku:pe:ds 55, 58, 61, 64, 65, 212 currere 101 curriculum 101, 161, 163, 165–6 cvpa 212 cvpam 212 Cyclade:s 128 cyclas 128 cyclicus 128 Cyclops, -o:pos 128, 130 Da:ma 74, 212–13 damma : da:ma 58, 61, 65, 74, 212 dammula 212 daps 179 dapsile 25 de: 135 de:bilis 28 de:blatera:re 126 de:horta:tur me 93 deica[t] 217 deivos 11 de:libra:re 109 de: me: hor(i)ta:tur 93 dentifrangibulum 100 dentilegus 25 de:plo:ra:re 135 de:puvi:re 83 de:ri:diculum 101–2, 161, 163, 165–6 de:silue:runt 21 de:suluerunt 17, 21 devas 11 de:vertere 101 de:verticulum 101, 102 n. 32, 161, 166 die:m 216 n. die:s 216 n.

dies pater 216 Die:spiter 216 difficile 25 difficilis 180 dignissime: 182 dignus 181, 182 dimitere 219–20 dingnissime 182 discernere 101 discerniculum 101 discipli:na 136 discipulus 136 dispo:nere 180 di:to: 43 di:videre 101 di:vidiculum 101–2 di:xi: 177, 178 domitor 105, 117 n. domitri:x 117 n. drachma 122 drac(h)uma 122, 185 dre:nsa:re 192 n. 15 drindra:re 192 n. 15 Dru:sus 192 n. 15 dumectum 213 dumme:tum : du:me:tum 213 duplex 136, 138, 140–1 duplica:to: 148 duplicis 140–2, 146, 148–9 duplus 136, 141 dusmo 213 e:blandi:ri: 126 e:brius 195 ecce 177 ecferre 177, 178 eclipsis 128 ecloga 128 eclu:trum 128 edo: 212 edu:lis 90 n., 187–8 efferre 178 effigia 153 n. 40 effu:ti:re 206

247

248

Index of Latin words

einom 11 eivs 217 e:lecebra 95–7 e:ligere 81, 86 Empedocle:s 128 endoque plo:ra:to: 93 enubro: 110–11, 113 e:nuclea:re 129 epile:us 27 epistola 21 epistula 21 era 11 essent 11 eundem 173–4 euntis 81, 87 e:verrere 101 e:verriculum 101 ex 135 exancla:re 129, 159 n. exemplum 137, 140, 188 exi:lis 15–16, 30, 33, 84 exmvcco 220 exole:scere 26 exo:ra:bilis 105 exo:ra:bulum 105 exple:re 135 explo:ra:re 135 extemplo: 137 ex tempore 137 n. 23 extempulo: 137–8 exti:nxi: 178 n. 5 facile 25, 130 n. 13 facilia 131 n. 13 facilis 25, 28, 95 n. 22, 130 n. 13 facilius 130 n. 13 factus 80 faeces 214 faleries 11 fallere 29 farfarus 85 fa:tilegus 25 fe:cundus 213 fefelli: 28–9

feida 12 feil- 213 fe:lix 213 fella:re : fe:la:re 213 fe:mina 51, 213 feminis 122 fe:nebris/faenebris 108 fercles 134 feretrum 98–9 fe:riae 82 n. 4 ferre 53, 101 n. 29, 224 ferrugo 208, 214 fe:siae 82 n. 4 figlinas 153 figuli:nus 153 figulus 152–3 figu:ra 153 n. 40 fi:liolus 23 fillius : fi:lius 44, 58, 61, 65, 73, 213 flaccus 212 flama 213 flamma : fla:ma 44, 58, 59, 65, 213–14 flammen : fla:men 214 flexibilis 105 flocce:s : flo:ce:s 214 floccus 214 flo:rilegus 25 fo:culum 161, 163, 166 foliginem 214 folium 28 folliginem 214 fossus 48 frace:s/flace:s 214 fragilis 131 n. 13 frattre 54 fraudulenter 24 fraudulentus 24 fraus, -dis 24 fri:gus 190 friguttio: 206 fru:gifer 82 fulge:re 213 fulgetrum 95, 98–9, 113, 115, 191 fulgur, -uris 85

Index of Latin words fulli:go: : fu:li:go: 208, 214 fulliginem 49 fundere 102, 214 fundita:re 102 fu:nebris 95, 108, 187, 190–2 fu:nus 192 fu:tis 214 futtilis : fu:tilis 58, 62, 65, 214 futtis 62 futtuere 56 futuere 56 fvise 10 ganneo: : ga:neo: 215 ganni:re 215 garri:re : *ga:ri:re 58, 60, 64, 65, 73, 215 gelidus 22, 28 gelo:, -a:re 22 gemmo: 51 gemo: 51 generis 82 n. 4 geneti:vus 85 genetri:x 79, 82, 87–8, 94–5, 104–5, 112–13, 114, 117–19 geniculum 129 genitor 87, 104, 117, 119 genu 61 genus 82 n. 4 geracilis 122 gero: 51, 82 n. 4 gerro: 51 gestus 82 n. 4 gibber 212 gla:ns 152 glittus : *gli:tus 58, 65, 215 glu:ma 52 glu:ten 215 glutten 62 glutti:re : *glu:ti:re 215–16 glutto: 215 Gnaeus 182 gnarigavit 222 gnarivisse 222 gna:ruris 222 n.

249

gna:rus 182, 222 gna:tus 182 Gracchus 55, 215 gracculus : gra:culus 215–16 gracilentus 25 gracilis 25, 55 gradus 51 gradu:s 51 grunni:re 215 gu:tus 58, 65 gula 215 gutta 216 guttur : *gu:tur 56, 216 guttus : gu:tus 58, 62, 65, 216 habilis 131 n. 13 hal(l)ucinor 205 hebes, -etis 85 helvus 20 He:racle:a 128 He:racli:tus 128 hercele 133–4, 159 [h]ercle 134 hercle(st) 127, 134 n. 17, 161–4, 165–6, 167, 169–70 herclei 134 hercles 127, 134 Hercle:s 123–4, 127, 133 herclo 134 herclo( ) 134 hercole 134 hercolei 27, 127, 133 Hercole:s 127 hercolo 134 n. 19 hercule 166 n. 53 Hercule:s 26–7, 123–4, 127–8, 130, 132–4, 151, 159–60, 161, 163, 165–6 herecles 127, 133 Herecle:s 127, 133 hi:bernus 188 hinnad 11 hinni:o 56 hoc 51, 53, 177 ho:c 51

250

Index of Latin words

hocce 53 holus 21 honora:bilis 105 horreum 62 hospes 180 iaculum 131–2 ia:ienta:culum (ie:ient-) 161, 163, 166 ia:nitor 105, 117 n. ia:nitri:x 95, 104–5, 117 n. i:dem 176 igna:rus 182 ignem 182 igno:tus 181 i:lex 74 ille 29 illecebra 95–7 illex 74 ima:go: 55 imma:go: 55 immine:re 180 immo: 74 i:mo: 74 impera:re 89 impetra:re 89, 95, 110, 112–13, 115, 117, 191 impiger, -gra, -grum 109 implo:ra:to:que 93 improbus 180 incernere 101 incerniculum 101 incestus 87, 90, 127 incola 23 incolere 23 incolumis 23 indole:s 26 indu:cula 161, 166 ineber 111 infundibulum 100 inhu:ma:num 182 inmago 55 inole:scere 26 inri:diculum (irr-) 161, 163, 166 i:nsulsus 16–17, 19, 84 integer, -gra, -grum 87, 93, 95, 109, 113, 114

invola:re 22 involga:re 20 involnera:bilis 20 involvere 20 involvolus 20 involvulus 20 invulga:re 20 invulnera:bilis 20 Iolcos 19 Iolcus 19 iousit 48 Iovia:nus 216 Iovi:nus 216 i:ra 11 iu:gla:ns 152–3 iugulanda 152 iu:gula:ns 152–3 iugulum 152 iugum 152 n. Iu:lius 216 iu:mentum 213 Iupiter 216 Iuppiter : Iu:piter 42, 47–8, 58, 61, 64, 65, 216 iu:rgium 82 n. 4 iu:ris 82 n. 4 iu:s 82 n. 4 iu:sit 48 iussit 48 iu:stus 82 n. 4 Juppiter 49 labor 147 lactis 177 laetus 147 la:mella 217 lamina 217 lammina : la:mina 58, 62, 65, 216–17 lamna 217 latebra 94–5, 96–7, 102 n. 31, 115 late:re 97, 147, 102 n. 31 latibulum 100 Lati:nus 147

Index of Latin words latus 147 la:tus 147, 217, 226–7 lauda:re 147 lautus 116 lava:crum 90 lava:re, -ere 6, 116 l(av)a:tri:na 116 lava:tus 116 leitera 64 leiteras 43, 217–18 lia:culum 90 li:ba:re 147 liber 51, 109 li:ber 51, 147 li:beri: 147 libet 147 libros 217 licet 147 lignum 181 lino:, -ere, le:vi:, litum 218 lippus : *li:pus 55, 58, 65, 217 li:tem 43 literae 218 literaive 217–18 littera : li:tera 42–3, 46–7, 49, 57, 58, 63–4, 65, 147, 217–18 litteras 217 littus : li:tus 46, 49, 58, 65, 218–19 loca:re 147, 220 locuple:s, -e:tis 136, 138–9, 141–2 locuplex 139 locus 7, 136, 147 longus 147 loquella : loque:la 26 n. 19, 58, 65, 219, 221, 225 loqui: 147 lo:tor 116 lo:tus 116 lu:bricus 190 n. lu:ce:re 97, 147 lu:cubra:re 89, 108 lu:culente: 24 lu:culenter 24 lu:culentus 24 lu:cus 43, 147

251

lu:dere 103 lu:dibrium 89, 95, 110 lu:dicra 88–9, 91, 95, 103, 112, 114, 118 lu:dicrum 90, 103 n. 34 lu:dicrus 103 n. 34, 107 lu:gubris 89–91, 106, 108, 117 lutra 192 lu:x, -cis 24, 147 lvciom 11 macchina : ma:china 219 macer 25 n. 16 macie:s 25 macilentus 25 mac[i]steratvs 122 magna: 182 magnum 182 ma:let 51 ma:lle 52, 54 ma:llet 51 ma:llo: 54 malus 22 mamma 56 mana 182 manihbrioi 111 n. 44 manibrium 88, 110, 118 manipla:re:s 137 manipla:ris 136, 142, 149 manipla:rius 136 manipla:tim 136–7, 149 maniplis 136 n. maniplus 139–40 manipretium 110 manipula:ris 136–7, 141, 162, 164, 167, 168 manipula:rius 136 manipula:tim 136, 162, 164, 167, 168 manipulo: 149 manipulus 135–7, 139–42, 149, 160, 162, 164, 165, 167, 168–9, 187 mantellum 74 mante:lum 74 manubrio 111 n. 44 manubrium 84, 88–9, 110, 112, 118 manucla 129

252

Index of Latin words

manupla:re:s 137 manupretium 110, 118 manus 135, 139, 142 matricida 224 n. mattus 55 matus 55 ma:tu:ti:nus 228 n. mediocris 95, 110–11 medius 15–17, 28, 30, 31, 33, 84 (me:)hercle(st) 134 n. 17, 161, 164, 165–6, 167 merce:da:rius 219 merce:dimerus 219 merce:di:nus 219 merce:dula 219 mercenna:rius : merce:na:rius 52, 219 merce:nna:rius 52, 219 merce:s, -e:dis 219 mere:re 104 n. 37 meretod 104 n. 37 meretri:x 104–5, 117–18 merito: 104 n. 37 merito:rius 117 mi:ca 190 n. mi:les(s) 179, 183 mi:lia 16, 29, 52, 74, 202 mi:lle 16, 29, 52, 73 n. 20, 74 minuo:, -ere 101 n. 30 mi:ra:culum 161, 166 mi:si: 74, 220 mi:sit 52 missi: 74 mIssit 52 mita:re 220 mitat 219–20 mittei 220 mittere : *mi:tere 49, 57, 58, 64, 65, 219–20 mitto: 42, 46, 64, 206 moetino signo 221 molere 116 mo:le:s 54 moletri:na 92, 110–11, 112–13, 114, 116–18 molitor 116–17, 119 molitus 116 molle:s 54

molucrum 89, 92, 95, 103, 107, 111, 118–19 mone:re, -ui:, -itus 97 mox 179 mucca:re 220 mucco:sus 220 muccus: mu:cus 58, 61, 65, 220 mu:ce:re 220 mu:cidus 220 mu:cor 220 mu:gil 220 mulce:re 186, 190 mulge:re 186, 190 muliebris 108 mulier 28 mullus 74 multiplex 136, 141 mu:lus 74 mu:stella : mu:ste:la 58, 60, 63, 65, 221 mu:ta:re 220 mutilus 22 Mu:ti:nus 221 mutti:re 206, 215 Mutto 221 mutto: : mu:to: 59, 61, 65, 74, 221 mutto:nium 221 muttu:nus 221 muttus : mu:tus 221 muttuus : mu:tuus 221 Mu:tu:nus Tutu:nus 221 mv´rvm 12 Mytile:nae 27 naatam 12 na:re:s 55, 222 naro 222 na:ro: 222 narra:re : *gna:ra:re 57, 59, 60, 63–4, 65, 73, 182, 221–2 narrasse 222 narra:tio: 222 narravit 222 nárrem 222 narro: 42, 60 n. 9, 63 na:rro: 46

Index of Latin words na:rum 222 na:ssus 222 na:tus 182 nasso 222 nassus : na:sus 55, 222 naucle:rus 128 naustibulum 100 neglegere 122, 127, 143, 156, 170, 171, 187, 190, 195, 199 nei 11 ni:dus 69 nix 177, 190 n. no:lle 52, 54, 222 no:llo: 54 no:lo: 54 no:mencla:tor 129, 159 n. no:mencula:tor 129 no:mina:runt 47 nu:bilus 22 nucifrangibulum 100 nucleus 129–30 nuculeus 129–30, 134 n. 17 nu:llus 52 numasioi 80 Numerio: 80 nummus : nu:mus 59, 60, 222–3 nu:psi: 172, 176, 177, 178 nvllvs 218 ob 93 obdu:ra:re 176 obligo:, -a:re 93, 125 oblino:, -ere 93, 120–1, 125, 171 obsecra:re 109, 191 obsecro: vo:s 93 obses 179 obside:s 176 obsole:scere 26 obstetri:x 104–5, 117–18 obstipe:scere 83 obstringillo: 228 obstupe:scere 83 obtine:re 176 obtinui: 176

obtulit 176 ob vo:s sacro: 93 occi:dere 53, 172, 177 occolto: 87 occulere 210 occulto: 17, 19, 21, 87 occupo: 83 ocris 110–11 oculus 131 offendere 101 offendiculum 101 offici:na 177, 178 oli:va 21 omassum : oma:sum 223 opera 24 n. 14, 218 operior 51 opiparus 24 opperior 51 oppetere 177 oppidum 62 oppidvmqv 11 opprobrium 110 ops 24 opsides 176 optimus 83, 177 optinvi 176 optumus 83 optvlit 176 opulentus 24 opus 218 oqvoltod 17, 19, 21, 87 ora:culum 161, 164, 166 paastores 11 paelex 224 pallor 74 pa:lor 74 palpebra 96, 99, 112–13, 114–15 palpebrum 98 n. palpetra 98–9, 115, 191 pando: 53 n. 8 pannus 74 pa:nus 74 papisivs 82 n. 4

253

254

Index of Latin words

pa:r 224 pare:ns 224 n. paricidas 223 parilis 131 n. 13 parret : pa:ret 59, 65, 73, 223 parrici:da : pa:rici:da 59, 61–4, 65, 223–4 parricidiales 223 parvolus 23 passus 53, 177 pater 224 n. patibilis 95, 105–6 patibulum 91, 95, 100, 106, 125, 187 patra:re 111, 191 paullum 52 paulum 52 peccus 56 pecus 56 pellecebra 95–7 pellex : pe:lex 224 pellicere 224 pellis 224 pelluis 54 peluis 54 peperi: 82 peplum 138 peplus 138 pepuli: 28 per 135 perblandus 126 peregri:, -e: 109 perfectus 80–1, 87 peri:culum 130 n. 13, 134, 161, 163–5, 166, 168–9, 171 perpetra:re 110, 112–13, 114, 191 perplexus 135 pestile:ns, -entis 25 n. 15 pestilentus 25 pestis 25 [p]etiverit 218 pia:culum 160, 161, 166 piger 109 pila 22 pileis 218 pillea:tus 224

pilleolus 224 pilleus/m : pi:leus/m 59, 60, 62, 224 pilumnoe 143, 150 pinguis 16 pinna 62 piscis, -is 24 pisculentus 24–5 pittui:ta : pi:tui:ta 224 pitui:ta 224 pius 111 pla:ca:re 135, 147, 155 pla:co: 155 pla:num 16 n., 84 pla:nus 147 place:re 135, 147, 155 placet 135, 154–5 planta 187, 188–90 plausibilis 105 ple:bs 147, 177, 183 plectere 136, 138 ple:nus 15–16, 30, 31, 33, 84, 136, 147 pleps 177 ple:re 135–6, 139, 147 ple:rus 147 plica:re 135–6, 138, 147 Plinius 147 plinthus 147 ploirvme 11 plo:ra:re 135, 147, 155 plo:ra:tus 147 plo:ro: 155 plu:rimus 147 pluvius 147 poblicai 144, 151 poblice 144, 151 poblici 144, 151 *poblikos 138, 144–6, 149, 170, 171, 187 po:clo: 134 poclom 133 po:clom 121–2, 124, 127, 193 po:clum 100, 121, 134 pococolom 163 n. pocol[om] 133 pocolom 23, 122, 127

Index of Latin words po:colom 124, 127, 133 po:cula deo:rum 132–4, 160, 163, 169 po:culo: 134 po:culum 23, 121–2, 124, 127, 131–4, 156, 160, 161, 163, 166, 171, 193 podlovqveiqve 11 pollex 56 pollinem 208, 214 pondus 186, 188–9 po:nere 82 n. 4, 220 pontifex 83 pontus 186, 188–9 pontvfex 83 poples, -itis 138–40, 148–9, 159, 161, 164–5, 167, 168–70 poplicae 150 n. 36 poplice 143, 150 n. 37, 151 Poplicius 143, 151 poplico 143, 150 n. 37, 151 poplicod 138, 142–3, 151 Poplicola 145 poplicus 142 *poplikos 138–9, 140 n. 26, 143–9, 151, 159, 170, 171, 187 Poplilius 143 popliosio 143, 151–2 poplite 148 poplite:sque 149 n. poplitis 140, 146, 148 poplitum 148 poplo 143, 150 poplo ̣ 143, 150 poplo: 144, 150 poploe 143, 150 poplom 135, 143, 150 *poplos 135, 139–40, 142–4, 146–50, 171 poplus 150 poplvs senatvsqve romanvs 143, 150 popolom 23 popolvm 150–1 popula:ri: 143 n., 167 n. 57 popula:ris 162, 164, 165, 167, 168 popula:rita:s 162, 164, 167 populi: 162 n.

255

populo: 150 Populo:na 143 Populo:nia 143 populus 135, 138–40, 142–4, 149–50, 152, 160, 162, 164–5, 167, 168–9, 171 popvl(o:) 150–1 popvli 144, 151 popvlicio 151 popvlo 150–1 porculus 131 posedisent 11 possidere 11 postile:na 26 *poublikos 144–6, 170, 171, 187 povblicon 145–6, 151 povblilia 145–6, 151 povlilio 145–6, 151 praecla:rus 128 praeco: 52 praedictus 81, 87 praefericulum 101–2 praeferre 101 pre:lum 69, 187, 190 pri:scus 180 pri:vile:gium 27 pro:le:s 26 pro:mi:ssimus 52 pro:pugna:culum 161, 166 pro:stibulum 88, 100, 112 pro:te:lum 132 pro:tendere 132 Procle:s 128 Procne: 185 Progne: 185 pu:be:s 144–5 pu:blicae 150 n. 36 pu:blicam 143 pu:blica:nus 162, 167 pu:blica:re 162, 167 pu:blica:s 167 n. 58–9 pu:blice: 143, 150 n. 37, 162, 165, 167 pu:blicitus 143, 162, 165, 167 Pu:blicius 145 pu:blico: 143, 150 n. 37, 167 n. 58–9

256

Index of Latin words

Pu:blicola 145 pu:blicus 126, 138, 140 n. 26, 142–5, 149, 151–2, 154, 159–60, 162, 164–5, 167, 168–70, 171, 187 Pu:blii: 143 Pu:blilius 126, 145, 162, 167 Pu:blius 126, 145, 151 puella 53, 125 n. pugna:culum 161, 166 pulligo 208, 214 pullitra 88, 98–9 pullus : *pu:lus 29, 56, 193, 225 pu:pa 59, 65 pu:pilla 43, 225 pu:pilla:ris 225 puppa : pu:pa 59, 65, 225 pu:pula 225 pusillus 193 n. 17, 225 puteus 54, 224 pvbli 143, 151 pvblicai 151 pvblicos 151 pvblicvm 151 pvblicvs 144, 151 pvblio 143, 151 pvplico 145 pvrgati 11

ra:dula 132 ra:llum 132 ra:ro: 43 reciprocus 88, 90, 95, 110, 112, 118–19 reclu:do: 93 reddere 162 redimi:culum 161, 166 re:gula 153 rei poplicae 143, 151 rei: pu:blicae 143 repa:gula 153 reple:re 135, 142 replum 138, 142 resecra:re 109, 191 retegere 162 retraho: 93 reverticulum 102 n. 32 ri:diculus (-um) 95, 101–2, 161, 163, 165, 166 roga:ro: 47 ruffus : ru:fus 225 ruont 164 ruppe:s : ru:pe:s 226 rutile:scere 26 rutilus 22, 26 Rutuli: 22 ruunt 164

quadrum 193–4 quadrupe:s 193 quadrupla:ri: 141 quadruplator 141 quadruplex 136, 141, 193 quadruplus 136, 141 quadrupula:ri: 141 quadrupuli: 141 quassi: 53, 177, 178 quassus 225 quattuor 193–4 querella : quere:la 55, 58, 65, 221, 225 querulus 125 n. quippe 53, 177 qvaerella 225 qvei 217 qverellam 225

sacer, -ri: 109, 191–2 sacrilegus 25 saeclum 163 saeculum 161, 163–4, 165–6, 168–9 sagitta 62 sakros 109, 191, 192 n. 14 sallere 53 salu:ber, -bris 106 sanguinolentus 24 sanguinulentus 24 sapiat 54 sarculum 161, 166 sca:lae 132 scandere 106, 132 scatebra 96 scelus, -eris 22 sci:pio: 210

Index of Latin words scortum 224 scri:bo: 228 scri:ptus 176 se:clu:dere 128 se:dulo: 21 seges, -etis 85 segmentum 182–3, 188–9 seignvm 145 seine 217 sella 53, 124, 132, 193 se:nsibilis 105 se:para:re 52, 70 sepeli:re 85 sepulcrum 90 sepultus 17, 19, 85 sequontur 20 n. 6 sequuntur 20 n. 6 sessibulum 100 sibei 217 n. si:bilus 22 siccus : *si:kus 178, 226 signifer 182 signum 145, 182 sile:ns, -entis 25 n. 15 silentus 25 n. 15, 27 sile:sco:, -ere 26–7 silex 27 silva 19 simile 25 similis 25, 131 n. 13 simplex, -icis 137–8, 140, 142 simplus 137–8 sine 217 singnifer 182 sinnv 182 sino: 218 sitis 178 situs 218 socer 82 solidus 28 solvo:, -ere 20–1 somnus 182 sortilegus 25 specta:culum 161, 164, 166

257

speculum 127, 131 spi:cilegium 25 stabilio 126 stabilis 16, 105, 124–5, 171 stabulum 16, 105, 121, 124–5, 171 sta:re 87 ste:lla 52, 226 ste:llio: 226 stellio: : ste:lio: 226 stellionatus 226 sterile:scere 26 sterilis 26 stilus 22 stippa:re : sti:pa:re 226 stlatarius 226 stlatta : stla:ta 226–7 stlattarius 226 stlattis 226 stlitem 227 stlocum 227 stlocus 7 stloppus 56 strenna : stre:na 227 stre:nua 227 stringo: 228 subblandi:ri: 126 subdolus 176 subgilla:tio: 227 subigere 228 subliga:culum 90 subole:s 26 subti:lis 176 subti:lissima 176 subtus 176 subulcus 227 sub vo:s placo: 93 succi:dia : su:ci:dia 227 succinum 62 succus : su:cus 42, 46, 59, 62, 65, 227 suci:dia 227 su:gere 227 suggilla:re : su:gilla:re 55, 59, 62, n. 10, 227–8 suggilla:tio: 227 sugilla:tio: 227

258

Index of Latin words

su:mere 195 summus 172, 182 su:mptus 195 suppa:re 228 supplico: vo:s 93 suppus : *su:pus 59, 65, 228 surgere 195 surreptus 83 surrigere 195 surripere 83 surrupio:, -ere, -ui:, -tus 83 su:s 227 svccos 227 svptilissima 176 syllaba 1 taberna:clo: 163 taberna:culum 161, 163, 166 tableis 126 n. tabolam 126 n. tace:re, -ui:, -itus 97 taedet 192 taedulus 132 taeter 192 ta:litrum 88–90, 93, 95, 98–9, 112, 115, 118 tallus : ta:lus 228 ta:lus 99 tangere 109 tarenteinvs 11 tegiculum 102 n. 33 tegimen 185 teglarias 153 tegmen 185 te:gula 153 te:gula:rius 153 te:gulum 153 tegumen 185 templum 137, 171 tempulum 137 n. 22 tempus 137 tempvlvm 137 n. 22 tendere 101 tendicula 101 tenebrae 87, 95, 97 n. 27, 108, 113, 115, 117, 187

teneo:, -e:re 97 n. 27 terebonio 122 terebra 96 terebrum 98 n. terminaverunt 47 terra 72 n. 19 terre:re 102 n. 31 terribilis 84, 95, 105–6 terricula 101–2, 106 terrui:, -itus 102 textilis 95 n. 22 tignum 181 tingere 180–1 tintinna:culum 161, 166 tollo: 54 tonitrus 79, 85, 88, 90, 98–9 tonotru 85 torculum 131 tottum 228 to:ttus 46, 228 n. *tottus : to:tus 56, 228 tra:dito:que 93 tragula 153 tra:gula 153 trahere 192 tra:nsque dato: 93 tri:cili:nio: 128 tri:cli:nium 128 tri:ginta: 85 n. 9 triplex, -icis 136, 140–1, 148 triplus 136, 141 triump(h)us 83 truculentus 24 trux, -cis 24 tudicula 102 tudicula:re 101 tudita:re 102 tuli: 54 tulli: 54 tundere 102 turbulente: 24 turbulenter 24 tu:ribulum 100, 115 tu:rilegus 25

Index of Latin words tu:s, -u:ris 115 tvrri 11 ulcus 19–20 u:nctio: 178 n. 5 uter/utris 192 u:tilis 131 n. 13 valde: 162 valide: 162 varius 229 va:ro: 74 Varro: : va:rus 55, 74, 228–9 varus 229 Va:rus 229 vassis : va:sis 229 vegetus 85, 119 vehere 101–2 vehiculum 101–2, 112, 114, 127, 129, 161, 163, 166 veivam 11 velle 28–9 vellet 11 vello: 74 vellum : ve:lum 229 ve:lo: 74 veni:re 54 venit 51 ve:nit 51 ve:nsi:ca 229 ventilo:, -a:re 22 verba 186, 190 verbenna : verbe:na 229 vere:ri: 99 veretrum 98–9 verpa 186, 190 verriculum 102 n. 33 vertebra 96, 98, 103 vertebrum 98 n. vertere 101 verticula 95, 101, 102 n. 32, 103 veru: 99 vessi:ca : ve:si:ca 59, 60–1, 62 n. 10, 229 vestibulum 95, 100

259

vie:re 229 vi:ginti: 85 n. 9 vi:licus 29, 52 vi:lla 29, 52, 62 vinculum 131–2 vi:nolentus 24 viole:ns, -entis 25 n. 15 violentus 24 vitrum 192 vitta : *vi:ta 57, 59, 62, 65, 230 vIva 12 vi:vont 163 vi:vunt 163 vola:re 22, 107 Volca:nus 19 volgus 19 volito: 119 volnus 19 volo: 16, 21, 27–8, 84 volpe:s 19 volsus 19 volt 19 voltis 19 voltur 19 voltus 19 volucer, -cris, -cre 89, 95, 103, 107, 113, 116, 118–19 volucra 107, 116 volup 148 volva 19 volvere 19 n. 5, 107 vorrus 212 vtei 217 Vulca:nus 19 vulgus 19 vulnus 19 vulpe:s 19 vulsus 19 vult 19 vultis 16–17, 19, 20–1 vultur 19 vultus 19 vulva 19

Index of subjects, languages, authors, and selected sources Page references in italics refer to figures and tables. accent, see stress 3, 10, 12, 45, 49–50, 143 n. 27, 202 acoustics 18, 44, 73, 77, 118, 172, 175 actuation 5, 9, 157–9 aerodynamics 8, 44, 71 affixes 195–6, see also prefix; suffix agent noun 96, 104, 116, 125 n., 131, 143 n., 152–3 alignment 79, 88, 92–4, 108, 110, 113, 114–17, 119–20, 125, 139, 191, 193, 195–6, 198, 200, see also prefix, prefix + root boundary; morphology, transparency allomorphy 25, 116 allophones 6, 14, 80, 147, 194, 196 alternation 32, 78, 83 alveolar 36, 201, see also coronal analogy 5, 7–8, 20, 22–3, 25–6, 47, 49, 54–5, 57, 68 n., 77, 81, 83, 97, 107, 109–10, 118, 120, 125, 135, 137, 138, 141–2, 145, 149, 154–5, 157–8, 164, 168–9, 176, 178 n. 7, 182, 192, 200–2, 204–6, 208, 213, 218, 220, 222, 224, 226, see also structural analogy anaptyxis 121, see also epenthesis, vocalic anchor 37–41, see also articulation; gesture anticipatory coarticulation/resonance 7, 18–19, 40 n., 84, 91, 111, 113, 118–19, 186 apex 12, 222 apical, see gesture; tongue tip (TT) Appendix Probi 85, 139, 208 approximant 35–6, 64, 69, 73, 92, 145, 181, 190 n. Apuleius 102 n. 32, 212 archaic Latin 2, 5, 8–11, 15, 17, 19, 23–4, 27–8, 43, 46, 49, 56, 62–4, 66, 68, 70–1, 73,

79–85, 87–8, 90–1, 93–4, 96, 98–100, 103–6, 108–9, 113–17, 119–22, 125–7, 136, 142, 144, 146, 148–9, 152, 154–6, 163–4, 172, 178, 187–96, 198–9, 202, 219–20 archaism 11, 21, 82 n. 4, 137, 152, 163 articulation 9, 13, 23, 32, 35, 37–8, 49–50, 59, 69, 73, 89, 118, 149, 156, 158, 169, 173, 175, 178–81, 183–4, 186, 194, 199–201 articulatory implementation 34–41, 71, see also phonetic implementation/ realization Articulatory Phonology 35–6 articulatory target 31, 34–5, 37, 40, 41, 184 Asclepius 124, 133, 163 assibilation 53, 132, 177–8 assimilation 4–7, 9, 53, 71, 85, 124, 128, 130, 132, 138, 145–6, 149, 158–9, 168–70, 172–96, 198–203, 205, 219–20 in continuance 9, 175, 177–9, 183, 185, 198 in nasality 9, 145–6, 175, 181–5, 188, 198 in place 9, 172–5, 177–83, 185, 195–6, 198–9, 203 in voice (voicing) 6, 9, 128, 130, 138, 140 n. 26, 142–6, 148–9, 152, 156, 159, 160, 162, 164, 165, 168–70, 171, 172, 175–79, 183, 185, 186–94, 196, 198–200, 202–3 progressive 53, 85, 174, 185, 188, 220 regressive 53, 119, 124, 128, 130, 132, 138, 146, 174–9, 182–5, 187–9, 192–5, 199–200, 202, 220 target 173, 178–81 trigger 128, 173, 178–80, 185, 187–9, 191, 193, 196, 198–9, 202

Index of subjects, languages, authors, and selected sources Augustan Latin 9, 12, 43, 52, 59, 96, 98, 100–2, 115, 153, 208 Avestan 220 back 7, 11, 13–14, 15–16, 17–20, 23–4, 29, 31–41, 65, 77, 81, 83–4, 87, 89, 118–19, 134, 172, 196, 199 back-conditioning (labial C-/o/-dark /l/) 103, 107, 111, 118–19 backing see l-conditioning/colouring (backing) /bl/ 7–9, 116, 121, 122 n. 2, 123–8, 134–5, 138, 139, 142, 149, 151, 152–3, 154–9, 164, 167, 168–70, 171, 187, 199–200, 202 blocking 95 n. 22, 195, see also epenthesis, vocalic; l-conditioning/colouring; r-conditioning borrowing 27, 57, 60–1, 74, 82 n. 5, 84, 99, 100, 128, 185, 204–13, 215, 217, 222–4, 227 /br/ 89–91, 108, 111, 115–16, 120, 121, 187, 190, 195–6 breaking 145–6, 149, 152, 168, 170, 171 Caecilius 153 Caesar 116, 144, 166–7, 205, 211, 217, 224 Caper 221 Carmen Saliare 143, 150 Cassiodore 222 Catalan 13, 180 categorical behaviour 6–9, 15, 31, 33, 76, 79, 172, 201, 202 Cato 24, 110, 111 n. 45, 130, 215, 226 Catullus 148, 154 n. 41, 166–7, 211, 213, 216, 220, 225 Celtic 192 n. 15, 207–10, 212–13, 217, 223, 227 Chamorro 78 n. children’s words/speech 56, 61 chronology 4, 8, 12–13, 17, 19, 21, 23, 30, 43, 46–7, 50, 55, 59, 63–5, 75, 88 n. 12, 89–91, 94, 99, 106, 121, 123, 124, 126, 132–5, 142–3, 146, 149–52, 157, 160, 168–9, 187–8, 197–8, 202 Cicero 9, 24, 26–7, 52, 82 n. 4, 105 n. 39, 129, 150, 152–3, 166–8, 205, 209, 221, 224

261

classical Latin 9, 11, 19–21, 23, 28, 42–3, 52, 62–4, 68, 71, 73, 80, 82, 84–5, 88, 90–1, 93, 95–6, 98–9, 102, 104–5, 107, 114, 122, 128–30, 136–7, 140–1, 143, 145, 148–9, 153–4, 158, 164–5, 169–71, 175, 179, 182, 202, 205, 207–8, 210, 213–14, 222–3, 226–7 clear /l/ 4, 7, 13, 15–16, 18, 20, 23–4, 26, 28–9, 31, 33–7, 38–40, 41, 44, 49, 73, 76–7, 79, 80, 84, 92, 124, 134 n. 17, 146–9, 170, 171, 198 Cledonius 209 cluster 1, 7, 79, 132, 183 n., 190, 192, 220 n. 8, see also consonant, sequence; assimilation coarticulation 6–7, 18, 20, 32–4, 36 n. 26, 73, 81, 89, 118–19, 172, 175, 194, 196, 199, 202 coda 6–7, 9, 15–23, 27–38, 40–1, 44, 51–2, 66–8, 71, 77, 79, 82, 84, 87, 92 n., 130, 132, 142, 146, 173–7, 179, 182–3, 189–90, 194, 196, 198–9 Cohort model 155 colouring, see labial conditioning/colouring; l-conditioning/colouring Columella 132, 152, 205, 209 Column of Duilius 150 common object word 56, 62, 163 comparative method 2–4, 10, 13 compensatory lengthening (CL) 4, 6, 8, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52–4, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64–78, 90–1, 132, 176, 187–9, 196, 198, 200–2, 225 ‘classical’ (CVC) 42, 66–8, 70, 77 CVCV 67–8, 70, 77 CV:CV 70, 201 inverse (V:C > VCC) 4, 6, 8, 42–51, 53, 55, 57–9, 60 n., 61–4, 65–6, 67, 69–71, 72, 74, 75–8, 198–200, 201–2, 204–30 reverse inverse (VCC > V:C) 42, 58, 60, 63, 205, 209, 221 nasal loss 68–9 /s/-loss 69, 187, 189, 196 compound 25–7, 109–11, 112, 113, 118–19, 125, 128, 135, 139, 212, 227

262

Index of subjects, languages, authors, and selected sources

Consentius 16, 227–8 conservatism 11, 61, 68 n., 130, 142, 151–2, 163–4, 165, 168, 192 n. 14 consonant interaction 179–81 length 10, 13, 43, 51, 53–6, 64, 77, 201 lengthening, see gemination; compensatory lengthening (CL), inverse (V:C > VCC) sequence 87, 118, 121–2, 134, 175, 179, 183, 185–6, 194, see also assimilation short/simple/singleton 14, 29, 42, 44–7, 56, 60–1, 70, 205, 208–9, 211–12, 217, 220, 222–3 see also duration, consonant constraints, structural, see also phonotactics 5, 7, 41, 43–4, 71, 74, 75–8, 142, 147 n. 30, 149, 155, 170, 174, 202 containers for liquid 56, 62 contamination 24 n. 13, 54, 144–5, 206, 208, 214, 216 continuance 9, 172, 175, 177–9, 181, 183, 185, 198, see also assimilation contrast 2, 6, 9, 12–14, 33, 43, 51, 64, 70, 74, 76, 80–1, 86–7, 155, 174–8, 186–90, 200, 228, see also ternary contrast coronal 20, 34–6, 59, 85, 105 n. 39, 111, 118, 124, 132, 140, 174, 177–80, 182, 184–5, 196 cues, phonetic 6, 9, 18, 20, 22, 39–41, 67, 71–3, 75–7, 146, 155, 174–5, 176, 181, 183, 185, 186, 189, 190 n., 194, 195–6, 200 internal and external 175, 181, 185, 186, 190, 194, 196 Curtius 224 dark /l/ 4, 6–7, 13, 15–40, 49, 73, 76–7, 79–80, 84, 86-7, 92, 103, 107, 119, 124, 133, 134 n. 17, 147–8, 171, 172, 198–9, 201–2 contextually darkened 7, 16, 21–3, 28, 31–2, 35–6, 84, 107, 124, 130 n. 11, 146, 147 n. 31, 199 Dedication from Lavinium 11 degemination 7, 16, 29, 44, 52–3, 55, 70, 132, 179, 202, 207, 213, 219, 222–3, 226

deletion 7, 66–7, 128–9, 132, 155, 158, 182, see also compensatory lengthening (CL); syncope denominative formation 24, 97, 99–101, 105, 112–13, 115, 131 n. 13, 210, 215, 218, 222 derivational levels 5, 195–6 deverbative formation 99–101, 103, 105–6, 113, 114–15, 117, 130 n. 13, 136, 191, 210 devoicing 2, 82 n. 5, 84, 192–3, 196, see also voice contextual devoicing 186, 194, 196, 201 diachronic phonology 4–9, 41, 43, 67, 75–6, 79–80, 120, 122, 172–4, 190, 195, 197–9, 200–2, see also sound change dialects of Latin 122, 210, 214 diminutive 23, 60–1, 75, 82, 100, 131, 137 n. 23, 152, 193 n. 17, 209, 212, 219, 221, 225 Dionysius Thrax 2 diphthong 11, 47, 52, 63, 71 n. 18, 80, 144–6, 192, 207, 220, see also breaking Dirae 26 dissimilation 19, 20 n. 7, 22, 24, 26 n. 19, 99, 115 of laterals 89–91, 95, 103, 106–8, 116, 120 /dl/ 124, 132, 193 dorsal 20–2, 28, 30, 34–6, 59, 84, 85, 111, 118–20, 122, 177–81, 182, 183–5, 188, 196, 199 /dr/ 192 Duenos inscription 11, 220 duration vowel 6, 8, 18, 20, 43–4, 67, 69–72, 76–7, 79, 81, 120, 124, 145–6, 176, 200–1 consonant 35, 37, 40, 41, 50, 69, 176 early Latin 4, 9–10, 19–20, 23, 27, 43, 47, 50, 52, 62, 64, 80, 84, 87–8, 90, 93, 96–8, 102, 104, 107, 110, 114, 120, 122–3, 125–7, 130, 134–6, 139–40, 142–4, 146, 148–51, 153–4, 156, 162–3, 166–8, 179, 182–3, 185, 191, 198, 202, 209, 212, 220, 223, 227, 229 English 35, 73, 91–2, 139, 158, 180, 194, 220 Old English 211–12, 226 Ennius 25–7, 93, 102, 107, 143, 150, 153, 223

Index of subjects, languages, authors, and selected sources environmental conditioning 8, 15, 29, 89, 92, 94, 99, 103, 105, 107–8, 110–11, 112, 113–14, 117, 119, 120, 124, 172, 200, see also back-conditioning; l-conditioning/colouring; labial conditioning/colouring; r-conditioning; V-to-V conditioning epenthesis consonantal 188–9, 195–6 Oscan 122–3, 134 vocalic 4–5, 7–9, 16, 17 n. 1, 23, 26, 27, 84, 88 n. 11, 90, 100, 105, 121–44, 146, 148–70, 171, 172–3, 185, 198–202 blocking/failure/resistance 125–6, 127–8, 130, 135–42, 146, 149, 154–5, 160, 162–4, 168, 170 frequency-based resistance 5, 8, 122, 127, 157–9, 161–71 Etruscan 11, 80, 82 n. 5, 84, 100, 123, 127–8, 130, 133, 210, 212, 218 n. 6, 224 etymology 4, 8, 10–11, 17, 22–6, 42, 45–6, 49, 53, 57, 61–2, 80, 91, 96–7, 103, 107, 109–11, 130 n. 13, 131, 137–8, 143 n., 152, 153 n. 39, 175, 182, 193–4, 202, 205–6, 208–30 Evolutionary Phonology 77 expressive gemination, see spontaneous gemination extrametricality 129, 140 factitive 97 Faliscan 2, 210 false composition 55, 59, 227–8 feature 4, 9, 15–16, 31–5, 37, 40–1, 65, 77, 79, 121, 156–7, 172–5, 178, 183, 185, 188, 195–6, 201–2 equipollent 15, 31–6, 41, 78 privative 33–5, 37 spreading 41, 173–4 Festus 17, 26 n. 17, 73, 82 n. 4, 93, 96, 102, 111 n. 44, 116, 132, 143, 144, 150, 152–3, 215, 220 n. 7, 222–4, 226 Fibula Praenestina 80 Finnish 44, 70

263

/fl/ 16, 84, 91 Flemish 32 n. 21 Florence fragments 217–18 foot 128, 140–1, 149, 159, 200, see also metrical structure; mora degenerate 140–1 head of a well-formed trochee 140–2, 146, 149, 164, 168, 170, 171, 200 formant 67, 73, 92, 181, 185, 186, 196 F1 92 F2 18, 37, 92, 179, 199 F3 92, 179 F4 92 fortition 2, 6–7, 91, 192 French 6, 13, 18, 36, 52, 190, 205, 209, 212, 217, 219, 224, 227 Old French 221, 227 frequency (lexical, morpheme, segmental) 5, 8–9, 26 n. 18, 62, 75, 122, 124, 127, 129, 130 n. 13, 134, 141, 146–9, 152, 156–70, 171, 200, see also epenthesis, vocalic, frequency-based resistance frequentative 102 fricative 2, 67, 69, 91–2, 108, 118, 145, 176–81, 185, 187, 190, 196 Friulian 68 front 11, 13–14, 16, 18–20, 22–3, 27, 33–4, 36–7, 38–40, 41, 44, 60, 65, 67, 73, 75, 81, 83, 87, 118, 199, see also back fronting 22, 28–9, 83 functional load 74–5, 192 future perfect 46–7, 75–6 Gaulish 207 Gellius 25, 27, 205, 210 geminate 1, 7, 13, 15–16, 20, 28–9, 30, 31–2, 33, 34–7, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 48–50, 51–6, 60 n., 61–2, 70–1, 73–4, 77, 84, 174, 179, 196, 198–9, 202, 208, 210, 212, 214–20, 222–3, 228–9 gemination 48–9, 53–4, 71 n. 18, see also compensatory lengthening (CL), inverse; spontaneous gemination German 36 n. 26, 70 n. 13

264

Index of subjects, languages, authors, and selected sources

German (cont.) Middle High German 70 n. 13, 217 Old High German 55, 206, 209, 211, 220, 227 Germanic 3, 54, 61, 207, 209–10, 212–13, 215–16 gesture 16, 35–7, 38–41, 84, 149, 158, 179–80, 183–5, 199 bigestural 199 blending 39, 40, 84 constriction degree 35–6 constriction location 16, 34–7, 38-40 slow 73, 183–5 timing 35–7, 140, 183–4 /gl/ 123–4, 131 n. 13, 138, 143, 152–3, 169–70, 199 glide 2, 14, 19, 22–3, 24, 52, 53–4, 57, 67, 71 n. 18, 158, 193, 204, 207 glosses 103 n., 116, 144, 209–10, 212 n., 214, 218 n. 4, 219, 221, 223–4, 229 /gm/ 182, 183–5, 199, 205 /gn/ 181–3, 184, 200 Gothic 56, 138, 214–15, 220 /gr/ 89 gradience 6–9, 15–16, 29, 31–3, 36, 41, 49, 79, 157, 186, 199, 201 grammarians 1–2, 13, 15–17, 26 n. 17, 28–9, 57, 84, 96, 102, 176–7, 209, 213, 222–3 Greek 1, 3, 10–11, 19, 21, 27, 55–6, 60, 74, 82, 83–4, 85, 93, 97, 99, 107, 120, 122, 126–8, 130, 131 n. 15, 132, 133, 138, 147, 152, 173, 185, 205–6, 208–20, 222–7 Attic 74, 223 Doric 223 Eretrian 3 Ionic 3, 223 Herodian 2 Hesychius 205, 207, 210, 215, 218 n. 4, 221 hiatus 14, 22, 53 [high] 34–7, 38–41, see also clear /l/; dark /l/; feature; vowel, high Hindi 180 Hittite 216, 221 Horace 25, 91, 150, 213, 216–17 hypercorrection 74, 202, 222 hypocorrection 73, 202

I-longa 12 iambic shortening 202, 217 n. Iberian 206 imperial Latin 9, 12, 43, 57, 64, 75, 85, 98, 107 n. 43, 122, 129 n. 9, 132, 177, 224 implementation of change 5, 43, 122, 124, 156–9 Indic 224 Indo-European (IE) 2, 10, 56, 57, 80, 100, 105, 108, 206, 210, 212, 214, 220, see also Proto-Indo-European (PIE) infinitive 26 n. 18, 63, 167 n. 57 inscription 2, 9–11, 13, 17, 43, 50, 57, 80, 82 n. 4, 122, 126, 131 n. 13, 132–4, 143, 149–53, 156, 159–60, 176–7, 181–2, 192 n. 14, 205, 208, 210–14, 216–20, 222–9 instrumental 96, 105–6, 131–2, 152 intensity 17, 20, 77 interjection 162 intervocalic position 3, 12, 14, 45, 46–7, 51, 55, 68, 82, 90, 92, 175, 190 n. Inuktitut 180 inverse compensatory lengthening, see compensatory lengthening (CL), inverse Irish 208, 211, 217, 221 Old Irish 210, 215, 218, 226 Isidore 205, 226 Italian 13–14, 16 n., 52, 54, 84, 207, 209, 212, 214, 217, 219, 224, 227 Abruzzo dialect 213 Campidanese 209 central and southern dialects 13–14 Lucchese 214 South Italian 209 Turinese 52 Venetian 219 Italic 2, 4, 10, 47, 100, 122–3, 143 Proto-Italic 9, 10, 46–7, 89, 91 n. 16, 100, 106, 123, 131 n. 13, 135, 143 n., 187, 202 Italy 4, 123 iterative 97, 220

Index of subjects, languages, authors, and selected sources Japanese 44, 70 Juvenal 219 /kl/ 7–9, 89–91, 95 n. 22, 107, 120, 121–4, 126–35, 136, 138, 139, 142–3, 149–51, 153, 154–60, 161, 163–4, 165–6, 168–70, 171, 173, 193, 199–202 Korean 180 /kr/ 89–90, 107, 192 L. Aemilius, decree of 11, 150 labial 20, 22 n. 9, 59, 84, 85, 99, 103, 107, 115, 118, 119, 140, 143 n., 146, 156, 169, 170, 174, 177–80, 182, 183–5, 196, see also labial conditioning/colouring labial conditioning/colouring 83–4, 85, 86, 88, 91, 110–11, 112, 119 labiovelar 22 n. 9, 177, 178 n. 5 Laevius 25 Lapis Satricanus 151 late Latin 9, 13, 16, 43, 46–7, 50–1, 54–7, 64, 74, 84, 98 n., 102, 122 n. 2, 129 n. 9, 202, 205–9, 211–15, 219–22, 224–5, 227–8 lateral 16–23, 27–9, 33, 35–7, 40–1, 44, 73, 79, 84, 92, 134 n. 17, 147, 170, 194, 196, 199, see also clear /l/; dark /l/; dissimilation, of laterals; lconditioning/colouring (backing) vocalization 6, 18 Latino-Faliscan 210 Latin phonology 1–4, 10, 13, 14, 43, 75, 80, 195, 197, 202–3 Latium 132, 134, 150 l-conditioning/colouring (backing) 4, 6–8, 15–29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 38–9, 40–1, 73, 76–7, 79, 84, 86, 89, 107, 119, 124, 130 n. 11, 134 n. 17, 172, 198–9, 202, see also dark /l/ blocking/failure/resistance 16, 19, 21–2, 25–6, 27–9, 30, 31, 39–40, 199 legal/judicial language 144, 223 lenition 6–7, 145 Lex Agraria 126 n. Lex Antonia de Termessibus 220

265

Lex Iulia municipalis 103 n. Lex Repetundarum 43, 126, 217–18, 220 Lex Sacra from Spoletium 160 lexical diffusion 5, 43, 64, 75, 122, 157, 159, 168–70, 200–1, see also epenthesis, vocalic lexical frequency, see frequency Lexical Phonology 195 licensing 155, 173–4, 200 linear segmental sequence 9, 15, 172 n., 173–7, 179, 181, 183, 185, 194–6, 198–200 liquid 1, 4, 53–4, 69, 79, 85, 89–92, 96–8, 100–1, 103–9, 118, 121–2, 128, 133, 159, 175, 186–91, 193 n. 16, 194, 198–9, 201 listener 5–7, 18, 27, 29, 41, 67, 68, 70–1, 72, 73, 75–7, 120, 155, 159, 175, 184, 185, 201–2 literary evidence 9, 54, 57, 62, 80, 90, 93–4, 98, 115, 117, 120, 156, 159, 163, 169, 191 Lithuanian 180 littera-rule, see compensatory lengthening (CL), inverse Livius Andronicus 213 Livy 222 loanword 82, 85, 122, 126, 128, 130, 138, 147, 191, 192 n. 15, 212, see also borrowing Longinus 2 Lucanus 25 Lucilius 25, 93 n., 130, 134, 153, 205, 221, 228 Lucretius 102, 149 n., 166–8, 216 Luganda 66, 71 n. 18 Macrobius 152 manner 72, 172–3, 175, 178, 180–1, 183–4, 185, 186, 198–9, 203 Manner Hierarchy 180–1, 185, 196, 203 manuscripts (MSS) 2, 11, 12–13, 52, 55, 57, 130, 152, 204–30 Marianus 104 markedness 5, 7, 41, 174 Marsian 134, 210 Martial 207, 209, 225 masking 84, 175 Matius 27

266

Index of subjects, languages, authors, and selected sources

mediative 8, 90, 95 n. 22, 96, 99–100, 105–6, 115–16, 126, 129, 131, 156–60, 163, 169–70, 187, 200, see also suffix Mediterranean word 206, 214 mental representation 31, 156, 183, 186, 194 merger 11, 13–14, 81, 87, 91, 108, 114–16, 124, 125, 133, 187, 193 metrical structure 6 n., 121, 128–30, 140–2, 148–9, 158 n. 44, 159, 170, 200, 202 modern languages 2–4 monophthongization 11, 43, 47, 63–4, 144–6, 149, 152, 168, 170, 171, 211 mora 43–4, 53, 66, 67, 69, 76, 91 n. 14 bimoraic foot/syllable 140, 142, 159 monomoraic foot/syllable 140 morpheme 26, 56, 92, 120, 123, 129, 139, 141–2, 147 n. 30, 149, 194, 199–200, see also alignment; morphology, transparency bound 93, 135–6, 139 boundary 8, 80, 89, 92–4, 96, 98, 100–1, 103–10, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119–20, 125, 133, 139, 142, 178, 190–1, 193, 195–6, 199–200 free 93, 120, 135 monomorphemic form 194–5 morpheme-initial position 79, 88, 94, 104, 110, 112-14, 115–17, 118–19, 139, 142, 152–3, 191, 193, 199 morphology, see also morpheme, boundary morphologically related 80, 82 n. 4, 83, 92, 104 n. 37, 116–17, 139, 142, 143, 152, 160, 164–5, 215, 220, 227 morphological structure 5, 7–9, 79, 94, 111, 120, 121–2, 124, 131–2, 138–9, 142, 148, 157, 173, 195, 200 morphologization 24–5 transparency 8–9, 26, 79, 88, 93–4, 111, 113–117, 119–20, 133, 135, 139, 142, 148–9, 162, 190–3, 200 diachronically transparent 114 opaque 80, 94, 97, 114–16, 120, 139, 192 multiplicatives 136–41, 148–9

Naevius 216 names 11, 22, 51 n. 6, 55–6, 61, 74, 82 n. 4, 122, 126, 128, 129–30, 132–4, 143, 145, 147, 151, 160, 162–3, 166 n. 53, 182, 185, 205–7, 209–13, 215–16, 221–2, 224–5, 229 nasal stop, + nasal 52, 59, 60 n., 67–9, 72, 79, 85, 118, 122, 132, 140, 145, 146 n., 172–4, 179 n., 180–5, 186, 188–90, 195–6, 200 nasal infix 102, 218–19, 220 n. 8 nasality 9, 72, 145, 175, 181–3, 185, 198 nasalization 72, 145, 181, 183, 185, 186, 205 see also assimilation, in nasality; compensatory lengthening (CL), nasal loss Neogrammarian view 2, 7, 43, 157, 169 Nepos 129 neutralization 6, 13, 43, 80–2, 86–7, 155, 173–5, 178, 219 Ngajan 76 Nonius 111 n. 45 non-reductionist view 5–7, 202, see also sound change, structure-based Novius 25 oblique cases 130, 140–2, 192, 216, 227 obstruent 8, 43–4, 68–9, 71–2, 85, 118, 122, 173, 175–81, 186–90, 194, 196, 200 Old Church Slavonic (OCS) 226 Old Icelandic 207, 212 onomatopoeia 22, 46, 56, 61, 192 n. 15, 206, 215–16 onset 6–9, 15–17, 20–3, 24 n. 14, 28–9, 31–2, 34–7, 38–9, 41, 50–1, 66, 71, 77, 79, 82, 84, 89, 92, 104, 124–8, 132, 154–9, 169–70, 173–5, 177, 179, 182–3, 189–92, 194, 196, 198–201 complex 16, 79, 84, 92, 118, 121, 128, 130, 139, 142, 149, 153–4, 173, 182–3, 189–90, 192–5, 199–200, 202 simple 28–9, 84, 89, 92, 118, 120, 146, 148, 190, 194 Optimality Theory 155, 174, 195

Index of subjects, languages, authors, and selected sources orthographic representation 2, 10–13, 20 n. 6, 43, 45, 47 n., 49, 52, 54–5, 57, 68 n., 82 n. 4, 83, 86, 134, 139, 145–6, 151, 159, 163, 176–7, 181–3, 185, 192 n. 14, 205–8, 210, 212, 214, 216–18, 220, 222–3 Oscan 2, 10–11, 47, 54, 80, 100, 122–3, 134, 193, 210, 216, 222 Ovid 25, 205, 210 Pacuvius 208 Paelignian 123 n. 3, 134 palatal 14, 16, 29, 35–7, 40, 41, 73–4, 84 palatalization 15–16, 28–9, 33, 36 n., 37, 39–41, 54, 73, 84, 123, 146, 199, 202 paradigm 10, 49, 63, 101 n. 29, 195–6, 222–3 paradigmatic levelling 26 n. 18, 49, 192 participle, past/perfect 26 n. 18, 47, 48, 83, 97, 101–2, 105 n. 39, 195, 218 Paulus Diaconus 17, 82 n. 4, 96, 102, 111 n. 44, 144, 153, 215, 220 n. 7, 222–4, 226 penultimate law 62–4, 80, 136 n. 21, 140, 154, see also stress perception 6, 19, 27, 44, 67, 68, 69, 71, 76–7, 145 n. 29, 172–3, 184, 201–2 morphological 88–9, 97, 115, 116, 120, 137, see also morphology, transparency of prosodic equivalence 48, 50, 58 perceptibility 43, 146, 174, 179, 181 perceptually prominent 155, 170 see also cues, phonetic; sound change, perceptually based perseverative coarticulation/resonance 73, 85, 104, 107, 117–19, 186 Persian 44, 70 Petronius 223 philological investigation 2, 4, 43, 197, 202–3 phoneme 2, 6, 12, 14, 176, 178, 181, 190 n. phonetic implementation/realization 5, 8–9, 13, 15, 29, 33, 36–7, 38–41, 44, 48, 71, 77, 83, 92, 109, 120, 159, 172, 173, 178, 183–4, 194, 196, 201 phonetic interpolation 32 phonetic plausibility 2–3, 91

267

phonetics 1–4, 6–7, 9, 41, 74, 77–8, 124, 142, 173, 197, 199, 202 phonological change, see diachronic phonology; sound change phonological theory 2–4, 35, 37, 65–6, 75, 77–8, 91 n. 14, 92 n. 17, 93, 120, 146–7, 155, 173–4, 195, 197, 202 see also Articulatory Phonology; Lexical Phonology; Optimality Theory; word-based syllabification phonologization 5, 7–8, 42, 44, 49, 67, 68, 69–70, 72, 81, 118, 120, 134, 159, 172, 183–4, 196, 198, 200 phonotactics 1, 3, 7, 14, 121–2, 128–9, 132, 136, 147 n. 30, 148, 158, 172–6, 189, 200 Piro 76 /pl/ 8–9, 121, 123–4, 126, 135–52, 153, 154–7, 159–60, 162, 164–5, 167, 168–70, 171, 199–202 place 9, 34, 59, 70 n. 13, 96, 156–7, 169, 172–5, 177–181, 182, 183–5, 195–6, 198–9, 203 Place Hierarchy 179–81, 183, 185, 196, 203 plants 56, 61, 205–7 Plautus 9, 11, 17, 19, 21, 24–7, 52, 80, 83, 85, 103 n. 34, 120–2, 127, 130–2, 134, 137, 140–5, 148–50, 153–4, 160–4, 166-8, 177, 179, 182, 204–5, 207–9, 211, 215–17, 220, 222, 225, 229–30 Pliny 15–16, 26–28, 30–31, 33, 84, 152, 198, 206, 223, 227 plosive 22, 32, see also stop poetic language 25, 107, 154 n. 41, 219 Pomponius 82 n. 4 Pomponius (Bononiensis) 209 popular (colloquial, everyday, informal) speech 13, 120, 46, 56, 60–2, 154 n. 41, 162, 163, 205, 208, 210, 220, 229 Portuguese 13, 52, 228 Old Portuguese 54, 207 positional faithfulness 155, 170, 174 /pr/ 89 Praenestine Latin 133–4

268

Index of subjects, languages, authors, and selected sources

prefix 20, 22–3, 27, 53, 55, 93, 109, 176, 178 n. 7, 228 prefix + root boundary 88 n. 12, 93, 120–1, 125, 127–8, 130, 135, 138–9, 170, 192, 195–6 prehistoric Latin 7, 9, 43, 50, 85, 90, 117, 124, 132, 137, 175, 178, 187–8, 190–4, 196 Priscian 2, 16, 84 productivity 90, 98–102, 114–17, 120, 191, 219, see also morphology, transparency prominence 7, 155, 170, 194–6 prose authors 130, 166–7, 217 prosody 3, 6–7, 14, 17, 51, 55, 58, 63, 74, 88 n. 12, 123, 173, 195, 202 Proto-Indo-European (PIE) 1–4, 10–11, 89, 91–3, 95–6, 98–100, 103–6, 108–9, 124–5, 131–2, 175–6, 178, 187 n. 12, 203, 209, 212–13, 215, 217–20 Proto-Italic, see Italic psycholinguistics 155, 171 Quintilian 1, 12, 52, 150, 176 r-conditioning 8, 79, 82, 84–5, 86, 88–92, 94, 97–8, 104–6, 108–9, 111, 112, 113–14, 117–20, 200, 202 dorsal blocking 111, 118–9, 120 raising 11, 28, 44, 79–81, 83, 86, 90 n., 91, 108, 111, 145, 171, 180 n., 181–2, 188, see also vowel reduction reanalysis/reinterpretation 5–6, 7–8, 18, 41, 44, 60 n., 70–1, 73, 76–7, 79–80, 97, 159, 191 reductionist view 5, 7, 44, 73–4, 76–8, 120, 122, 201 register 11, 46, 50, 56, 60–2, 82 n. 4, 163–5, 168, 205, 220, 223, see also children’s words/speech; legal/judicial language; religious language; popular (colloquial, everyday, informal) speech release 37, 50, 140, 176, 179, 185, 189, 194 religious language 82 n. 4, 164, 230

repair strategy 5 n., 7, 154, 195–6 republican Latin 9, 12, 23, 43, 153, 162–3, 166–7, 209, 218–19, 222–4 resegmentation 24, 130–1 n. 13, see also morphology resistance, see assimilation; epenthesis, vocalic; l-conditioning/colouring (backing) resonance 18, 23, 28, 31, 33, 38–40, 91–2, 118, 172, 198–9 retraction, see also backing 18 n., 19, 22, 35–7, 40, 77, 84, 92 rhotacism 3, 46–7, 55, 63–4, 73, 82, 92, 190 n., 222 rhotic 82, 92, 118, 191–2, 194, 198 Romance 1–2, 13–14, 18, 46, 52, 54, 57, 61, 120, 203–17, 219–30 Italo-Romance 13 Proto-Romance 13, 53–4, 207 Western Romance 13–14 Romanian 13, 52, 212 Rome 122, 133, 150–1, 160 root root faithfulness 5 n., 146, 162, 195 root-final position 105 n. 39, 126, 131–2, 152, 191–2, 218 n. 5 root formations 98–102, 115, see also secondary formations root-initial position 23, 125–6, 128, 135, 139, 142, 178 n. 7 see also prefix + root boundary Sabellian 46–7, 80, 122–3, 208 Sallust 223 Sanskrit 1, 3, 56, 66, 105, 107 n. 43, 108, 193, 205–6, 208, 210, 212, 216, 218, 221, 224, 226, 230 Sardinian 13–14, 214, 222 n. Logudorese 209, 224 Scaurus 177 Scipio, L. Cornelius, epitaph 10–11 Scipio, P. Cornelius, epitaph 143–4, 151–2 secondary formations 25, 98, 143 n., 178 n. 7

Index of subjects, languages, authors, and selected sources segment 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 22, 32, 34, 41, 44, 51, 55, 65–6, 71, 76–7, 80, 92, 137, 155–6, 172–3, 175, 185, 186, 195–6, 200, see also linear segmental sequence segmentation 72–3 semantics 45–6, 50, 55–6, 59–62, 101 n. 30, 109, 131 n. 15, 137–8, 139, 143 n., 144–5, 202, 205–6, 212, 218, 220, 226, 228–9 specialization 27, 61, 142, 220, 223 Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus 11, 126 n., 142, 151 Sententia Minuciorum 220 Servius 1, 136 n. sibilant 176, 187, 189 Sicilian 11, 216, 222 /sl/ 90–91, 187–9, 190 n., 207 slang 56, 60–1, 229 Slavic 227 slot-and-filler model 156 sociolinguistics 42, 73, 198 sonorant 6, 9, 43–4, 60, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 72–3, 75, 107, 118, 128, 145–6, 173, 176, 183 n., 186, 188–91, 193–4, 196, 199–203 sonority 79, 173 n. sound change 1–9, 17–18, 41, 42–5, 48, 50, 58, 63–4, 69, 70 n. 16, 75–6, 78–80, 89, 91, 108, 120, 121–2, 129, 142, 149, 157–8, 165, 168–70, 173, 183, 196, 201–2 direction of change 1, 3, 5, 67, 69, 71 n. 18, 72, 74, 75–6 gradual change 19, 21, 23, 83 n. 7, 144 lifecycle 5 mechanism 142, 169, 201–2, see also lexical diffusion perceptually based 5, 44, 159, 184, 202 phonetically based 1, 5–6, 7–9, 42–4, 71 n. 18, 69, 74, 75–6, 82, 118, 120, 136, 158–9, 164, 168, 169, 170, 174–5, 194, 196, 197, 200, 201–2, see also reductionist approach physiologically based 122, 149, 154, 157–9 slow lexical spread 8, 169–170, 200 spread to new context 7, 9, 121, 155–7, 169–70, 198

269

structure-based 1, 4, 5–9, 15, 41, 42–4, 69, 71, 74, 75–8, 79–80, 94, 120, 122, 124, 142, 155, 157–9, 168–70, 174, 189, 195–6, 197–8, 199–202 suprasegmental 158 syllable-based 7, 124–8, 142, 172–7, 179, 183, 185, 188–90, 195–6 sound pattern 4, 77, 172 sound-to-structure correspondence 157, 169 sources of evidence 4, 9–15, 57 Spanish 7, 13, 36 n., 52, 209, 212, 228 speaker 3, 5, 42, 48, 68, 71, 72, 74, 77, 92, 94, 98, 115–16, 120, 128, 135, 137, 139, 146–8, 157, 159, 186, 194, 201–2 specification 9, 15–16, 18, 20, 29, 31–3, 34–7, 38, 40–1, 69 n., 73–4, 79, 84, 92 n., 169, 172–5, 179, 183, 185–91, 193–4, 196, 199, 201, 202, see also underspecification speech production, see articulation; phonetic implementation/realization speech rhythm 6 n., 7, 150 n. 34 spelling, see orthographic representation spoken language, see popular (colloquial, everyday, informal) speech spontaneous gemination 45–6, 48, 50, 55–7, 60–2, 64, 204–10, 212–13, 215–17, 220–5, 228–30 /sr/ 90–1, 108, 120, 121, 187, 190, 196 stative 97, 212 stem present 63, 83, 97, 99, 101–3, 105 n., 210, 218, 220 simplex 20, 22–3, 26, 109–11, 125, 135, 154 s-stem 24, 90, 97, 99, 108, 116 stem-final position 25, 32, 93, 97, 101–2, 117, 135 n., 138, 191, 193, see also root, rootfinal position verbal 54, 101–2, 139 stop + /l/ (Tl) 4, 8, 16, 84, 87–8, 89, 91, 95 n. 23, 112–13, 116 n., 121–5, 127, 129–30, 138, 154, 156, 170, 172, 187–8, 194, 198–200

270

Index of subjects, languages, authors, and selected sources

stop (cont.) + liquid (TR) 1, 4, 6–9, 54, 79, 80 n. 1, 82, 84, 87–90, 92–101, 103–11, 112, 113–20, 121–2, 125, 127, 133, 139, 148, 154 n. 41, 168, 173, 175, 186–94, 196, 198, 199, 201, 203 default syllabification 8, 94, 114–17, 120, 148, 190–3 heteromorphemic 88, 93–5, 109–15, 117, 124, 127, 191–3 heterosyllabic 8, 79, 87–8, 90–1, 93–4, 98–9, 113–17, 119–20, 123, 125, 127–8, 130, 133, 138, 140, 142–3, 146–9, 151–2, 156, 159, 164, 168–72, 187–8, 190–3, 196, 199–200, 203 tautomorphemic 93, 98–100, 103, 105–6, 108, 110–14, 116, 199 tautosyllabic 8, 79, 84, 88, 92–4, 98–9, 112–14, 116–17, 119–20, 123, 125–8, 130, 139, 142–3, 146–8, 152, 168, 171–2, 190–3 + nasal 122, 181–5, 188 + /r/ (Tr) 87–8, 89–92, 109, 112, 113, 116 n., 118–19, 122, 187, 191–2, 196, 199 + stop 176–8, see also consonant, sequence stress 2, 6 n., 7, 9, 17, 28, 48–9, 50, 59, 61–5, 75, 77, 78 n., 80, 87, 123, 136 n., 140–2, 154, 158–9, 170, 198, 200, see also syllable, stressed; syllable, unstressed initial-syllable 2, 16, 17–18, 20, 21, 27, 28, 49, 62–3, 64, 75, 80, 84, 85, 86, 140, 142, 154–5, 156, 199 secondary 63, 70, 128 staccato 140–2, 146, 159 strength 49, 141, 142, 146, 154, 200–1 structural analogy 41, 76, 122, 124, 201 structural influence, see sound change, structure-based suffix 8, 10, 23–4, 26 n. 19, 56, 61, 63, 89–91, 93–110, 114–17, 121, 123–7, 129, 131–2, 135 n., 138, 152–3, 156–60, 163, 169–70, 187, 191–3, 196, 200, 206, 210, 213, 218, 221, 229 suffixal replacement 55, 57–8, 60, 63–5, 74–5, 199, 204, 209, 211, 219, 221, 225, see also compensatory lengthening (CL), inverse

superlative 56 surface form 1, 5–9, 15, 31–3, 35–6, 73, 77, 79, 118, 174, 186, 189–90, 194, 196, 199, see also phonetic implementation/ realization syllabicity 19 n. 5, 54, 191, 192 n. 14, 194, 202 syllabification 1–3, 5, 8–9, 31, 41, 54, 79, 80, 87–8, 93–4, 100, 113–5, 117, 119–20, 125, 127, 146, 148–9, 154, 175, 177, 186, 192–3, 194 n. 18–19, 198 syllable boundary 67, 79, 92–4, 108, 110, 113, 117, 119, 120, 121, 125, 127, 139, 148–9, 191, 195, 196, 200 closed 6, 8, 13, 17, 28–9, 44, 50, 66–7, 68, 69–71, 76–8, 79–84, 85–6 n. 9, 87, 88–90, 92–4, 96–100, 102–11, 112, 113–17, 119–20, 132, 133, 140, 146, 188, 198–201 final 11, 19, 70 n. 16, 80 n. 1, 81 n., 129, 134 n. 17, 136, 140, 191 heavy 12–13, 51–2, 63, 66, 93, 129, 132, 136–7, 140–1, 146, 149, 153, 154, 158 n., 164, 168, 170, 217 in antiquity 1–2, 198 initial 2, 16, 17–18, 19–22, 26, 27–9, 30, 49, 62–3, 64, 73, 75, 80, 84, 85–6, 93, 107, 108, 111, 140, 142, 154–5, 156, 192, 199 internal 19, 21–3, 28–9, 30, 63, 80–7, 102, 118, 120, 123, 129, 154, 157 light 13, 51, 63, 93, 128–9, 130 n. 12, 132, 136, 140–1, 149, 154, 191–2 nucleus 2, 35, 37, 51 open 6, 8, 13, 17, 19 n. 5, 20 n. 7, 22, 28, 29 n. 20, 44, 67, 68, 69–71, 76–8, 79–89, 91–4, 98–100, 101 n. 30, 102–8, 110–11, 112, 113–20, 123, 124, 125, 127, 146, 198–201 stressed 13, 16, 19, 21, 27, 28, 48–9, 50, 54, 55, 62–3, 78, 80, 84–6, 91, 128–9, 130 n. 12, 136–7, 140–2, 146, 149, 153, 154–5, 158 n., 159, 164, 168, 170, 199 structure 1–4, 6–9, 13, 31, 36–7, 41, 50, 71 n. 18, 76, 79, 80, 82, 123, 124, 126, 139, 142, 148, 158, 172–5, 183, 188, 194, 195–6, 197–9, 201

Index of subjects, languages, authors, and selected sources superheavy 52–3, 70, 192 syllable-initial segments 6, 9, 20, 37, 89, 121, 132, 148, 152, 189–94, 196, 200, 202 unstressed 13, 28, 68, 118, 124, 129 n. 9, 140–2, 159 synchronic phonology, see sound change, structure-based syncope 2, 17 n. 2, 80, 82 n. 4, 101 n. 29, 107, 122 n. 2, 123, 126 n., 128, 129 n. 9, 131, 133, 136 n.,152–3, 162, 178, 191, 195, 202, 219, 222 n., 228 archaic alignment syncope 136, 178 early/classical parsing syncope 128–30, 136–7, 141–2, 149, 153–4, 158–9 n., 170 syntactic analysis 146–7, 158, 201–2 tempo 162–3 Terence 9, 26–7, 134, 140, 149–150, 152–153, 161 n. 48, 164–5, 166, 167–9, 204 ternary contrast 7, 15–16, 31–2, 33–6, 41, 199 tetrasyllables 130, 136 n., 140, 154 Thai 179–80 Tibur inscription 220 Tiburtes, letter of L. Cornelius to the 150–1 tip-of-the-tongue state 155 /tl/ 89–91, 95 n. 22, 107, 120, 124, 131 n. 13, 15, 156, 193 tongue body (TB) 15–16, 18 n., 32, 34–41, 179, see also gesture tongue tip (TT) 34–5, 179, see also gesture /tr/ 89, 99, 118, 192 transitions 32, 67–8, 72–3, 146, 179, 181, 184–5, 186, 196, see also formant; gesture vocalic 27, 67, 134, 140, 159, 201 trill 64, 73, 92 trochee, see foot, head of a well-formed trochee Turkish 15, 31–2, 44, 70 typology 2–4, 8, 42, 67, 70, 77, 179, 181, 183, 196, 200 Umbrian 2, 10–11, 47, 80, 87, 106, 123, 131 n. 13, 135, 138, 143, 160, 216, 222, 228

271

underlying representation 31–2, 36, 155, 170, 173–4, 186, 190, 194 n. 19, 196 underspecification 7, 13, 15–16, 31–2, 33, 34–7, 41, 76–7, 84, 92 n., 186–90, 194, 196, 199 universals 5–7, 44, 69–70, 78, 81, 183, 192, 202 variation 19–20, 22, 30, 42, 44–8, 57–66, 72–5, 83, 85, 110–11, 120, 126, 131, 133–4, 150–1, 153, 156, 163, 183 n. 10, 194, 199–200, 204–7, 209, 211–14, 216–17, 219–21, 223–5, 227–9 Varro 24–5, 61, 74, 82 n. 4, 90, 105 n. 40, 128, 130, 150, 152–3, 206, 208–10, 212, 216, 222 velar 16, 22, 35–7, 38, 41, 92, 118, 156, 181–2 velarization 15, 18 n., 23, 28–9, 33, 37, 40–1, 70 n. 13, 199, see also dark /l/ Velius Longus 176, 222 velum 183–4 Vergil 1, 51 n. 6, 52, 144, 148, 213, 226 Verrius Flaccus 96, 102, 152 verse 134, 137, 143, 149–50, 153, 154 n. 42, 166–7, 179, 214, 217 metrics/scansion 2, 13, 51, 87, 88 n. 12, 91, 93, 120, 125, 127, 130, 140, 148–9, 153 n. 39, 154 n. 41, 162, 179, 208, 209, 212, 214, 217 Vestinia 134 Victorinus 222 Virgilius Maro 213 Vitruvius 90, 129 voice 6, 7, 9, 32, 65, 69, 71–2, 96, 128, 130, 138, 149, 157, 168–70, 172–3, 175–9, 183, 185–94, 196, 198–202, see also assimilation, in voice [voice] feature 9, 15, 31–2, 65, 72, 157, 169, 172–3, 185, 186, 188–94, 196, 198, 200–2 in codas 7, 130 in sonorants 9, 69 n., 71, 173, 186–94, 196, 202 voiced aspirate 2, 4, 91, 108, 125, 131 n. 15, 219 voiced fricative 69, 91, 108, 145, 176, 187–8, 189, 190 n.

272

Index of subjects, languages, authors, and selected sources

voice (cont.) voiced obstruent 43, 69, 71, 200 voiced stop 14, 32, 49, 59, 71, 127, 130, 144, 146, 151, 156, 165, 169, 170, 176, 186, 188, 189, 192 voiceless fricative 187, 190 voiceless obstruent 8, 43, 44, 68–9, 72, 200 voiceless stop 14, 32, 44, 47, 49, 59–62, 65, 67, 69, 71, 75, 122, 145–6, 151–2, 156, 169, 170, 177, 188, 189, 191–2, 194, 199, 219 VOT 176, 185 vowel compositional 22, 25, 27, 100, 102, 106, 110 epenthetic 23, 26–7, 88 n. 11, 100, 123–4, 126–7, 129–32, 133–4, 135 n., 137, 141, 143, 149, 153, 159, 161–3, 168, 185 height 19, 24, 32 n. 21, 35, 39, 40, 72, 81, 92, 117–19 high 2, 8, 14, 23, 27, 33 n. 24, 43–4, 53–4, 60–2, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70 n. 13, 71, 72, 73, 75, 81, 83, 86, 87, 118, 199–200 internal 16, 20, 22–3, 27, 28–9, 80, 90, 95, 100, 103–8, 110–11, 117–9, 124, 134 n. 17, 159, 190, see also syllable, internal labialized 83, 86, 119 length 3, 11–13, 15, 43, 49 n. 4, 51, 64–7, 69–70, 72, 74–5, 76–8, 201, 205, 208–9, 212–14, 217–19, 223, 227–8 lengthening 71, 145, 202, see also compensatory lengthening (CL) long 8, 11–14, 18, 23, 26–7, 29, 42–8, 50–2, 55, 57, 60, 63, 65–6, 68 n. 11, 69–77, 80, 86, 97 n. 26, 103, 106, 126, 139, 144–5, 190, 200, 206–11, 213, 217–22, 228 low (open) 13, 19–20, 44, 60 n., 69, 72–3, 81, 87, 118 mid 11, 13–14, 40, 69, 73, 81, 87, 104, 117–20 rounded 83, 119 short 8, 13–14, 18, 21, 23, 28, 42, 44, 45, 50, 51–2, 60 n., 69–71, 73, 76–7, 80–2, 86–7, 95 n., 97, 100, 102, 104–6, 109,

116, 123, 124, 130 n. 11, 134 n. 17, 145–6, 149, 153 n. 39, 154 n., 200, 205–6, 209, 211–13, 217–18, 227, 229 shortening 70 n. 16, 71, 72, 202, 207, 213, see also compensatory lengthening (CL); iambic shortening thematic 97, 101–2, 106 unrounded 83, 158 see also duration, vowel; high vowel reduction 2, 4, 5–6, 8, 27–9, 70, 77, 79–120, 121, 123, 125, 127, 133, 158, 171, 192, 198–9, 201–2 conditioned see labial conditioning/ colouring; l-conditioning/colouring (backing); r-conditioning; V-to-V conditioning 81–85, 86 unconditioned 29, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88–9, 92, 119 vowel weakening 80, see also vowel reduction V-to-V conditioning 85–86, 88–89, 97, 99, 104–9, 111, 112, 117–19 Vulgar Latin 46, 61, 213 weight 2–3, 51–2, 63, 65–6, 76, 201 preservation 44, 52–3, 66–7, 69–71, 76, 91 n. 14, 132, 198, 201 Welsh 78 n., 217, 226 word word-final segments 1, 6, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 32, 70 n. 16, 72, 129, 139, 146, 148, 155, 173, 177, 179 word-initial segments 6, 7, 12, 14, 17, 87, 104, 122, 125, 128, 135, 146–8, 154–6, 157 n., 170, 182, 190, 192 word-internal consonants 8, 15–16, 17, 20, 27, 79, 87, 91, 95, 107, 108, 109, 121, 125–9, 134, 135–6, 138, 142, 147–9, 152–3, 156, 157, 169–70, 181–3, 185, 187, 189, 190, 200 see also syllable, initial; syllable, internal word-based syllabification 146–9 writing, see orthographic representation

Ox f o rd Stu di es in D i ac h r o n i c a n d Hi s to r i c a l L in gu ist ic s General editors Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge Advisory editors Cynthia Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; David Willis, University of Cambridge Published 1 From Latin to Romance Morphosyntactic Typology and Change Adam Ledgeway 2 Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change Edited by Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo, and Juanito Avelar 3 Case in Semitic Roles, Relations, and Reconstruction Rebecca Hasselbach 4 The Boundaries of Pure Morphology Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives Edited by Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden, and John Charles Smith 5 The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume I: Case Studies Edited by David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth 6 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes Elizabeth Traugott and Graeme Trousdale 7 Word Order in Old Italian Cecilia Poletto

8 Diachrony and Dialects Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy Edited by Paola Benincà, Adam Ledgeway, and Nigel Vincent 9 Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages Edited by Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli 10 Vowel Length from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro 11 The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax Edited by Katalin É. Kiss 12 Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic George Walkden 13 The History of Low German Negation Anne Breitbarth 14 Arabic Indefinites, Interrogatives, and Negators A Linguistic History of Western Dialects David Wilmsen 15 Syntax over Time Lexical, Morphological, and Information-Structural Interactions Edited by Theresa Biberauer and George Walkden 16 Syllable and Segment in Latin Ranjan Sen In preparation Variation and Change in the Syntax of Portuguese Relative Clauses Adriana Cardoso Negation and Nonveridicality in the History of Greek Katerina Chatzopoulou The Syntax of Old Romanian Edited by Gabriela Pană Dindelegan

Nominal Expressions and Language Change From Early Latin to Modern Romance Giuliana Giusti The Historical Dialectology of Arabic: Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Approaches Edited by Clive Holes A Study in Grammatical Change The Modern Greek Weak Subject Pronoun τος and its Implications for Language Change and Structure Brian D. Joseph Gender from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro The Syntax and Semantics of Vedic Particles John J. Lowe Quantitative Historical Linguistics Barbara McGillivray and Gard Jenset Syntactic Change and Stability Joel Wallenberg The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume II: Patterns and Processes Edited by David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth