VOWEL PROSTHESIS IN ROMANCE

A DIACHRONIC STUDY

This page intentionally left blank

Vowel Prosthesis in Romance

A Diachronic Study

RODNEY SAMPSON

1

3Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP

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 in

Oxford New York

Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong KarachiKuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City NairobiNew Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto

With offices in

Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France GreeceGuatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal SingaporeSouth Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Pressin the UK and in certain other countries

Published in the United Statesby Oxford University Press Inc., New York

# Rodney Sampson 2010

The moral rights of the author have been assertedDatabase right Oxford University Press (maker)

First published 2010

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, or under terms agreed with the appropriatereprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproductionoutside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,Oxford University Press, at the address above

You must not circulate this book in any other binding or coverand you must impose the same condition on any acquirer

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Data available

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Library of Congress Control Number: 2009934142

Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, IndiaPrinted in Great Britainon acid-free paper bythe MPG Books Group, Bodmin and King’s Lynn

ISBN 978–0–19–954115–7

1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

Preface

The present work aims to fill a gap in the available literature on historical

Romance phonology and, more broadly, to make a contribution to ongoing

research into the general nature of sound change in language. Sound change

has of course long been an object of close investigation by linguists, and the

findings that have been made over the past two centuries have enlarged our

understanding of it considerably. The main focus of attention in the work of

previous scholars in this area has centred, as might be expected, on the detection

and elucidation of the general characteristics of regular sound change. Explora-

tion of patterns of change that appeared irregular or “sporadic” has awakened

rather less interest, and in historical accounts of individual languages or families

of languages it has not been uncommon to find such types of change dealt with in

a section summarily tucked away at the end of the treatment of regular changes.

However, in more recent years a growing number of linguists have begun to

concern themselves with cases of what traditionally were taken to be irregular

sound change with a view to discovering whether patterns of regularity can after

all be identified. The present study forms part of this enterprise and, it is hoped,

will usefully contribute to it.

Amongst those who do not have specialized knowledge of the Romance

languages and their phonological history, a widespread assumption appears to

be that only one type of vowel prosthesis operated in Romance. This affected

words beginning with a consonant sequence of sibilant plus another consonant,

as in Latin SPERARE “to hope” which developed to give, for example, Spanish

esperar and French esperer. Although this certainly represents the most geograph-

ically diffused type in Romance, two other major types of vowel prosthesis have

also occurred, each of them affecting broad swathes of the Romance speech area.

Neither of the latter types took root in the more familiar Romance standard

languages, however, so that their relative obscurity is perhaps easy to understand.

Nonetheless, close analysis of their characteristics sheds a rather fuller light on the

general nature and scope of prosthesis as a phonological process in Romance.

More generally, it also reminds us of the rich store of linguistic materials to be

found in the non-standard varieties of Romance.

The organization of an account which seeks to trace the diachronic trajectory

of the various types of vowel prosthesis across Romance over two millennia of

linguistic evolution poses inevitable problems. Our intention has been to avoid

where possible the use of just “diachronic correspondences” or “metachronic

equations”, that is, statements simply identifying the initial and final stage of

individual sound changes. Such statements are of course not uncommon in

historical phonologies of particular languages. Instead, the overall profile of

each evolving type of vowel prosthesis is traced through time with consideration

not only of the circumstances of its genesis and establishment but also of its later

history and possible loss of productivity. To inform the coverage, data and

insights drawn from a wide range of sources are systematically exploited, philo-

logical, phonetic, and phonological. Given the nature of the very diverse materials

that have been used, a data-driven and rather surface-descriptive framework has

been adopted in preference to couching the treatment within a more formal and

abstract theoretical framework.

Finally, it is a pleasure to acknowledge the assistance received in the writing of

this book. I am grateful to the Arts and Humanities Research Council for the

award received in 2006 which enabled the completion of much fundamental

research. To Wendy Ayres-Bennett, Paola Beninca, Elaine Broselow, Patrizia

Cordin, Martin Durrell, Michele Loporcaro, Martin Maiden, Mair Parry, Ralph

Penny, and Peter Ricketts, I extend my thanks for help at various stages during the

slow gestation of the work. Their comments on sometimes inchoate conference

papers and their willing provision of invaluable materials and points of informa-

tion were much appreciated. A particular and deep debt of gratitude is owed to

Yves Charles Morin who read through the entire text and offered many invaluable

observations on it. All shortcomings which remain are of course to be laid at the

door of the author rather than any of these scholars. Thanks must also go to John

Davey and Oxford University Press for taking on this work and for their humane

and tolerant understanding of the pains of authorship, and to their anonymous

readers who provided useful suggestions. Lastly, it is impossible to overestimate

the patience and forbearance shown by my wife Bodil while this book was

written. Tusind tak min skat.

Bristol, November 2008

vi Preface

Contents

List of Maps ix

Abbreviations x

1 Introduction 11.1 Preliminaries 11.2 Incidence of vowel prosthesis in Romance 31.3 Identification of vowel prosthesis in a diachronic perspective 3

1.3.1 Direct indication 31.3.2 Indirect indication 7

1.4 Prosthesis as a synchronic process 81.5 Prosthesis as a regular or sporadic diachronic process 141.6 Prosthesis and vowel quality 151.7 Causation of vowel prosthesis 18

1.7.1 Phonological factors 201.7.2 Morphophonological factors 251.7.3 Lexical alignment 271.7.4 Morpholexical factors 271.7.5 Sociolinguistic considerations 28

1.8 Previous studies 331.9 Sources of data 34

2 Categories of prosthesis in the history of Romance 362.1 I-prosthesis 362.2 A-prosthesis 372.3 U-prosthesis 382.4 Miscellaneous 382.5 Problems of classification 40

3 The Latin background 413.1 The syllable in Classical Latin 41

3.1.1 Syllabification across word boundaries 473.2 Syllabic change in pre-Classical Latin 49

4 I-prosthesis 534.1 Rise of I-prosthesis: early developments 53

4.1.1 Sources and interpretation of data 564.1.2 Geographical distribution 604.1.3 Quality of the prosthetic vowel 624.1.4 Actualization 654.1.5 Causation 67

4.2 Medieval and modern developments 734.2.1 General patterns of early medieval change 74

4.3 Type 1 (‘Eastern Romance’): general non-development ofunconditioned I-prosthesis 764.3.1 Balkan Romance 764.3.2 Southern Italian 794.3.3 Tuscan: a problem case 80

4.4 Type 2 (‘Western Romance’): general development of unconditionedI-prosthesis 964.4.1 Sardinian 964.4.2 Ibero-Romance 1004.4.3 Gallo-Romance 1124.4.4 Rheto-Romance 1354.4.5 Northern Italo-Romance 137

5 A-prosthesis 1465.1 Introduction 146

5.1.1 Identification 1475.2 A-prosthesis: early developments 150

5.2.1 Geographical distribution 1505.2.2 Chronology 1545.2.3 Structural preconditions to prosthesis 1595.2.4 Quality of the prosthetic vowel 1645.2.5 Actualization 1695.2.6 Causation 1715.2.7 A structurally related development: the Italian forms ignudo,

ignocchi, etc. 1805.3 A-prosthesis: later developments 182

5.3.1 Varieties showing significant regression of A-prosthesis 1825.3.2 Varieties showing maintenance of A-prosthesis 1895.3.3 Varieties showing enhancement of A-prosthesis 190

6 U-prosthesis 1946.1 Rise of U-prosthesis: early developments 195

6.1.1 Geographical distribution 1956.1.2 Structural preconditions to U-prosthesis 1966.1.3 Chronology 2046.1.4 Actualization 2086.1.5 Quality of the prosthetic vowel 2246.1.6 Causation 228

6.2 U-prosthesis: later developments 229

7 Conclusion: retrospective and prospective 233

Maps 239

Bibliography 251

Index 281

viii Contents

List of Maps

1 Areas showing systematic vowel prosthesis in Romance 239

2 Epenthesis with s impura forms in Wallonia 240

3 A-prosthesis and locations in Gascony 241

4 U-prosthesis in Italo-Romance and Rheto-Romance 242

5 U-prosthesis in Picardy 243

6 Vowel prosthesis and locations in Corsica 244

7 Vowel prosthesis and locations in Sardinia 245

8 Locations in the Iberian Peninsula 246

9 Locations in northern Italy and the Rheto-Romance area 247

10 Locations in central-southern Italy 248

11 Locations in SE France and adjacent areas of Italy 249

12 Locations in northern France 250

Abbreviations

acc. accusative

Bol. Bolognese

c. circa

Cal. Calabrian

Cast. Castilian Spanish

Cat. Catalan

CL Classical Latin

d. died

Dal. Dalmatian

dat. dative

Engad. Engadinese (Rheto-Romance)

f. feminine

Fr. French

Gasc. Gascon

gen. genitive

Germ. Germanic

imp. imperfect

It. Italian

l. line

Langob. Langobardic

Log. Logudorese (Sardinian)

m. masculine

mod. modern

n. neuter

Nap. Neapolitan

NIt. northern Italian

nom. nominative

Occ. Occitan

OCS Old Church Slavonic

OFr. Old French

OSp. Old Spanish

pl. plural

Port. Portuguese

p.pt. past participle

pres. present

refl. reflexive

Rom. Romanian

R-R Rheto-Romance

Sard. Sardinian

sg. singular

Sicil. Sicilian

SIt. southern Italian

St.Fr. standard French

St.It. standard Italian

Sp. Spanish

subj. subjunctive

Wall. Walloon

* unattested reconstruction

** non-occurring form in a known language

> develops through time into

< has developed through time from

[ ] phonetic transcription

/ / phonemic transcription

<> attested graphy

j syllable boundary

AIS Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der Sudschweiz

ALA Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de l’Alsace

ALAL Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de l’Auvergne et du Limousin

ALB Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de Bourgogne

ALCat Atlas linguıstic de Catalunya

ALCB Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de la Champagne et de la Brie

ALCe Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Centre (Berry et Bourbon-

nais)

ALD Atlant linguistich dl ladin dolomitich y di dialec vejins

ALEANR Atlas linguıstico y etnografico de Aragon, Navarra y Rioja

ALEIC Atlante linguistico etnografico italiano della Corsica

ALF Atlas linguistique de la France

ALF: Corse Atlas linguistique de la France: Corse

ALG Atlas linguistique de la Gascogne

ALGa Atlas linguıstico galego

ALI Atlante linguistico italiano.

ALIFO Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de l’Ile-de-France et de

l’Orleanais

Abbreviations xi

ALJA Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Jura et des Alpes du Nord

ALLoc Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Languedoc Occidental

ALLor Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Languedoc Oriental

ALN Atlas linguistique et ethnographique normand

ALP Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de la Provence

ALPic Atlas linguistique et ethnographique picard

ALR Atlasul lingvistic roman

ALW Atlas linguistique de la Wallonie

ASLEF Atlante storico-linguidtico-etnografico friulano

CGL Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum

CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum

DCECH Diccionario crıtico etimologico castellano e hispanico

DECLC Diccionari etimologic i complementari de la llengua catalana

DELI Il nuovo etimologico DELI. Dizionario etimologico della lingua

italiana

DHLF Dictionnaire historique de la langue francaise

FEW Franzosisches etymologisches Worterbuch

Keil Grammatici Latini

LRL Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik

REW Romanisches etymologisches Worterbuch

TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae

xii Abbreviations

1

Introduction

1.1 Preliminaries

Prosthesis, also known as ‘prothesis’,1 is one of several types of diachronic phono-

logical process which affect segments as a whole rather than just features within

individual segments. Suchwhole-segment processes operate as word-level phenom-

ena and may be seen to fall into two broad categories. On the one hand, they may

leave the original inventory of segments in aword unchanged but bring about linear

reordering, as in CREPAS> Spanish quebras ‘you (sg.) break’, this being known as

metathesis. On the other hand, the effect may be to add new segments or delete

existing segments such that, unlike with metathesis, the original number of seg-

ments in a word is modified. Amongst such processes, different types are conven-

tionally recognized on the basis of where in a given word the change occurs—at the

beginning, within the word, or at the end. In this way, it is possible to recognize six

types in all, three additive and three reductive. Although the terminology used by

linguists to designate these is a little variable,2 the arrangement below in Figure 1.1

would doubtless be broadly acceptable.

word-initial word-medial word-final

additive PROSTHESIS EPENTHESIS PARAGOGE

(or ANAPTYXIS)

reductive APHAERESIS SYNCOPE APOCOPE

FIGURE 1.1. Types of additive or reductive process

1 The term itself was first coined by Greek grammarians, �æ��Ł��Ø� from �æ�(�) ‘before’

and Ł��Ø� ‘setting, placing’, and was subsequently taken over by the fourth-century Roman

grammarians Charisius and Diomedes. Drawing directly on the work of these scholars,

medieval and especially Renaissance grammarians such as Nebrija (1481) and Dubois (1531)

maintained the term within grammatical parlance.2 For instance, ‘epenthesis’ may be found being used to refer to all types of additive

change (McMahon 1994: 15). Another possibility is that ‘prosthesis’ is reserved for word-

initial changes involving vowels only, whereas ‘epenthesis’ is used for consonant insertion

(Repetti 1997). For some discussion of terminological variation in this area, see Lass (1984:

183–90), Trask (1996: 66–8).

Prosthesis is thus the phonological process whereby a new segment is inserted

at the beginning of a word. The segment may be a vowel, as in Latin SCALA> Span-

ish escala ‘ladder’, and it is with this type that the present study will be concerned.

But the new segment may also be a consonant, as in Latin HERI> Sardinian derisi

[’derizi] ‘yesterday’ where an initial /d/ has appeared (cf. Italian ieri).3 Problem-

atic however are those cases where an initial approximant has developed, since

initial phonetic segments such as [j-] [w-] etc. may be interpreted phonologically

as vowels or consonants and this of course will in turn decide which type of

prosthesis has occurred, vocalic or consonantal. We consider below (1.3) some

cases where initial approximants have arisen in Romance and propose an inter-

pretation for them.

Despite having its own special characteristics, vowel prosthesis can none-

theless be seen to share a number of basic and important properties with the

other types of process when they operate with vowels. First, with the

exception of apocope, all have phonological relevance only, in the sense

that the vowel that is inserted or deleted within a word does not directly

serve to express some grammatical value. Instead, the new vowel just

changes the formal structure of the exponent of an existing morpheme in

a word. Second, these processes all result in change affecting not only the

number of segments in a morpheme, but also the syllable structure of that

morpheme. In most instances, there is a consequent addition or reduction of

the number of syllables present in a word, but occasionally change may

involve major syllable restructuring without modification in the overall

number of syllables (see 1.3 below). Third, the vowel or syllable affected by

these processes will normally be unstressed. This is largely predictable since

the primary-stressed syllable represents the central core of a word. It is

therefore much more resistant than unstressed syllables to deletion, whilst

the attachment of primary stress to an adventitious new syllable in a word

would be highly unexpected. However, a vowel introduced by one of these

processes may of course come to receive primary stress as a result of a later

independent change affecting the location of primary stress in words.4

3 For a close analysis of the incidence and possible factors underlying /d/ prosthesis in

Sardinian, see Floricic (2004).4 There are few if any clear examples of this in Romance however. But, outside

Romance, examples can be found. For instance, prosthesis occurred in early medieval

Welsh in words beginning with /s/þ consonant sequences. Following the regular deletion

of word-final vowels, a paroxytonic word-stress pattern came to be generalized in the later

Middle Ages and this has sometimes led to originally prosthetic vowels being assigned

primary stress, as in SCHOLA>ysgol(a)> ysgol ‘school’.

2 Introduction

1.2 Incidence of vowel prosthesis in Romance

Vowel prosthesis is widely represented across Romance. As we shall see, a number

of different categories of vowel prosthesis can be distinguished and one or other

of these has occurred at some stage in most Romance varieties, from the Iberian

Peninsula across to the Balkans. Certain varieties indeed have experienced more

than one category. In some forms of Romance, vowel prosthesis continues to be a

productive phonological process but in others it has ceased to be so and there

may be no more than vestigial evidence of its former presence.5 Curiously, the

available evidence suggests that vowel prosthesis seldom occurred in the early

history of Latin prior to the Imperial period which began in the first century BC

(see Chapter 3 below), though the reasons for the striking difference in this

respect between Latin and its linguistic progeny remain far from clear.

Before beginning on our investigation of the evolution of vowel prosthesis in

Romance, however, it will be helpful in this chapter to address some general

aspects relating to the phenomenon of prosthesis in order better to situate the

data which will be presented.

1.3 Identification of vowel prosthesis in a diachronic perspective

Indicators of different types exist which allow us to determine whether vowel

prosthesis has operated during the historical development of a language. These

may be direct or indirect, and we may consider each of these types in turn.

1.3.1 DIRECT INDICATION

The obvious direct indicator of vowel prosthesis is the presence of an overt,

non-etymological word-initial vowel. An example would be SCALA> Spanish

escala ‘ladder’. However, the use of this simple criterion for the identification of

vowel prosthesis can encounter difficulties since not all instances of newly

created non-etymological word-initial vowels necessarily can be appropriately

attributed to the action of the phonological process of vowel prosthesis. Two

problems in particular may be identified. First, it may be recalled that true

prosthetic vowels do not carry grammatical value. Hence, the introduction of a

prefixal vowel to an existing word form cannot be properly viewed as an

5 It may be noted that, outside the Romance-speaking area, vowel prosthesis has also

operated in the history of various other languages in Europe and beyond, for instance

Celtic (Jackson 1953: } 119), Ancient Greek (Wyatt 1972), and Armenian (Meillet 1927).

Introduction 3

instance of prosthesis. Thus, the initial vowel [a-] of the French words agrandir

‘to enlarge’ (< a-þ grand-ir) and adieu ‘farewell’ (< aþ dieu) would not be

adjudged prosthetic, as it clearly represents the exponent of an independent

word-initial morpheme (here, respectively, a formative creating a de-adjectival

verb and the preposition a plus nominal) in new lexical creations that find

numerous counterparts elsewhere in French such as aplatir ‘to flatten’, amoin-

drir ‘to diminish’ and atout ‘trump, advantage’, averse ‘downpour of rain’. True

prosthesis therefore does not lead to an increase in the overall number of

morphemes in a word. However, as may be predicted, there may be circum-

stances in a language where it is not immediately obvious whether a given

word-initial vowel arose as a result of prosthesis or the addition of a prefixal

morpheme. This can occur when a regular process of prosthesis yields a word-

initial vowel which is phonetically identical to the reflex of an original prefix.

For instance, in Gascon just as in standard French there are many clear examples

of words containing prefixal [a-], amurta ‘to put out (fire)’ < AD-MORT-ARE,

arriba ‘to arrive’ < AD-RIP-ARE, but a productive phonological process of pros-

thesis has also operated which likewise results in word-initial [a-], as in arrıc

‘rich’ < Germanic rikki and arrıu ‘river’ < RIVU(M). Often there are solid grounds

for deciding in a given Gascon form whether a new word-initial a- is prefixal or

prosthetic in origin but there may well be less clear cases too, in particular those

which involve stems containing etymological initial [r-]. For instance, the initial

vowel of arreben ‘steep’ could be ascribed to prosthesis from REPENTE(M) or it

might be seen to reflect an earlier prefixal etymon AD-REPENTE(M) (cf. Rohlfs

1970: }118).6 Where such formal identity arises between the results of prefixation

and prosthesis, there is often mutual interference between the two processes

which can further add to the difficulty for the linguist in distinguishing between

them when vowels of both types coexist in a linguistic variety.

A further problem of interpretation also relates to the interplay between

phonological and grammatical structure. It presents itself in cases where mor-

phological boundaries come to be reinterpreted, the result of which may be

apparent prosthesis or aphaeresis (cf. also 1.7 below). Thus, in northern French

dialects we find forms such as (Picard) [erw~eʃ], [erw~es] ‘brambles’< RUMICES

corresponding to Standard French ronces and [efPrʃ] ‘clippers for sheep-shearing’< F�ORFICES (Flutre 1977: 34). However, the initial vowel evidently became estab-

lished through the reinterpretation of les ro(i)nches as l’ero(i)nches and les fors as

l’efors, with the latter form of the noun subsequently becoming lexicalized in each

6 In view of the evolution of REN�iCULU(M)> arnelh ‘kidney’ in Gascon, with deletion of

the original initial unstressed vowel [e], it seems more likely that the form arreben derives

from a prefixal or phrasal etymon AD-REPENTE(M). Cf. section 5.2.5 below.

4 Introduction

case.7 In view of the non-phonological causation of this development, it is clearly

not appropriate to view the initial vowel in these forms as being genuinely

prosthetic in origin.

A rather different problem of interpretation also presents itself, this time

purely phonological in nature. It concerns those cases where a new vocalic

segment appears word-initially as a result of an etymological initial sound

being restructured into two successive segments. This may arise in two ways:

through the diphthongization of an original word-initial vowel, or through the

linearization of a word-initial syllabic consonant. Looking at each of these

in turn, we find that diphthongization can yield a new word-initial vowel or

vowel-like segment which is different from that of the etymon. For example, in

Surselvan (a Rheto-Romance variety) there are forms such as uorden ‘order’ and

ıer ‘yesterday’ < �oRDINE(M), HERI where a new initial vowel [u-] and [i-] has

developed as part of a complex vowelþ off-glide initial segment (Liver 1982),

and in Italian there appear forms such as uovo ‘egg’ and ieri ‘yesterday’ < �oVU(M),HERI where the original initial vowel has taken on a vocalic on-glide. Various

considerations would argue against classifying the initial segment here as pros-

thetic in origin, however. First, historically the new segment can be seen to derive

directly from an original stressed vowel. Significantly, in forms where comparable

initial vowels were unstressed, no comparable diphthongization has normally

occurred, cf. ordinar ‘to order’ in Surselvan and ovaia ‘ovary’ in Italian. (In fact,

diphthongization is a process typically associated with stressed vowels in

Romance.) Prosthesis on the other hand is a process normally associated with

unstressed vowels. Accordingly, word-initial vowels or vowel-like glides arising in

an originally stressed syllable as a result of diphthongization, such as those in our

Surselvan and Italian examples, do not appear to be genuinely prosthetic. Second,

it is significant that directly comparable diphthongization to that seen in uorden,

ıer and uovo, ieri also occurs word-medially, as in Surselvan cuort ‘courtyard’, fıer

‘iron’ < C(OH)�oRTE(M), FERRU(M) and Italian fuoco ‘fire’, piede ‘foot’ < F�OCU(M), PEDE

(M). This indicates that we have here a general phonological change rather than a

specifically word-initial process like prosthesis.

Akin to the creation of on-glides through diphthongization has been the

general development of an on-glide in word-initial position with etymologically

vowel-initial words. This is found widely for instance in dialects of eastern

Sicily and southern Italy, as in the dialect of Messina je ‘is’ < EST, japriri ‘to

open’ < APERIRE, jebba ‘grass’ < HERBA, jammari ‘to arm’ < ARMARE, but anieddu

7 Forms deriving from RUMICES with a clearly lexicalized initial [e] are reported for many

localities in Berry, namely in the departements of Loiret, Loir-et-Cher, northern Cher, and

northern Indre, [laz erozaj], [laz eroze] etc. (ALCe III, map 1383 Votre chapeau va tomber

dans les ronces).

Introduction 5

‘ring’ < ANELLU(M), accienni ‘matches’ < deverbal noun from ACCENDERE (De

Gregorio 1890: }}6, 97). Here, it appears that the development more readily affects

initial syllables which are stressed. More significantly, in other dialects of southern

Italo-Romance experiencing a comparable change the new initial onset segment

takes the form of a full consonant, [g], [�], and in northern and central Italo-

Romance parallel cases of initial segment insertion occur with [v], e.g. Milanese

vun ‘one’ < UNU(M), vora ‘hour’ < HORA, vess ‘to be’ < ESSE-RE (Rohlfs 1966: }340).8

It therefore seems more appropriate to distinguish this type of development from

true vowel prosthesis and view it as a form of consonantal prosthesis. We will

therefore exclude it from further attention.

The other type of restructuring which creates a new word-initial vowel arises

from the linearization of a syllabic consonant, C’>VC. For example, in the

history of standard Romanian a syllabic nasal evidently developed in word-initial

position in the early modern period, and in more recent centuries this has often

emerged as a sequence of high vowelþ nasal consonant, as in ıngust ‘narrow’,

ımparat ‘emperor’ < ANGUSTU(M), IMPERATOR via an intermediary stage [N’gust(u)],[m

’p‰’rat(u)], although in present-day Romanian pronunciation a syllabic nasal

may still be used by some speakers (Avram 1990: 100–5; Sampson 1999: 329–30).9

Where an initial vowel is present in such forms, it represents the result of the

linearization of the phonetic features [þ syllabic] and [þ nasal]. Should such a

vowel be interpreted as being prosthetic? One negative argument would be

that the change does not affect the overall number of syllables in the word. The

only change has been in the internal structure of the original opening syllable.

Furthermore, it is striking that the process of linearization here does not yield just

word-initial vowels that are unstressed. As is shown by examples such as unghi

‘angle’ and intru with variants untru, ıntru ‘I enter’ < [’Ngi(u)], [’n’tru] < ANGULU

(M), �iNTRO, a new stressed word-initial vowel can also emerge although this has

happened much less frequently. However, important differences exist between

this form of restructuring and the previous case concerning diphthongization.

First, the restructuring usually gives rise to an unstressed vowel, although there

may be exceptions, perhaps analogical, as we have seen. Second, the restructuring

of the initial syllable in this instance is much more profound than that which

occurs through diphthongization where there is no more than internal differen-

tiation within an existing syllable nucleus. Here, the original syllabic consonant

8 Comparable cases of consonant prosthesis are also found sporadically elsewhere in

Romance, e.g. Catalan vora ‘border, coast’ < ORA (cf. Castilian orilla), vuit ‘eight’ < Latin

�oCTO, with initial /b/ (cf. Valencian huit, Spanish ocho, Italian otto).9 Petrovici (1930: 71) notes, ‘La vraie prononciation du mot ımparat est [mparat] . . .On

croit cependant articuler un [ı] devant la nasale . . .Ce qu’on designe par un [ı] initial nasal

n’est le plus souvent qu’une consonne syllabique.’ A similar account appears in Nandris

(1963: 193).

6 Introduction

is transformed into a sequence of nuclear vowelþ non-syllabic consonant

(ımjpajrat etc.). The new word-initial vowel therefore does not simply represent

the modified form of an earlier vowel (or more precisely the first mora of an

earlier bimoraic vowel), it is part of an entirely reconstituted syllable structure.

Word-initial vowels created by linearization of a syllabic consonant thus have

special properties which suggest that they may properly considered to be pros-

thetic.

In sum, a directly observable and non-etymological word-initial vowel may be

recognized as prosthetic in originwhen it leads to the creation of a new form, or new

alternant, for an existing word-initial morpheme rather than serving to introduce a

new morpheme in word-initial position. It normally results in the appearance of an

additional syllable in the original word, and the vowel that it introduces is normally

unstressed. The only exceptional case of prosthesis concerns word-initial syllabic

consonants which have linearized to give a vowel þ consonant sequence.

1.3.2 INDIRECT INDICATION

More problematic for identification are cases where vowel prosthesis occurs at

some historical period but the prosthetic vowel is subsequently deleted. The

existence of reliable historical records showing clear evidence of prosthetic

forms would of course provide a strong indicator of the earlier presence of

prosthesis. However, the absence of suitable records does not necessarily exclude

a plausible inference being made that vowel prosthesis had operated at some time

in the past. Two sorts of data in particular seem to be relevant in this connection.

First, useful information can be gleaned from the possible interplay between

prefixes and prosthetic vowels. For example, in early Romance there has been a

striking uniformity of treatment of, on the one hand, words containing the prefix

EX- and, on the other hand, forms originally beginning with the consonantal

sequence [s]þ consonant, e.g. SCALA ‘ladder’. Either there was preservation

of the prefixal vowel and the prosthetic vowel, as in Spanish escoger ‘to choose’

(< EX-COLL�iGERE) and escala ‘ladder’ (< SCALA) or there was loss, as in Romanian

scadea ‘to dwindle’ (< EX-CADERE) and scara ‘ladder’ (< SCALA). As the insertion of a

new initial vowel [e-] is not a regular change affecting consonant-initial words in

Spanish and the deletion of an etymological word-initial unstressed [e-] is

not regular in Romanian,10 the implication is that where prefixal deletion has

occurred, the loss of the prefixal vowel took place after it had been identified with

10 For example, PRATU(M)> prado ‘meadow’ and not ** eprado, CLAVE(M)> llave ‘key’

and not **ellave in Spanish; and ERICIU(M)> arici ‘hedgehog’ and not **rici, ECCU(M)

HIC> aici, aci ‘here’ and not **ci in Romanian.

Introduction 7

the prosthetic vowel which had developed and that thereafter the two types

of vowel shared a common fate. Thus, internal evidence lends supports to

the assumption that a prosthetic vowel [e-] may well have developed in early

Romanian.

The other sort of data which may be used for reconstructing the occurrence of

earlier vowel prosthesis lies in the presence of morphophonemic variation,

typically in preceding cliticized forms. For instance, in modern Italian the use

of the masculine definite articles lo (sing.) and gli (pl.) in nouns of popular

transmission such as specchio, scudo points to the earlier presence in these of a

word-initial vowel,11 since il (sing.) and i (pl.) normally occur before popular

consonant-initial nouns, e.g. il secchio ‘the bucket’, i prati ‘the meadows’, whereas

lo (eliding to l’ where a vowel remains pronounced) and gli appear before vowel-

initial words, e.g. l’albero ‘the tree’, gli alberi ‘the trees’ (cf. Rohlfs 1966: }187).

1.4 Prosthesis as a synchronic process

Although the focus in this work will fall on vowel prosthesis as a dynamic,

diachronic phenomenon in Romance, prosthesis can of course operate as a

productive synchronic process as well and indeed it does so in a number of

present-day varieties. Given the direct link between diachrony and synchrony, it

would be appropriate to make some brief remarks on interpretations of prosthe-

sis as a synchronic phenomenon in Romance since these will help to inform our

diachronic coverage. For convenience, circumstances with just one type of vowel

prosthesis will be briefly examined, namely that affecting forms originally begin-

ning with [s]þ consonant (see Chapter 4). Five present-day standard varieties of

11 By words of ‘popular transmission’ is meant lexical items which have formed part of

the lexicon of a Romance variety from Roman or early medieval times and which have

been transmitted in unbroken fashion in the usage of succeeding generations of speakers.

Such words will normally undergo regular change in pronunciation and will also be

susceptible to other types of modification, e.g. in meaning. They contrast with ‘learned

words’ which are lexical items borrowed in later medieval or modern times directly from

Latin or Greek. These forms undergo minimal phonological adjustment and very often

closely resemble their Latin or Greek originals in semantic value too. In the present

connection, it is significant that learned borrowings have resulted in the appearance in

word-initial position of not only consonants previously just found as geminates in medial

position but also novel complex consonant sequences. Both of these trigger the use of the

masculine articles lo and gli, as in lo gnomo, gli psicologi. From a diachronic perspective,

however, the usage with these more recent forms arises from quite different circumstances

from that with popular nouns like specchio, scudo and the two sets of nouns should be

distinguished.

8 Introduction

Romance are considered, Italian, Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese, and French, each

of these having known this type of prosthesis during their history. In other forms

of Romance, it should be emphasized, different circumstances may prevail from

any of those apparent in these five varieties.

An aspect of a very basic nature, however, may first be considered. Prosthesis is

by definition a process whereby a new segment is introduced at the left edge of a

given word. However, in those cases where the new segment occurs only in

phrase-medial realizations of that word a problem arises, since the decision to

interpret the new segment as a prosthetic vowel presupposes of course that it

forms the opening part of the following word. Thus in modern Italian [peri-

s’kritto], meaning ‘in written form’, the interpretation of the first vowel [i] as

prosthetic is founded on the assumption that it forms the first segment of the

following word, hence the conventional orthographical representation per iscritto.

In contrast, interpretations of the phonetic sequence as peri scritto (with peri

viewed as an alternant of the preposition per) or per i scritto (where i would be

some sort of independent ‘linking particle’) have not gained acceptance. The

interpretational question is thus of central importance since forms such as Italian

[peris’kritto] would not be considered to contain a prosthetic vowel unless an

analysis is made whereby the phrase is segmented as per iscritto. Significantly,

similar examples of ‘linking’ vowels within phrases can be found in other

Romance languages but their interpretation may be rather different. For example,

in French we find phrases such as [uRs‰bl~A] ‘polar bear’, [ma�tʃ‰nyl] ‘drawn game

(in sport)’ where the interpretation of the medial vowel [‰] is of particular

interest. At first sight, it could be associated with either of the co-occurring lexical

items, e.g. /uRs‰ # bl~A/ or /uRs # ‰bl~A/ where the latter but not the former

interpretation would give a prosthetic vowel. In fact, no indication is given of

the vowel in conventional French orthography (ours blanc, match nul) but most

French linguists would attach the vowel to the right edge of the first word.

However, with another linking phenomenon found in modern French, namely

liaison, it is interesting to note that a proposal has been made whereby in noun

phrases such as grand ami ‘great friend’ the liaising consonant [t] should be

associated morphophonemically not with the right edge of the preceding word

but with the left edge of the following word as a sort of prenominal prefix: grand

ami! /gr~A # tþ ami/ grand t-ami (Morin 2003a). The identification of a phrase-

medial epenthetic vowel as prosthetic is therefore not always self-evident and

uncontroversial. As far as the vocalic cases from Italian and French are concerned,

the generally accepted interpretations have been guided by the general phono-

logical structure of the language, yielding (prosthetic) per iscritto12 but

12 The association of [i] in per iscritto with the second word rather than with per seems

to be due to at least two factors. Historically, forms such as iscritto with an inserted [i]

Introduction 9

(non-prosthetic) /uRs‰ # bl~A/.13 However, in earlier forms of Romance for which

we have far less direct knowledge, the interpretation of segmentation issues

becomes potentially much more problematic.

Once the question of segmentation has been resolved, various indicators may

be identified for establishing whether a synchronic process of vowel prosthesis

exists in a language. One of these is the productive use of systematic alternation in

morphemes, such that one alternant may have an initial vowel that is absent in

the other alternant(s). A second relates to the phonological treatment of loan-

words. And a third is more theoretical in nature and concerns whether recogni-

tion of a process of vowel prosthesis would lead to greater overall simplicity in the

statement of phonological rules and syllable structure for the language. However,

it has to be recognized that how exactly ‘simplicity’ should be defined and

evaluated in linguistic descriptions remains one of the most vexed and debated

questions in theoretical linguistics.14

Looking first at standard Italian, words containing initial /s/þ consonant

sequences may show alternation, as in scritto, scuola, specie which have the

alternants iscritto, iscuola, ispecie, respectively. However, loanwords such as

sport, stress do not show this alternation, and there is no compelling evidence

to indicate that postulating a rule of prosthesis would simplify a phonological

account of Italian. In fact, it seems that the occurrence of the vowel-initial

alternant in Italian is strictly determined in various ways: structurally, it occurs

appeared in phrase-initial contexts where attachment of the vowel to a preceding word was

excluded. And, in more recent times, [i] has been confined to appearing after otherwise

invariable structural forms (negative non and consonant-final prepositions) so that the

postulation of an alternant like peri would be problematic.13 In French, the insertion of [‰] is mainly triggered by syllabic factors. Complex

consonant sequences not found within words are blocked, wherever possible, across

word boundaries and restructured through resyllabification, hence [uRsbl~A] ![uRs‰bl~A]. As [‰] now forms part of the same syllable as the preceding consonant [s], its

association with the word form ours is understandable. A further important consideration

is that underlying schwa does not occur word-initially in standard French. However, we

may note that phonetically word-initial [‰] can appear in popular Parisian usage as in [‰]l’salaud m’a encore baise ‘the bastard has screwed me again’, [‰]r’garde-moi ca ‘just look at

that!’. The early twentieth-century poet Je(h)an Rictus whose writings reflect popular

Parisian usage clearly indicates the presence of this pronunciation feature. For a

fascinating study on how [‰] may also appear in effectively any word-final context in

French for metrical reasons, as in song and poetry, see Morin 2003b. (My thanks go to Yves

Charles Morin p.c. for helpful information here on the incidence of [‰].)14 McMahon (2000: 1) aptly identifies this as one of the ‘slipperiest’ and ‘most variably

definable’ linguistic terms. It may appeal to inter alia feature-counting, paucity in the

number of rules postulated, maximal generalization of rules, and descriptive ‘elegance’

(however defined).

10 Introduction

solely when there is a preceding consonant-final grammatical monosyllable, e.g.

in per iscritto; lexically, it is more likely to be found in ‘everyday’, high-frequency

words like scuola than in higher register forms such as scarlattina, stupore; and

sociolinguistically, prosthetic forms are typically confined to formal styles and

occur especially in literary and bureaucratic language. In view of these considera-

tions, this type of vowel prosthesis may be seen to have a highly marginal status in

modern Italian as a synchronic process.

Turning to other Romance languages, we find circumstances that are rather

different. In modern Spanish, there are likewise cases of alternation between

forms with and without a vowel before stem-initial sequences of /s/þ consonant,

as in esfera vs hemisferio but, unlike in Italian, vowel prosthesis represents a fully

productive synchronic process. Various arguments may be advanced for this.

Amongst these is the familiar fact that neologisms containing word-initial /s/þconsonant are subject to regular adaption through the addition of /e-/, as in Engl.

stress> Span. estres. Also, on theoretical grounds the recognition of a rule of

prosthesis can lead to greater descriptive simplicity elsewhere in the phonological

description of Spanish. For instance, we may consider the statement of stress

assignment for the common verb estar. If no rule of prosthesis were postulated,

the underlying form for the verb would have the stem /est-/, so that the third

singular present indicative form would emerge as **esta rather than esta, just as

/restþ ar/ gives resta. In addition, Harris (1983: esp. 26–30) indicates that the

statement of Spanish syllable structure is simplified and is more revealing if a rule

of prosthesis is used. Interestingly, however, such has been the productivity of

vowel prosthesis in Spanish that many lexical items such as escoba ‘broom’ (where

the initial e- represents the result of earlier prosthesis) no longer show alternation

and have only a vowel-initial realization. Furthermore, Spanish has extended the

use of the vowel-initial alternant to word-medial position in prefixal forms, e.g.

paraestatal, archiestupido, reestructurar, inestable.15 The vowel-initial alternant

therefore enjoys a wide distribution, and being the only alternant that can appear

at the beginning of words, it consequently figures in the citation form of words

and corresponds to the form that is psychologically real to many Spaniards. This

might suggest the possibility of viewing prosthetic vowels as having been lexica-

lized in the modern language and accordingly postulating underlying forms such

15 Notwithstanding the items cited by Harris (1983: 29), hemisferio (vs esfera) and

inspirar (vs espirar), the use of vowel-initial forms in prefixal words seems very general.

In fact, cases like these typically do not seem to be instances of simple prefixation. Thus,

hemisferio, which has of course a different gender from esfera, is in reality a later cultismo.

Likewise, the presence of the sequence [nsp] in inspirar betokens a cultismo, as with its

congeners conspirar, transpirar. Indeed, the impression is that the use of an alternant

beginning with /s/þ consonant in a prefixal word is very much confined to cultismos in

particular.

Introduction 11

as /esfer-/, /estupid-/ with an initial vowel. However, given the continued pro-

ductivity of prosthesis in the treatment of neologisms beginning with /s/þconsonant, the appropriateness of interpreting vowel prosthesis as a live syn-

chronic process in modern Spanish seems assured.16

The other standard languages of the Iberian Peninsula have also experienced

systematic historical prosthesis in words beginning with /s/þ consonant. For

Catalan, Wheeler (1979: 30–2) argues for non-prosthetic underlying forms and

a rule of vowel prosthesis introducing [‰], using comparable theoretical grounds

to some noted in the case of Castilian: namely, patterns seen in prefixal word-

derivation and stress assignment affecting the verb estar. Similar observations to

those above can likewise be made. In his more recent description using an OT

framework, Wheeler (2005: 250–1, 287–8) continues to assume the presence of

underlying /sC-/. The problem posed by the apparent contrast between derived

forms like superstrat (without an epenthetic vowel before the /sC-/) as against

superestructura (with such a vowel) is considered, as it has interesting implica-

tions. However, it is noted that ways of accounting for items like superstrat

have been proposed, for example by Cabre (1993) who suggests that they are

monomorphemic rather than morphologically complex. In the light of this, it is

assumed that just one underlying root-initial onset needs to be postulated, and

Wheeler operates with /sC-/ not least on the grounds of simplicity in handling the

stress assignment in estar.

European Portuguese, however, differs strikingly from its Peninsular neigh-

bours. In a recent study of Portuguese pronunciation, Mateus and d’Andrade

(2000: 44–5) note that in the contemporary language, forms like espaco, estar,

escuta, etc. begin with /ʃ/þ consonant.17 However, these initial sequences are not

treated as genuine syllable onsets. Instead, an interpretation is proposed whereby

an empty vowel nucleus is postulated in word-initial position so that the initial

surface segment /ʃ/ and the following consonant would each belong to separate

16 The process of formally adapting neologisms corresponds to what has been labelled

‘nativization’ (Hock 1986: 390–7; Hock and Joseph 1996: 259), whereby speakers

automatically modify structurally anomalous forms so that they conform to native

patterns of usage. Vowel prosthesis is just one of various nativizing processes observable

in modern Spanish, operating alongside, for example, the elimination of impermissible

final consonant clusters by simplification (standard> estandar) or paragoge (film> filme),

cf. Lorenzo (1996: 205, 212).17 This is not the view of Barbosa (1983: 138, 141–2) who indicates that most speakers use

a vowel with a quality between [i] and [‰] in initial position. However, the pronunciation

described here may reflect the usage of older generations where deletion of the initial vowel

was still incomplete. Interestingly, in a later article Barbosa (1994: 139) notes that initial

unstressed e- preceding sþ consonant may surface as [i] or [‰] but may also ‘desaparecer

de todo.’

12 Introduction

syllables, /ʃ/ occupying the coda of the opening syllable. The stem of espacowould

thus be represented as /Vʃpas-/ where ‘V’ indicates an unspecified vowel seg-

ment.18 In this treatment, therefore, prosthetic vowels would still exist at an

abstract level but for the most part they would have no overt phonetic expres-

sion.19 However, some uncertainties appear to exist. For instance, it is not

quite clear how the different realizations of prefixal forms like inesperado vs

inspirado or preescrito vs prescrito would be accounted for satisfactorily under

this interpretation.

Finally, French has also experienced systematic prosthesis in forms which began

with etymological /s/þ consonant. In the present-day language, however, the initial

vowels of ecrit, ecole, espece (the counterpart forms to those cited above for Italian)

and other forms of comparable background have been lexicalized and usually figure

in the underlying representations postulated for these words by most generative

phonologists (e.g. Schane 1968: 112–13, Dell 1980: 50–7). Alternations such as ecrit�scripteur or ecole � scolaire do exist and indeed are well represented in the French

lexicon, which might suggest the possibility of postulating non-prosthetic underly-

ing forms and using phonological rules of vowel prosthesis and /s/ deletion to

account for surface forms like ecole. Such a view has commanded little following,

though. Reasons for this would include the fact that evidence from stress placement,

like that used for Spanish, cannot be invoked in the case of French since stress

operates independently of the phonological structure of the left edge of words.

Word-derivation evidence is likewise not revealing; for instance, preecole is flanked

by prescolaire suggesting no necessary priority of the alternant with initial /s/þconsonant over its vowel-initial counterpart. Furthermore, neologisms drawn from

foreign sources such as stress, scrabble and those coined from native resources, e.g.

[stikmi] from mystique in verlan (Azra and Cheneau 1994) or acronyms such as

SPADEM [spad¡m] (Plenat 1993), clearly point to the permissibility of /s/þ conso-

nant sequences in word-initial position and confirm that there is no longer any

productive process of vowel prosthesis in the language.

This is not the place however to go into any further detail over possible

synchronic interpretations of vowel prosthesis. Suffice it to say that the data

from the different Romance languages which have been briefly considered serve

18 On the basis of various arguments Mateus and d’Andrade also propose elsewhere

that ‘an onset and a rhyme obligatorily constitute any syllable’, such that surface vowel-

initial words would have an obligatory empty onset position preceding the vowel, as in /C/

ermida ‘chapel’ where ‘C’ indicates an unspecified onset consonant (2000: 58–9).

Presumably, this analysis would also apply to words like espaco which have an initial

unspecified vowel. If so, at an underlying level such words would rather curiously begin

with a syllable consisting of an unspecified onset and an unspecified nucleus.19 Such an analysis would thus be close to showing absolute neutralization (cf. Kiparsky

1968 and Kenstowicz 1994: 111–14).

Introduction 13

to illustrate two things. First, the ‘same’ original process of prosthesis may come

to yield present-day synchronic outcomes that differ significantly in status,

varying from non-productivity through to partial and even full productivity.

Second, the appropriate synchronic analysis of vowel prosthesis in a particular

linguistic variety may well be problematic and controversial—not just because

the use of different models of phonological description may well give rise to

conflicting results but also because differences in data handling and interpreta-

tion may even arise between linguists adopting the same phonological model. If

this is true for contemporary Romance varieties, as we have seen, it is also likely to

be no less true for previous etats de langue for which our knowledge is inevitably a

good deal less secure.

1.5 Prosthesis as a regular or sporadic diachronic process

One of the great discoveries of nineteenth-century historical linguistics was the

general principle of regularity in sound change. But alongside the numerous cases

of regular development that were observed, apparent exceptions were found. Two

types of potential disturbing factor in particular were recognized early on,

borrowing and analogy, and present-day linguists continue to view these as

major forces causing irregularity in phonological change. However, in addition

to these a number of other, typically smaller-scale irregular processes were also

observed which only operated on an unpredictable subset of all the words they

could potentially apply to. Further investigation revealed that some of these were

actually regular after all,20 but other types of change have continued to appear

exceptional. The latter have commonly been termed sporadic changes or, in a

rule-based phonological framework, minor rules, and much-cited examples of

them are assimilation, dissimilation, and metathesis.21 Yet, although they often

operate in an irregular way, in reality these processes may not always be as

unpredictable or sporadic as is sometimes assumed. Thus, the dissimilation of

/ ´ rj . . . r/> / ´ rj . . . l/ occurring in Spanish carcel ‘prison’ < CARCERE(M) seems to

reflect a regular development; cf. marmol ‘marble’ < MARMORE, estiercol ‘dung,

manure’ < STERCORE, arbol ‘tree’ < ARBORE(M), etc.; and certain cases of metathesis

can likewise prove to be regular (cf. Hock 1986; Blevins and Garrett 2004; Holt

20 The classic case is that identified by Karl Verner ([1877]1978) for Proto-Germanic

where a prosodic factor (presence of a preceding unstressed vowel) was found to be crucial

in determining whether voicing of obstruents occurred.21 For studies of types of sporadic change operating in Romance, see Posner (1961) and

Spence (1990). For general discussion, there is the study by Hoenigswald (1964) and

treatments in the standard manuals of historical linguistics, e.g. Hock (1986: 107–16).

Minor rules are presented in King (1969: 137–9).

14 Introduction

2004). Furthermore, the apparent sporadicity of a change will in some cases

depend on the stage or degree of its implementation. No sound change operates

abruptly: any phonetic innovation requires time to allow it to gain greater

currency amongst the different speakers of a language diatopically and diastrati-

cally, as well as across all potentially relevant lexical items within the usage of

individual speakers. Accordingly, apparent sporadicity in a change may simply

reflect its ongoing nature at the time when the change is being observed.

Alternatively, sporadicity may arise when the implementation of what had been

a regular and ongoing change is arrested and possibly partly reversed, as with

intervocalic simplex -r-> [z] in the French of Paris and the surrounding area.

This development gained widespread acceptance amongst less educated speakers

of the sixteenth and early seventeenth century but it was ultimately abandoned,

leaving behind a small number of ‘irregular’ residues like chaise ‘chair’ and besicles

‘spectacles’ (<OFr. chaiere, bericles). The line of demarcation between regular and

sporadic or irregular change can therefore be a good deal less clear-cut than might

be imagined.

Vowel prosthesis in Romance fits in uneasily between these two loosely distin-

guished types of sound change. Certain cases appear to fall more appropriately

into the category of regular changes. For instance, prosthesis in words originally

beginning with [s]þ consonant has come to operate systematically in certain

Romance varieties like Castilian Spanish, as we have seen (cf. also Chapter 4).

However, other cases display sufficient degrees of apparent unpredictability to

suggest that they are better viewed as sporadic changes.

1.6 Prosthesis and vowel quality

In the investigation of vowel prosthesis in Romance, an obvious question to raise

is whether this process has typically involved the appearance of a particular

quality of vowel. At first sight, the answer would seem to be in the negative, for

prosthetic vowels of very different qualities may readily be found occurring in

modern forms of Romance, for example [i] in Ital. per iscritto ‘in writing’ < PER

SCRIPTU(M), [e] in Span. estar ‘to be’ < STARE, [a] in Gascon arriu ‘river’ < RIVU(M),

[o] in central Sardinian (dial. of Busachi) orroda ‘wheel’ < R�OTA, [u] in Piedmon-

tese (dial. of Strona) uvziN ‘neighbour’ < VICINU(M). The only constraint might

seem to be that a prosthetic vowel will adopt a quality already occurring elsewhere

in the language or dialect concerned: prosthesis does not create new types of

vowel phoneme, it only adds to the distributional range of existing phoneme

types. More precisely, as prosthetic vowels are typically unstressed when they are

formed they will be assigned a quality found in the subsystem of unstressed

vowels. Subsequently, of course, there may be change in the quality of a prosthetic

vowel as a result of regular sound change within the Romance variety concerned.

Introduction 15

Thus, the initial prosthetic mid vowel e- of Peninsular Catalan estar, espic has

regularly developed to [a] in the Catalan variety of Alguer in Sardinia, this

being part of a general change affecting the mid vowel e in unstressed syllables,

cf. Peninsular Catalan muscle but Algueresmuscra < MUSCULU(M) ‘muscle’ (Blasco

Ferrer 1984: }} 50, 162; Loporcaro 1997b). Such later adjustments in quality are,

however, of less relevance in the present connection. Our interest here lies more

especially in the assignment of vowel quality in the first stages of prosthesis.

As we will see in later chapters, in two of the three major types of prosthesis

that can readily be distinguished in Romance a vowel of a specific quality has

typically been introduced.22 The choice of prosthetic vowel is not entirely ran-

dom therefore, and a growing body of scholarly work exploring data from

Romance and non-Romance languages has sought to establish the factors

which may determine the adoption of one vowel quality rather than another in

contexts where prosthesis or, more generally, epenthesis has taken place.

Of particular interest have been studies on markedness in vowels across language

and on patterns of interlinguistic adaptation, i.e. the process of accommodation

of borrowings from one language to another of different phonological structure

(cf. Kitto and De Lacy [1999] 2006; Gouskova 2001; Kenstowicz 2003; Lombardi

2003; Uffmann 2006). The results of these studies shed useful light on likely

factors governing the quality of the vowel that has appeared in Romance prosthe-

sis. We will be exploring in some detail the possible reasons for the preferential

use of one particular vowel quality for each of the various categories of prosthesis,

but it will be useful here to consider some general aspects of this question.

In previous work in this area, it has been noted that when a prosthetic vowel

(or indeed any epenthetic vowel) is in the very first stages of its formation, the

vowel will typically be of short duration and of ‘neutral’ quality. The rationale

behind this is that the newly appearing vowel will provoke minimal change to the

acoustic signal associated with the previously non-prosthetic (or non-epenthetic)

form of the word or words concerned. This reflects what Kenstowicz (2003) refers

to as the principle of minimal saliency23 which governs general epenthetic pro-

cesses in language. The principle in our case suggests that the quality of any

prosthetic vowel in Romance in its very earliest embryonic stage will typically be

of a neutral or indeterminate value. Kenstowicz himself identifies a schwa-like

22 In the third type, which we consider in Chapter 6, the selection of vowel quality

appears to be more variable. However, as we shall see, the evidence indicates that here too

there is a strong preference in favour of one particular vowel quality (cf. 6.1.5).23 Saliency, or salience as it is also termed, has been characterized in a general way as ‘a

property of a linguistic item or feature that makes it in some way perceptually and

cognitively prominent’ (Kerswill and Williams 2002: 81). The concept has been widely

invoked by sociolinguists to provide a basis for explaining the adoption or rejection of

certain linguistic phenomena in dialect contact situations.

16 Introduction

quality as the most likely to be taken on.24 However, speakers will thereafter seek

to integrate the emergent vowel within the phonological structure of their

language. As we have seen, this entails the association of the vowel with one of

the existing subset of unstressed vowels. Here, however, various determining

factors may operate so that there is no automatic and predictable selection of a

given acceptable quality for the prosthetic vowel. In the light of numerous studies

of epenthetic quality assignment across different languages, it appears that five

types of factor may be distinguished, which can act either individually or in

combination:

Type (i) relates directly to the principle of minimal saliency considered above,

which suggests that a schwa will typically be formed. If however there is no schwa

in the unstressed vowel system of the language, the default quality will be a closed

vowel since, all other things being equal, the more closed a vowel is, the shorter it

is and consequently the less it will serve to modify the original acoustic signal.

Type (ii), which is based on markedness theory, has as its rationale that a newly

created epenthetic vowel in a language will normally adopt a quality which is

unmarked or less marked. Drawing on a wide range of cross-linguistic studies, a

number of phonologists have sought to identify the relative markedness of

different vowel qualities and have proposed parameters or scales of preference

for them. Three examples appear in Figure 1.3. The first is based on a sample

of sixty-seven languages, while the third appearing in Gouskova (2001) is of

particular interest as it relates specifically to unstressed vowels at word edges,

i.e. prosthetic and paragogic vowels.

(i) perceptual factors,

(ii) general phonological factors at segmental level, especially marking,

(iii) phonological or morphological structure of the individual language

concerned,

(iv) assimilation to an adjacent consonant,

(v) assimilation to the vowel in an adjacent syllable (vowel harmony).

FIGURE 1.2. Factors determining the quality of a prosthetic vowel

24 A similar view appears in the characterization of ‘excrescent vowels’ in Bagemihl

(1991). These may be seen as epenthetic vowels at their earliest stage of development. Three

characteristics are distinguished for excrescent vowels (p. 600): their variable quality which

is determined by co-articulation effects that give rise to a value that may not be found in

underlying vowels of the language concerned and that typically tends towards [‰]; theirappearance as the result of the need to mediate a transition between consonants of

different places of articulation; and their lack of involvement with phonological rules of

the language concerned.

Introduction 17

Despite slight differences, the special status of schwa is apparent, and for other

vowel qualities it is notable that the more closed they are, the more they seem to

be preferred. This observation ties in well with what we saw for determining

factor (i).

The basis for type (iii) is readily understandable. The existing phonological

structure of a language, for instance its phonotactic structure, may well serve to

guide the choice of quality in a prosthetic vowel, and aspects of a language’s

morphological structure, such as its system of prefixes and their distribution, may

likewise come to shape choice of quality. In types (iv) and (v), the prosthetic

vowel effectively copies certain features which are already present in an adjacent

or nearby segment.

In the evolution of Romance, all of these factors can be seen to have played

a role in guiding the selection of quality for emerging prosthetic vowels.

However, the specific factor or factors that have operated in individual cases

of prosthesis cannot be readily predicted. The particular factor(s) at work

in vowel-quality selection will therefore be systematically examined for each

category or prosthesis.

1.7 Causation of vowel prosthesis

Linguists have frequently expressed scepticism about the possibility of discover-

ing the causes of sound change or, more generally, of linguistic change.25 Howev-

er, this scepticism owes itself in large part to the fact that ‘causes’ here are often

being equated to scientific ‘laws’ which apply automatically and predictably

under statable circumstances. Needless to say, language change just like change

(Kitto and De Lacey [1999])

(Lombardi 2003)

(Gouskova 2001)

> > a

> > i

i

e

e

e

i-

> > >i , u

unmarked (more preferred) marked (less preferred)

ae , o

FIGURE 1.3. Relative markedness and preference degree of prosthetic vowel qualities

25 One of the most celebrated statements was that of Bloomfield (1935: 385): ‘the causes

of sound-change are unknown.’ Similar negative comments on explaining sound change or

linguistic change in general are widespread, e.g. Lass (1980: 75): ‘we don’t have a clue as to

what (if anything) causes or constrains linguistic change.’ For a more nuanced view, see

Andersen (1989).

18 Introduction

in other facets of human behaviour does not always show the predictability that is

typical of the physical world. So, a more realistic way of describing causes of

change is perhaps to adopt a probabilistic approach. When confronted by a

particular instance of change, the linguist works on the basis of his or her

familiarity with known patterns of language use and language change in order

to infer likely factors that may have brought about the specific change that is

under consideration. It can and does of course happen that a study brings to light

previously unknown factors promoting change. When this occurs, explanatory

accounts of a higher level of probability will be possible in subsequent studies of

individual cases of language change.

Further complicating the study of causation in language change has been a

tendency not to make a sufficiently clear distinction between the innovation of a

linguistic phenomenon and its subsequent generalization or actualization (cf.

Andersen 2001). Phonological innovation leads to the creation of a new variant

pronunciation within the usage of some individual(s). At first, it may appear in

special linguistic contexts only and affect just a limited number of possible words.

Thereafter, the range of linguistic contexts in which the novelty occurs may

increase in stages, in a process of actualization. It may also be adopted by

increasing numbers of speakers in the speech community (generalization).

Where this happens, variation may nonetheless continue to exist within and

between speakers in the overall speech community, as some individuals use the

novel variant form in most or perhaps all possible contexts and other speakers

continue to operate exclusively or predominantly with the chronologically earlier

variant. However, the variation may be resolved. Either the phonological innova-

tion may gain general acceptance over time and ultimately displace the earlier

variant altogether, or it may be abandoned altogether. Innovation and actualiza-

tion/generalization are therefore closely linked but they are distinct. As a result it

is to be expected that their causation differs.

In the case of vowel prosthesis in Romance, a number of likely factors

triggering its innovation can be recognized, although there are doubtless

others whose identity remains mysterious. However, even in cases of pros-

thesis where the relevant factors seem fairly clear it is often difficult to

establish why they operated at the time and in the way they did in the

linguistic variety concerned. Similarly, various plausible factors can be iden-

tified to account for the generalization of prosthetic vowels but doubtless

others continue to await detection, and once again the reasons for their

acting precisely when and where they did may be uncertain in many cases.

In later chapters there will be detailed consideration of the probable factors

operating for each category of prosthesis, but it will be helpful here to give a

general overview of those which seem to have been of particular relevance in

initiating prosthesis and guiding subsequent change.

Introduction 19

1.7.1 PHONOLOGICAL FACTORS

A number of different phonological factors have played a part in vowel prosthesis.

These have involved aspects of both segmental and prosodic structure.

1.7.1.1 Segmental

Some cases of vowel prosthesis in Romance appear to be motivated by the

internal phonetic quality of the original word-initial segment. For instance,

Gascon shows changes such as R�OTA> arrode ‘wheel’ where the phonetic char-

acteristics of the word-initial rhotic /r-/ have evidently acted as a major trigger. A

comparable development is observable too in many varieties of Sardinian. Al-

though other structural factors may also have been of some significance in

triggering the prosthesis in these cases as we shall see (Chapter 5), the relevance

of the phonetic quality of the initial segment seems unarguable.

1.7.1.2 Prosodic or suprasegmental

For some decades now, linguists have formally recognized the existence of a

phonological hierarchy above the level of the segment. A commonly cited version

of this is: segment> syllable> foot> phonological word> clitic phrase>phonological phrase> intonational phrase> phonological utterance (cf. Nespor

and Vogel 1986). A number of these levels will figure in later discussion of vowel

prosthesis but of particular interest for present purposes is the unit situated

directly above the segment, namely the syllable.

The syllable contains one or more segments but, between the segment and

syllable levels, intervening tiers of structure also need to be recognized. In keeping

with many phonologists, we assume that the syllable falls into two parts, an onset

and a rhyme. The onset may be unfilled or may consist of one or more segments

which are either consonants or glides. The rhyme consists of a nucleus, which

typically contains a vowel, although syllabic consonants also exist in language

(but not commonly in Romance26), and a coda (cf. Durand 1990: 198–209;

Kenstowicz 1994: 252–6). In this vision of the syllable, the structure may be

represented as in Figure 1.4.

The segments that make up the onset, nucleus, and coda of a syllable are

arranged linearly. Governing the ordering of the segments, there is a general

26 Modern Romance varieties possessing syllabic consonants include New Mexican

Spanish (Espinosa 1925; Pineros 2005), southern Portuguese (Hammarstrom 1953: 140),

certain varieties of Lunigiana in northern Tuscany (cf. 6.1.4), and certain non-standard

French varieties such as that of Ranrupt in Alsace (Aub-Buscher 1962: }12), dialects of theVendee (Svenson 1959: I, 29–30; Rezeau 1976: }11) and some localities in the departement of

Indre (cf. 6.1.4). Also, a case in early modern Romanian was noted in 1.1.

20 Introduction

principle which is founded on the relative degree of loudness or sonority inherent

in individual segment types. Although the precise phonetic basis of sonority is

still not fully established,27 for more than a century phoneticians and phonolo-

gists have assumed the existence of a universally valid sonority hierarchy which

extends from low vowels (the most sonorous sound types) down to plosives.28

Slightly different versions of the hierarchy have been proposed; a consensus of

these appears in Figure 1.5 below.

Building on this sonority-based hierarchy, it is generally assumed that the

segments of a syllable will normally be arranged linearly in conformity with the

Sonority Sequencing Generalization (SSG) which has been neatly characterized in

the following way: ‘between any member of a syllable and the syllable peak, a

syllable

onset nucleus

rhyme

coda

FIGURE 1.4. Basic internal structure of the syllable

27 Cf. Kenstowicz (1994: 254) who notes, ‘a simple phonetic correlate to the phonological

property of sonority has yet to be discovered.’ However, interesting proposals have beenmade

by phoneticians, e.g. Price (1980) who explores three acoustic correlates, Opening (level of

constriction in vocal tract), Source (nature of acoustic excitation–voicing, friction noise, etc.)

and Rate of Change (in formant structure, fundamental frequency, amplitude), and Ohala

(1990) who attributes particular significance to amplitude, periodicity, spectral shape, and

fundamental frequency.28 Amongst earlier phoneticians who formally recognized a sonority hierarchy, mention

may be made of Sievers (1881), Jespersen (1904), and Saussure (1916). Ohala (1990) offers a

useful historical overview.

greater sonoritylow vowels [a], [a]mid vowels [e], [e], [o] etc.high vowels [i], [u], etc.approximants [j], [w], etc.liquids [l], [r], etc.nasals [m], [n], etc.fricatives [s], [z], etc.plosives [t], [d], etc.

lesser sonority

FIGURE 1.5. The sonority scale

Introduction 21

sonority rise or plateau must occur’ (Blevins 1995: 210).29 Thus, syllables will

usually show a sonority profile where the onset leads up to a peak, the nucleus,

and thereafter the profile dips down again. A further proposal has been that

greater preference in syllable structure tends to be given to ‘steeper’ slopes before

and after the syllable peak (cf. Vennemann 1988). Thus, onsets are more greatly

preferred the less sonorous they are and the more sharply the sonority level rises

from the onset to the following nucleus.30 For example, complex onsets such as

/pr-/ where there is greater ‘sonority distance’ (i.e. three levels on the scale

above) would be preferred over /mr-/ where the distance is minimal. We

would therefore expect to find not only that the former type of onset occurs

more commonly than the latter in language but also that the presence of the

latter type would presuppose the presence of the former in any given language.

This generally appears to be the case and suggests a possible vector for syllabic

change.

For the most part, the SSG captures the facts of Romance syllable struc-

ture in an appropriate way. Significantly, when complex word-initial onset

sequences that run counter to the SSG problems have arisen in the history of

Romance as a result of independent sound changes, speakers have not

infrequently innovated strategies (of which vowel prosthesis is one) as a

means of eliminating them. Two different types of vowel prosthesis appear

to have arisen in this way and these form a particular area of attention in

Chapters 4 and 6.

A further and more general characteristic of the syllable may be noted. As

phonologists have long since established, the preferred or unmarked syllable

structure in human language is CV, i.e. a nucleus preceded by an onset consisting

of one consonant, but with no coda present.31 It may therefore be expected that

29 The SSG is also referred to as the Sonority Sequencing Principle and a variety of

alternative definitions of similar content exist for it, e.g. ‘Sonority must not increase from

the nucleus to the edges of the syllable’ (Cote 2000: 17).30 Vennemann (1988) talks of ‘Consonantal Strength’ rather than of its direct converse

sonority. Hence, in his ‘Head Law’ (pp. 13–14) where ‘Head’ ¼ our syllable onset and

‘onset’¼ our initial onset segment, he states that: ‘A syllable head is the more preferred: (a)

the closer the number of speech sounds in the head is to one; (b) the greater the

Consonantal Strength value of its onset; and (c) the more sharply the Consonantal

Strength drops from the onset towards the Consonantal Strength of the following

syllable.’ A corresponding, reversed ‘Coda Law’ is given on p. 21. It may be noted that

virtually all the supporting data for Vennemann’s work are drawn from Indo-European,

and more precisely Italian and German and their dialects (cf. p. 13 and n. 28).31 A major piece of evidence supporting this assumption is that all human languages

have syllables with a CV structure, whereas not all languages have syllables containing

codas or complex onsets (e.g. Hawaiian). Phoneticians have also called attention to

22 Introduction

phonological change will often tend to promote developments which generalize

CV structure. Just such a tendency is noticeable in many Romance-speaking

areas, especially during the course of the first millennium AD when various

phonological changes conspire to simplify syllable margins (cf. Kiss 1971, 1992;

Sala 1976: 19–60). One of the strategies contributing to this end has been vowel

prosthesis in contexts where its effect is to break up complex onsets in word-

initial position, and more especially those onsets which run counter to the SSG.

However, moves towards a generalized CV syllable structure have been opposed

by other phonological changes, notably vowel deletion (syncope or apocope),

which have given rise to greater complexity in syllable margins. Such complicat-

ing developments are observable in many types of Romance during the later part

of the first millennium AD and throughout the second millennium. Where the

consonant composition of word edges has become more complex, there may be

significant differences in the relative degree of complexity in word-initial and

word-final consonant sequences. For instance, in Old French word-initial se-

quences consist of either simplex consonants or clusters of obstruentþ liquid

such as /pr-/, whereas word-final sequences of up to three consonants can be

found, e.g. freinst (cf. Roland, l. 1247) ‘he broke’. In contrast, Old Romanian of the

sixteenth century had word-initial sequences of up to three consonants but no

word-final consonants. In cases where word-initial sequences of greater complex-

ity become acceptable in the development of a Romance variety, this has usually

correlated with some reduction in the use of vowel prosthesis, as we shall see

(especially Chapter 4).

1.7.1.3 Word-initial onsets

Wemay look a little more closely at word-initial onsets, since their behaviour and

status will be likely to play a major role in determining the possible occurrence of

vowel prosthesis. As noted earlier, simple syllable onsets consisting of one conso-

nant are commonly viewed by phonologists as representing the unmarked ar-

rangement. In Optimality Theory (OT), this is reflected in the identification of a

basic constraint ONS (i.e. ONSET) favouring simple onsets.32 Complex onsets may

perceptual considerations that favour CV syllables. For most consonant types, the release

phase is particularly important for their identification and the information yielded by the

release phase is enhanced when a vowel immediately follows.32 The ‘Onset Theorem’ postulates that onsets are required except in languages where

the ONS constraint is dominated by Faithfulness constraints PARSE ‘underlying segments

must be parsed into syllable structure’ which forbids deletion and FILL ‘syllable positions

must be filled with underlying segments’ which forbids epenthesis (McCarthy 2004: 31–8).

The latter two have generally been replaced by the Correspondence constraints MAX-IO

‘every segment of the input has a correspondent in the output’ forbidding deletion and

Introduction 23

pose difficulties. In OT, a general constraint *COMPLEX ‘no more than one C or V

may associate to any syllable node’ has been postulated (Prince and Smolensky

[1993] 2004: 34), which may be applied more specifically to onsets as *COMPLEX-

ONSET. However, it is apparent that in a number of languages which generally

favour just simple onsets, complex onsets of one particular type, may also be

permissible, namely those consisting of obstruentþ liquid/glide. This may be

attributed in good measure to the high degree of sonority difference between the

successive consonants here which resembles that existing between a simple

consonant onset and a following vowel nucleus. At a theoretical level, Govern-

ment Phonology (GP) recognizes this distributional fact by formally licensing not

only simple onsets but also branching onsets if, and only if, they consist of

obstruentþ sonorant. For other types of complex onsets, the individual compo-

nent consonants are treated at an underlying level as forming simple onsets

of successive CV syllables, the only exception being that word-initial sequences

of /s/þ obstruent are subject to ‘magic licensing’ whereby /s/ is a ‘rhymal com-

plement’ of an initial underlying syllable with an unrealized onset and nucleus,

i.e. as # (C)(V)s–(Kaye 1992).33

Against this general theoretical background where onsets are only licensed if

they are simple or of minimal complexity (obstruentþ sonorant), it may be

predicted that when complex surface word-initial onsets other than the obs-

truentþ sonorant type appear in a language (perhaps as a result of independent

sound change), restructuring to re-establish a licensed form for the onsets

could well come about. This can happen in various ways: for example, deletion

#C1C2-> #C1- or #C2-; epenthesis #C1C2-> #C1VC2-; or prosthesis #C1C2->#VC1C2-. In the last of these possibilities, the effect would be to re-syllabify the

problematic onset sequences by relocating the formerly word-initial consonant

C1 to the coda of a new syllable. For example, in the Latin monosyllabic word STAT

the two initial consonants /s/ and /t/ necessarily belonged to the same surface

syllable where they together formed a complex onset, but in Spanish esjta the

consonant /s/ now belongs to a different syllable from /t/, where the sibilant now

has a similar status to a rhymal complement as postulated in GP. As we shall see in

the following subsection and in later chapters, it seems that the genesis of all the

DEP-IO ‘every segment of the output has a correspondent in the input’ forbidding epenthesis

(McCarthy 2004: 82).33 Alternative views have also been proposed. Thus, Lowenstamm (1996) argues that

only single segments can be onsets and that the muta cum liquida type should be

interpreted as simplex, e.g. [pr] would be underlyingly represented as a rhotacized

bilabial plosive /pr/. Also, to account for onsets with falling sonority, such as Polish rdest

[rdest] ‘water-pepper’, extrasyllabicity of r with later adjunction at prosodic word level has

been appealed to, by Rubach and Booij (1990), but cf. also Cyran and Gussmann (1999) for

a different vision within GP.

24 Introduction

different categories of prosthesis in Romance has been directly bound up with

moves to simplify complex onsets.

Other, non-phonological factors too have been of relevance in promoting vowel

prosthesis. However, it will be recalled that prosthesis represents an essentially

phonological phenomenon.Accordingly, careneeds tobe taken todistinguish factors

involved in the creation of true prosthesis from those which have participated in the

development of new word-initial vowels that are not phonologically based.

1.7.2 MORPHOPHONOLOGICAL FACTORS

Situated at the leftmost edge of a word, the potential context of a prosthetic vowel

will necessarily be adjacent to the end of a preceding word in most contexts of

speech. The only exceptions will be where a pause or sustained silence precedes.

The possibility thus exists that prosthesis may develop as a result of interplay

between adjacent word edges. In the history of Latin up to and including Classical

Latin, there appears to be relatively little indication of any such interplay, a fact

which may be due in part to the relative syntactic freedom enjoyed by the word

and which in turn could have helped to ensure its continued integrity as a

phonological unit (cf. Marotta 1999: 301).

However, in the period from the Empire onward, circumstances changed as the

syntactic freedom of the word was progressively reduced. The growing cliticiza-

tion of certain words is an indicator of this. The resulting increase in interplay

between adjacent word-edge segments was able to give rise to word-initial vowel

creation in two ways. First, speakers might reinterpret the location of the original

word boundary between successive words such that a word-final vowel was

assigned to the following word. This is particularly likely in tightly knit, high-

frequency grammatical syntagmas like clitic phrases, e.g. noun phrases composed

of a proclitic determinerþ noun. For instance, the modern French noun abajoue

‘cheek-pouch certain animals have for storing food’ owes its initial pseudo-

prosthetic vowel to reinterpretation of the word boundary in the Old French

noun phrase la bajoue. Similarly, Old French la bee was reinterpreted as l’ abee

‘(the) mouth of a mill-leat’. The initial vowel of modern French ecrevisse ‘crayfish’,

epontille ‘stanchion in boat, shoring timbers used in boat building’ has appeared

as a result of the Old French plural nouns phrases les crevisses, les pontilles being

reinterpreted such that the vowel of the proclitic article has been identified with

the following noun (Nyrop 1935: I } 490).34 Such initial vowels would not be

viewed as true prosthetic vowels, however.

34 It may be added that the opposite development, aphaeresis, is equally likely to occur

in such close-knit phrases, as in (Fr.) boutique, (It.) bottega, (Sp.) bodega < APOTHECA

doubtless via phrases like ILLA (A)POTHECA.

Introduction 25

Second, when two words were juxtaposed the first word could trigger some

phonological adaptation to the beginning of the second word. In cases where

this involved a vowel appearing, we would have prosthesis which could be

interpreted as a form of sandhi, or morphophonological alternation.35 An exam-

ple of sandhi-conditioned prosthesis is seen in modern formal standard Italian

phrases such as per iscritto ‘in writing’ (as against scritto ‘written’), where the key

conditioning factor is the presence of a preceding monosyllabic grammatical

word ending in a consonant (per) within the same syntactic phrase. Sandhi has

been of relevance in the development of all categories of vowel prosthesis in

Romance, although its role has perhaps been more transparent with two cate-

gories in particular (Chapters 4, 6). Alternation arising from sandhi may subse-

quently be eliminated as a result of either the prosthetic or the non-prosthetic

alternant being generalized. Where the former takes place, the result will be

surface lexicalization of the prosthetic form.

The location of prosthesis at the left-hand edge of words may have other

morphophonological implications. One possibility is that speakers and hearers

may interpret a prosthetic vowel as a type of grammatical boundary marker.

A possible consequence of this may be that, whatever the original motivation was

for innovating the use of a prosthetic vowel at word level, the boundary-marking

role which it is perceived to fulfil may be exploited. In cases where there is a

marked increase in the frequency of words with initial vowels, thanks to the

incidence of prosthetic vowels, speakers may come to associate word-initial

boundaries with the presence of a vowel. If the process were carried to its full

extent, the result would be the establishment of a vowel-initial canonical form

for words, either for all words or those belonging to a specific syntactic class.

Unlikely as such a process might seem, an example which lends itself to an

interpretation along these lines is reported for southern varieties of Aromanian

(the branch of Romanian spoken south of the Danube), where prosthesis with a-

is reported to occur widely across the major word-classes; e.g. arıu (< RIVU(M))

‘river’, arar (< RARU(M)) ‘rare’, alumtu (< LUCTO) ‘I fight’, acumpıru (< COMPARO)

‘I buy’, aungu (< UNGO) ‘I smear’, agıne (< VINEA) ‘vineyard’ as against Daco-

Romanian rıu, rar, lupt, cumpar, ung, vie respectively (Caragiu Marioteanu 1977:

176; Papahagi 1974). As yet, however, the process of extending the use of a- has not

been systematically carried through.

35 Alternative terms here for the phenomenon here are ‘syntactic phonetics’ or

‘Satzphonetik’. For a useful discussion of sandhi as a term and concept and its rather

varied use amongst linguists, see Ternes (1986).

26 Introduction

1.7.3 LEXICAL ALIGNMENT

The formal alignment of semantically closely related words is by no means

an unknown feature of Romance evolution; for example, *GREVE(M) ‘heavy,

grave’ (> OFr. grief, It. greve, OIt. grieve) was adapted from GRAVE(M) under

the influence of its antonym LEVE(M) ‘light, easy’ (> OFr. lief, It. lieve). Where a

word is formally aligned with another semantically related word which begins

with a vowel, the result may be prosthesis by association. For instance, it seems

that the initial vowel in Spanish avispa ‘wasp’ < Latin VESPA was introduced under

the influence of the word abeja ‘bee’ (< Latin AP�iCULA). It is of course not

impossible that we have here another example of the relocation of a word

boundary, la vispa > l(a) avispa, but the fact that numerous other Spanish

words of feminine gender containing an initial V- have not been similarly affected,

e.g. VESPERA>vıspera ‘eve’, VIPERA>vıbora ‘viper’, suggests that associative influ-

ence was at least partly responsible for bringing about the initial vowel of avispa.

Given the somewhat idiosyncratic and unpredictable nature of such semantic

associations, this factor has only operated in a limited and sporadic way.

1.7.4 MORPHOLEXICAL FACTORS

Vowel prosthesis shares an obvious relationship with one of the major processes of

word formation, prefixation, and in Romance the relationship is particularly close.

Most of the Latin prefixes that remained productive in Romance, such as AD- CON-

EX- DIS- IN-, were monosyllabic and they were also unstressed unless, very unusually,

they became lexically incorporated within the following root and thereby lost their

prefixal status, as in�iN-FLAT > (Fr.) (il) enfle ‘(he) inflates’ or CON-SUO > (Sp.) coso ‘I

sew’. Vowel-initial prefixes were particularly likely to be aligned with prosthetic

vowels since inmany cases they became phonologically identical to one another. For

instance, the prefix AD- normally developed to a-, as in ADVOCATU(M), (Fr.) avoue

‘lawyer’, AD-CORD-ARE, (Sp.) acordar ‘to decide’, this outcome coinciding with the

normal result of one category of prosthesis (cf. above 1.3 and Chapter 5). Likewise,

the prefix EX- evolved into [es-] or [is-] in many varieties of early Romance, e.g. EX-

CAPARE> (OFr.) escaper, eschaper, (OSp.) escapar ‘to escape’, (Old Tuscan) iscappare,

thereby becoming indistinguishable from the result of another category of prosthe-

sis (cf. Chapter 4). As a consequence, there has predictably been a close connection

between the fortunes of, on the one hand, words showing vowel prosthesis and, on

the other, prefixal forms. And given the historical antecedence of prefixation, it is

not unlikely that the substantial numbers of prefixal forms that existed in Latin and

early Romance acted as a partial catalyst for expanding the incidence of vowel

prosthesis.

Introduction 27

1.7.5 SOCIOLINGUISTIC CONSIDERATIONS

Structural factors have undoubtedly played a key role in the rise and subsequent

development of vowel prosthesis in Romance, but due account also needs to be

taken of sociolinguistic factors since these have exercised a good deal of influence

in shaping patterns of evolution. Some of the more significant ways in which

sociolinguistic factors have operated may be briefly identified.

1.7.5.1 Interference from substrata and superstrata

The possibility exists that the use of vowel prosthesis may be promoted in some

measure as a result of contact influence from another language. Over the past two

millennia, there have been many examples of languages coming into contact with

Latin or Romance. The rise of the Roman Empire saw the incorporation of

numerous different peoples speaking entirely different languages from Latin,

such as Celtic, Punic, and Etruscan. As these languages enjoyed little or no official

recognition from the Romans and particularly so in the Latin-speaking west,36

they were almost all ultimately displaced but only after a period of greater or

lesser bilingualism lasting centuries in some cases, especially in rural areas more

remote from direct Roman influences (cf. Reichenkron 1965; Kontzi 1982; Lodge

1993; Anderson 1988; Baldinger 1972; Curchin 1991; Pulgram 1958). Unfortunately,

the degree of linguistic impact from these substratum languages on Latin remains

uncertain and consequently highly controversial, partly because of the lack of

detailed knowledge of their formal structure and partly because certain Roma-

nists of the past unfortunately used substratum languages as a useful expedient in

explaining problematic linguistic changes, thereby discrediting subsequent at-

tempts to invoke substrata as a plausible source of change. But, as we shall see

(Chapter 5), the possibility that substratum influence has been involved in

helping to promote certain instances of prosthesis cannot simply be discounted.

Further potential outside interference has come from languages (notably

Germanic, Slavic, and Arabic) introduced from the fourth to the tenth century

by the peoples who established themselves as the masters in different parts of the

36 Cf. Adams (2003: 758) who observes, ‘There does not seem to have been an explicit

official policy (based on the sort of linguistic nationalism which has often surfaced in the

history of Europe) that subject peoples should learn Latin. There was however an

expectation that Roman citizens, even if they were Greek speakers, should learn the

language, and certain types of documents concerning citizens, for a period at least

during the Empire, had to be in Latin, even if the citizens to whom the document

applied did not know the language (wills, birth certificates, and various other types of

legal text). In the west the onus was on locals to learn Latin if they wanted to get on, as their

masters treated vernacular languages as if they did not exist.’

28 Introduction

former Empire. These languages too were destined to be displaced by Latin-

Romance in almost all areas but once again this was preceded by a period of

bilingualism that may have affected in some way the speech habits of subsequent

Romance speakers. More is known of the structural make-up of these superstra-

tum languages than of substrata, but even so their precise effect on Romance

remains unclear and consequently subject once again to controversy. Nonethe-

less, there is evidence to suggest that they may have exerted some influence in

determining the fortunes of prosthesis in certain Romance areas where there was

widespread bilingualism extending over lengthy periods of time (see Chapter 4).

1.7.5.2 Interaction between contemporary varieties within Latin-Romance

In addition to interference from external languages, the interplay between differ-

ent contemporary varieties within Latin or Romance is also likely to have served

as a factor for change affecting patterns of prosthesis in individual varieties.

Already at the beginning of our period of coverage, the beginning of the Empire,

most (if not all) of the inhabitants of the Latin-speaking parts of the Empire

could not have failed to be polylectal to some degree. At that time, the estimated

population for Italy was thirteen million and for other Latin-speaking provinces

fourteen million (Christ 1984: 270), and these people were spread over a vast

geographical area and displayed wide social and ethnic diversity. To this may be

added the likelihood that, even at the height of the Empire, literacy levels may

never have reached 10 per cent (Harris 1989: 272) so that one potential force for

linguistic convergence—the influence of a homogeneous and prestigious written

norm—could at best exert a limited influence. The implication of this is that

there would have been substantial variation (diatopic and diastratic) in the

linguistic habits of Latin speakers in Imperial times. Thereafter, in the political

and social fragmentation and increased educational deprivation which occurred

after the collapse of the Empire, linguistic diversity could only have increased.

Against such a background, it seems fairly safe to assume that the nature and

patterns of occurrence of vowel prosthesis would have shown progressive diver-

gence across the varieties of speech in Romania continua during the first millen-

nium AD.37 Unfortunately, however, reliable data on language usage, and

especially spoken usage, in this period are scarce (cf. 1.9 below). As a result, any

37 Romania continua refers to the area of the former Roman Empire in which Latin has

remained in continuous use (evolving through time) up to modern times. The term

contrasts with Romania nova which designates areas beyond the Roman Empire to

which Latin-based speech was later carried (e.g. Latin America), and Romania submersa

which covers those areas of the Roman Empire where Latin came to be displaced (e.g.

North Africa).

Introduction 29

assessment of the impact of regional and social variation on early developments

with prosthesis will necessarily have to be at best tentative.

In the second millennium AD and up to the present day, circumstances change

considerably. The rise of nation states, whether politically or culturally based, within

Romania continua has had important implications for the fortunes of vowel pros-

thesis in individual linguistic varieties. In each emerging state, the typical pattern

has been for one regionally based variety (e.g. Castilian, Florentine, or ‘Francien’38)

to acquire greater prestige than other sister varieties, whether for military, socio-

economic, political or, less commonly, cultural reasons. The result has been that the

prestigious variety has come to be recognized as the linguistic norm or standard

language of the state. And, enhanced by the creation of an authoritative and

increasingly elaborated written form, it has been progressively diffused amongst

the citizens typically through the expansion of trade and commercial intercourse,

the introduction of an ever-expanding state bureaucracy, the establishment of a state

education system and, more recently, the rise of the mass media. An important

consequence of the establishment of standard languages has been progressive

linguistic convergence, as speakers of non-standard varieties tend to adjust and

accommodate their speech patterns to conformmore closely with those of themore

prestigious standard usage. The significance of this for the use of vowel prosthesis in

particular is clear: linguistic convergence may sometimes result in individual non-

standard varieties either abandoning or extending their use of prosthesis in keeping

with patterns in the standard language (see Chapters 4 and 6).

1.7.5.3 Written usage, spoken usage, and Latin

One of the basic tenets of modern theoretical linguistics is the priority of speech

over writing.39 However, this rather absolute conception of things requires

38 Much debate has taken place in recent years over the origins of standard French. The

traditional view that the basis for the standard language was the dialect of Paris and the Ile-de-

France, i.e. francien asGastonParis baptized it in 1889, has been strongly contested, cf.Chaurand

(1983) and especially Cerquiglini (1991) who claims that Paris and the Ile-de-France had no

dialect of their own and that standard French developed instead from a consensus variety

devised in the tenth or eleventh centuries by scribes andwriters using linguisticmaterials drawn

from a number of different dialects. Rather more plausibly, Lodge (2004) proposes that

standard French has its basis in the somewhat heterogeneous spoken usage of twelfth- and

thirteenth-century Paris when the city rapidly grew in size as immigrants from outside regions

came in introducingnew linguistic characteristics thatwere incorporated. Itwas one formof the

resultant Parisian koine, the one used by the elite classes, that was later to undergo elaboration

and codification emerging as the standard French language.39 This view was firmly enunciated by Saussure ([1916] 1967: 45), ‘l’objet linguistique

n’est pas defini par la combinaison du mot ecrit et du mot parle; ce dernier constitue a lui

30 Introduction

nuancing since written language is not merely a secondary means of representing

speech, differing only in its use of a visual channel of transmission rather than the

sound-based type. Written language possesses important properties of its own.

Notably, it has permanency, and in consequence it can be accessed and exploited

by individuals independent of a specific time and place enabling it to provide the

means for establishing and preserving tradition and authority. As Coulmas (1989:

8) observes, ‘writing is a means of social control, and it creates social coherence.’

Given the political and social significance of written language, it is not

surprising that throughout the history of Romance the written word has always

enjoyed a relatively high level of prestige in relation to spoken language in

communities where there was at least some degree of literacy present. One

consequence of this has been that features of written language have sometimes

influenced spoken usage. A familiar example is spelling pronunciation where the

written representation of a word comes to modify its spoken form, as in French

fils ‘son’ whose final segment in the present-day pronunciation [fis] has been

influenced by the written < s> . This pronunciation only finally displaced the

earlier [fi] in the nineteenth century although it is known to have been used by

some speakers from the sixteenth century (Thurot 1881: II, 81).40

The prestige of written usage relative to speech appears to have affected the

fortunes of vowel prosthesis too. In particular, the written form of Latin seems to

have been influential, operating in two different ways. First, it may be recalled

that prosthetic vowels did not exist in Classical Latin and so they did not figure in

its orthographic system. And even though prosthetic vowels doubtless began to

appear in speech in many areas during the Empire and into the early Middle Ages,

a Classical Latin-based orthographical system remained in use to represent the

evolving Latin which continued to serve as the medium for all formal written

activities, administration, religion, education, and scholarship. The Carolingian

Reforms which were promoted by Charlemagne (d. 814) restored a more Classi-

cal-style Latin for official use in Church and chancellery, and, predictably,

prosthetic vowels had no place in the spelling system advocated for use by scribes

seul cet objet.’ Critical re-assessment of the relationship between written and spoken

language has only recently been seriously engaged in, e.g. by Coulmas (1989), Harris

(2000), and Linnell (2005).40 Thurot loc. cit. notes that the sixteenth-century grammarians Baıf and Henri Estienne

report the pronunciation [fis] although the latter observes that the ‘peuple’ use both [fis]

and [fi]. Thurot himself concludes his coverage with the statement ‘l’usage est encore

partage aujourd’hui.’ In his influential dictionary (1863–73), the very conservative speaker

Emile Littre still cites [fi] as the recommended pronunciation, with a liaison form [fiz] in

fils aıne (s.v. fils). However, he adds: ‘Beaucoup de gens ont pris depuis quelque temps

l’habitude de faire entendre l’s quand le mot est isole ou devant une consonne, un fiss’; c’est

une tres-mauvaise prononciation.’

Introduction 31

when they wrote the restored Latin. As Banniard (1992: 46) observes, ‘la premiere

consigne [des clercs] . . . etait de respecter l’orthographe classique, quelle que futla prononciation entendue.’ Subsequently, the Medieval Latin which the Reforms

effectively ‘invented’ (to paraphrase Wright 1982: ix) continued to operate for

centuries alongside vernacular Romance, acting as a prestigious official medium,

written and spoken, even though it was no longer the native language of any-

body.41 The Renaissance was to bring further change to Latin, with scholars

seeking to restore it to a fully Classical form.42 Again, understandably, no

prosthetic vowels appeared in the spelling system. The authenticity and linguistic

integrity of the Latin that emerged from the work of Renaissance scholars43

ensured its high social prestige, even though among the rest of the population

it came to be actively studied and cultivated by ever fewer people. At all stages,

therefore, the spelling system used for Latin (whether Classical or Carolingian or

Renaissance) has not indicated the presence of prosthetic vowels. Given the

prestige long associated with Latin and the known impact of written language

on speech, it seems not inconceivable that the absence of prosthetic vowels in

written Latin may have helped to discourage their use amongst the literate classes

and the socially aspirant, particularly when they articulated the Latin-based

words that came increasingly to proliferate in more formal spoken registers.

Given the prestige associated with such speakers and their linguistic usage, we

may infer that it exercised some ‘top-down’ influence on the general fate of

prosthesis, especially in more culturally and socially developed Romance areas

(cf. Chapter 4).

A second and closely related aspect concerns the changing status of

written Romance vis-a-vis Latin. Romance vernaculars had slowly begun to

develop their own written form in the wake of the Carolingian Reforms

when the distinctness of Romance and (restored) Latin first began to be

41 This was so despite the fact that many individuals not only wrote and read Latin but

also spoke it fluently. Indeed, there may have been a small minority of medieval people

possessing near-native speaker control of Latin, similar to what is indicated for certain

individuals in the Renaissance such as Michel de Montaigne (1533–92) who was evidently

brought up at first in an artificial (Classical) Latin-speaking environment (cf. Essais I, 26).

Nonetheless, the broad characterization of medieval Latin by Deutschmann (1971: 59) as a

‘lebendige Schriftsprache’ seems appropriate.42 Notable was the work of Erasmus ([1528] 1978), cf. also Hesseling and Pernot (1919).43 The prestige was to ensure the maintenance of Latin in many parts of Europe until

the twentieth century, notably in the Catholic Church (where it is still the language used

for official papal pronouncements and certain internal administration, and in addition has

recently been reintroduced as a permissible language for the mass) and also in areas of

education and scholarship. For a discussion of the fate of Latin in Europe since the

Renaissance, see Waquet (2001).

32 Introduction

perceived.44 Even so, Latin remained the dominant written medium for

official matters until the later Middle Ages. However, the growth in written

activity, literary and non-literary, amongst a new emerging bourgeoisie often

unfamiliar with Latin and the enormous increase in the need for official

documentation in the nascent nation states (a need which could not be met

by the insufficient number of Latin-writing lawyers and functionaries) meant

that written Romance began to encroach more and more on official domains

hitherto reserved to Latin, such as administration and the law. To enable

Romance to express the sometimes complex information that needed to be

communicated in these domains, conscious enrichment and elaboration of

the linguistic range available took place drawing freely on the resources of

Latin. This has resulted most conspicuously in the introduction from the

twelfth century onward of massive numbers of ‘learned’ lexical borrowings

(mots savants, cultismos, voci dotte) to plug conceptual gaps. The source

forms of such Latinate borrowings of course contained no prosthetic

vowel. It therefore seems not unlikely that in view of their growing frequen-

cy and the cachet they enjoyed as high-register words, these written borrow-

ings provided a further possible factor undermining the use of prosthetic

vowels in certain Romance varieties.

1.8 Previous studies

The historical development of vowel prosthesis in Romance has not so far

received a detailed and systematic investigation. Schuchardt (1867: 337–65) pro-

vides the fullest discussion so far of the most widespread type of prosthesis, I-

prosthesis (cf. Chapter 4), and the substantial array of materials presented there

remains an important source. More limited accounts of this and other types of

prosthesis appear in many historical grammars of Romance, Diez (I: 224–6),

Meyer-Lubke (1890: I, }} 29, 367, 383, 388), Guarnerio (1918: }} 281, 287), Deferrari(1954: 97–8, 153–4, 274, 315), Bourciez (1956: }} 54b, 269c, 465d, 514c), Lausberg(1967: }} 307, 353–5) and Posner (1996: 290–1). The article by Siadbei (1958) offers aslightly fuller examination of general Romance patterns, while Politzer (1959)

considers early medieval patterns of development in one type of prosthesis (see

Chapter 4). The fortunes of prosthesis in Italo-Romance in particular are briefly

44 In Northern France, this started in the ninth century but only became widespread

from the twelfth century (Lodge 1993), whilst in Spain and Italy the earliest limited

indications came in the eleventh century and in the eleventh to twelfth centuries,

respectively, although in both areas it was not until the thirteenth century that the

practice of writing in vernacular became firmly established (Bartoli Langeli 2000; Wright

2000).

Introduction 33

discussed in Meyer-Lubke (1929) and Maneca (1965), while there is a valuable

analysis of the phenomenon in Piedmont by Clivio (1971), a detailed but less

critical discussion of Piedmontese data in Telmon (1975), and useful observations

on prosthetic vowels in proclitics in north-eastern Italo-Romance by Vanelli

(1984). The only book-length study devoted specifically to vowel prosthesis in

Romance in recent times appears to be the doctoral dissertation of La Scala (1975)

which gathers together a range of basic information but does not cover all

relevant data and at times arrives at questionable interpretations.

1.9 Sources of data

For early developments in the Empire and early Middle Ages (pre-literary period

of Romance), four main types of source are available: (i) epigraphical evidence,

for which there are collections such as the CIL; (ii) glosses, the largest body of

which appear in the CGL; (iii) metalinguistic observations by Roman grammar-

ians, for which Keil provides the fullest selection; (iv) Latin texts particularly of

the later Empire and early medieval period which range from formal scholarly

works to informal writings such as private letters. A convenient list of references

to these texts appears in Stotz (1996–2004).

Entering the literary period of Romance, a growing diversity of vernacular

materials becomes available. These include texts which are literary (verse or

prose), non-literary (official or practical and for general consultation), and

those intended for private reading (e.g. letters). In addition, there are formal

accounts, whether descriptive or prescriptive, of language states especially

of standard varieties, by contemporary observers from the sixteenth century

onward. More recent descriptions carried out by trained linguists provide a

more reliable source of knowledge and these are available for both standard

and non-standard varieties. A further resource is offered by linguistic atlases,

the first of which (the ALF) dates from the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth

centuries. However, the widespread tendency to present materials consisting of

just isolated words often reduces their usefulness somewhat for the present study.

Finally, the established techniques of linguistic reconstruction together with

findings from modern linguistic research are used to provide important

pointers to the interpretation of the available data. On the one hand, a

range of basic insights has been drawn from sociolinguistic work on societal

and cultural influences on language evolution. For example, studies conducted

on the effects of language standardization in nation states and the patterns of

interference when different linguistic varieties come into close contact have

offered suggestive lines of enquiry for our investigations. On the other hand,

important perspectives have been gained from formal linguistics. Particularly

fruitful for our purposes has been the work carried out on prosodic

34 Introduction

phonology, especially syllable theory. Also, more recently there has been a

great deal of insightful cross-linguistic investigation of epenthetic phenomena,

which of course include vowel prosthesis. This has been either phonetic-based,

as when exploring perceptual aspects governing the occurrence of epenthesis,

or phonologically based. For the latter, the extensive work on interphonolo-

gical phenomena has yielded results which shed useful light on formal proper-

ties of prosthetic and, more broadly, epenthetic vowels. At a more theoretical

level, no systematic use has been made of a particular model of description,

such as the currently dominant Optimality Theory (OT). In the case of OT,

the apparent claim that change in a given linguistic variety essentially involves

just modification over time in the ranking of a set of violable constraints

seems to offer a less than appealing vision of language change unless the

factors lying behind the modifications in constraint ranking can be identi-

fied.45 OT historical accounts typically contain just ex post facto statements of

such modification, which is not of course an explanation of change. A further

theoretical problem that has been identified is posed when accounting for

change which involves the lexical restructuring of underlying forms (Reiss

2003).

In the broad comparative-historical view being adopted here, the use of fine-

grained theoretical interpretation of the sort undertaken in a synchronic study of

a given linguistic variety, whether using OT or some other model, becomes

problematic. It has seemed appropriate therefore to offer a fairly ‘surface’, pho-

netically grounded account of the history of vowel prosthesis in Romance. To this

end, external (philological and sociopolitical) and internal linguistic data are

used in conjunction in order to identify, sometimes very tentatively, the processes

of change that may have operated.

45 Also the motivation for, and status of, the constraints postulated are not always

entirely clear. As one critic has noted, ‘Many [OT] analyses . . . reduce to exercises in

constraint invention, in the absence of any sensible limit on the form and number of

constraints to be proposed’ (McMahon 2000: 96). As to their status, constraints are taken

by some linguists to be universal in language, while for other linguists language-specific

constraints may also be postulated. However, how the two types relate is less than obvious.

Introduction 35

2

Categories of Prosthesis in the

History of Romance

Vowel prosthesis has not operated across the different varieties of Romance as a

unitary phenomenon. Chronological, geographical, and structural considerations

suggest that three main categories need to be distinguished. These we shall refer

to as I-prosthesis, A-prosthesis, and U-prosthesis (see Map 1). A limited number

of other instances of vowel prosthesis can be found, but these can be seen to

represent special cases of one or other of the three main categories distinguished

or they can be attributed to the action of non-phonological factors of some sort

(cf. 1.7). The broad nature of each of the three main categories will be outlined

in this chapter before each is explored in more detail in separate chapters

(Chapters 4–6).

2.1 I-prosthesis

I-prosthesis is perhaps the most familiar category of all since it is the one usually

cited when vowel prosthesis in Romance is referred to. It involves words whose

etyma originally contained a word-initial sequence of /s/þ consonant, such as

Latin SCALA ‘ladder’, SP�ISSU(M) ‘thick, dense’, STARE ‘to stand’ (> Sp. escala, espeso,

estar; Nuorese (Sardinian) iscala, ispissu, istare; etc.). Historically, the quality of

the vowel that was at first introduced appears to have been predominantly [i-]

(hence our term for this category) and this value has been retained in some

types of Romance, such as Sardinian and central Italian varieties. However, as a

result of regular sound change, the quality of the vowel has subsequently been

modified in other types of Romance. Most commonly, it has taken on a mid

value [e-] but in certain varieties the phonetic quality has developed further, as

we shall see (Chapter 4). The triggering factor for the innovation of the

prosthetic vowel seems to have been primarily phonological, relating to syllabic

structure.

Chronologically, this category of prosthesis has a long attested history.

Epigraphical evidence suggests that it goes back at least to the second

century AD. Even so, it is not until the early seventh century that the presence

of I-prosthesis is directly alluded to by contemporary observers of linguistic

usage.

Geographically, I-prosthesis evidently came to be used widely across

the Empire. This was doubtless assisted by the fact that it arose and began to

establish itself during the period when the Empire still maintained relatively good

internal communications enabling ready social interaction between regions.

Subsequently, however, for various reasons this category of prosthesis came

to take deepest root in the usage of the western half of the Empire including

central Italy.

2.2 A-prosthesis

A-prosthesis is a development which is also well represented in the history of

Romance. Structurally, it involves the insertion typically of the low vowel [a-], as

in R�OTA>Gascon arrode ‘wheel’. In its earliest phase, this category of prosthesis

appears to have occurred in words beginning with R-, as in the example cited. The

origins of the development appear to be bound up with the use of a strongly

trilled realization / r-/ for the rhotic R- in word-initial position within some

but not all varieties of Late Latin and early Romance. However, in certain

Romance varieties A-prosthesis has subsequently come to operate in other struc-

turally related contexts as well.

Geographically, A-prosthesis is widely represented across Romance. It has

operated in varieties of northern Ibero-Romance, in various types of southern

Gallo-Romance, in Sardinian, in southern Italo-Romance albeit under special

circumstances and patchily in central and northern varieties, and in certain

varieties of Rheto-Romance and Balkan Romance.

Turning to the chronology of this development, we find that the earliest

attestations date from the early medieval period. Examples from the tenth

century have been found for northern Ibero-Romance and Gascon. In

southern Italy, the appearance of a prosthetic vowel /a-/ similarly goes

back to the medieval period. In both areas, therefore, the process has a

long history although it postdates I-prosthesis. Elsewhere, dating is prob-

lematic for want of textual evidence. For the Balkans especially, there is no

surviving documentation of any substance at all written in Latin or early

Romance until the early sixteenth century, and in the varieties where

A-prosthesis has been most fully exploited, written evidence dates only

from the eighteenth century. Accordingly, whether this category of prosthesis

is of comparable antiquity across the different varieties of Romance affected

remains uncertain.

Categories of prosthesis in Romance 37

2.3 U-prosthesis

U-prosthesis involves the introduction of a prosthetic vowel whose quality is

somewhat variable and hence unspecific (thus explaining the use of ‘U’ for this

category). In fact, a wide variety of prosthetic vowels can be found, as in anval,

unval, inval ‘avalanche, heap of snow’ < NIVALE(M) which are all reported to occur

in different Piedmontese dialects (Telmon 1975: 155). The results of this category

of prosthesis can therefore coincide superficially with those of the two other

categories presented above. However, in addition to the variability in the quality

of the vowel introduced, a number of characteristics serve to distinguish this

category from the others.

First, geographically, U-prosthesis is rather less extensive than the other cate-

gories. It is found particularly in northern and, much more rarely, central dialects

of Italo-Romance, and also in Rheto-Romance varieties. Elsewhere, instances

have been reported, notably for a broad sweep of dialects in northern Gallo-

Romance.

Structurally, syllabic factors undoubtedly underlie the development of

U-prosthesis, suggesting a close connection between it and I-prosthesis. However,

the latter category involved the insertion of a prosthetic vowel before a rather

specific subset of consonant sequences. In contrast, U-prosthesis has shown

rather less specificity in that it has operated on a range of different word-initial

sequences. In addition, there can be a good deal of difference from dialect to

dialect in respect of the precise set of onset sequences which trigger U-prosthesis,

as we shall see in Chapter 6. In contrast, I-prosthesis appears to have represented

not a graded development across context types but a unitary process systemati-

cally affecting a single well-defined context type.

Further marking off this category of prosthesis is its chronology. From items

like Bolognese amvaud, Piedmontese anvud ‘nephew’ < NEPOTE(M), it is evident

that the prosthetic vowel was only added after two medieval changes had already

taken place: lenition of intervocalic obstruents and syncope of non-low initial

unstressed vowels, NEPOTE(M)> *nevo:de> *n(e)vo:d(e)> *nvo:d. Necessarily,

therefore, prosthesis can only have occurred at some stage well into the medieval

period, thus distinguishing it even more sharply from I-prosthesis.

2.4 Miscellaneous

Each of the three categories of prosthesis that have been identified represents a

process of change whose rationale is primarily phonologically based, involving an

apparent reaction amongst speakers of a Romance variety to existing patterns of

syllabic or segmental structure. Usually, unless some special factors intervene, the

resulting restructuring process can be expected to be carried through with

38 Categories of prosthesis in Romance

considerable, or even near-total, regularity in words containing the relevant

phonological contexts. However, not all seemingly prosthetic vowels necessarily

arise in this way. As has been seen earlier (1.7), non-phonological factors can lead

to prosthesis occurring but it is significant that in such cases the process seldom

approaches anything like regularity and remains sporadic, i.e. relatively infre-

quent and unpredictable. Some illustrative examples may be considered.

First, grammatical rather than phonological factors may be of central relevance

in creating new word-initial vowels. One instance of this arises as a result of the

recutting of a word boundary so that the last vowel segment of a frequently co-

occurring preceding satellite word comes to be interpreted as the initial vowel of

the following word. An example cited earlier was (Old Fr.) la bee> (mod. Fr.)

l’abee ‘mouth of a mill-leat’. Parallel cases to this French example are found across

many varieties of Romance, e.g. in Piedmontese amel ‘honey’, afel ‘bile’ < MEL, FEL

(following gender switch from original neuter to feminine) and in southern

Italian dialects (5.2.1.1). However, the range of specific lexical items affected by

this development in any given variety is typically unpredictable.

A rather different case of a grammatically based prosthetic vowel is found in

Campidanese (southern Sardinian) where the vowel [i] is found before demon-

strative pronouns when a grammatical function word precedes, as in de cussu ‘of

that’, e custu ‘and this’ which emerge respectively as [d¡i’�ussu] and [¡i’�ustu](Bolognesi 1998: 455). No such vowel occurs if a lexical item rather than a

grammatical one precedes; also, the vowel fails to appear with items other than

the three demonstrative pronouns, custu, cussu, cuffu. A not dissimilar case is

also found in Old French demonstratives where a pattern of alternation operated,

as in cest � icest, cel � icel. As a result of morphological reanalysis, the initial [i-]

occurring in one of the alternants was evidently interpreted as some sort of

marker of emphasis and came to be extended to certain other grammatical

forms such as tant ‘so much’, tel ‘such’ giving itant, itel.1 Examples such as

these from Sardinian and Old French, however, are clearly idiosyncratic and

accordingly need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

An ostensibly prosthetic vowel may appear word-initially as a result of formal

alignment with another semantically related word. For instance, as we saw earlier

1 According to Marchello-Nizia (1995: 169–70), the alternants in i- functioned from the

twelfth to the fifteenth century as marked forms which served to focalize or thematize the

noun phrase they appeared in. Commonly this meant that they appeared in clause-initial

position in Old French (Buridant 2000: }99). In the fifteenth century these forms become

much less frequent in texts and they predominantly operate as pronouns. In modern

French, i- forms of the cel series survive in archaic legal language, e.g. la maison et les pres

attenant a icelle and rarely as an adjective ıceux epoux. It is also found in humorous mock-

archaic styles.

Categories of prosthesis in Romance 39

(1.7), it seems that the initial vowel in Spanish avispa ‘wasp’ < Latin VESPA was

introduced because of the influence of the word abeja ‘bee’ (< Latin AP�ICULA).

Finally, in a development parallel and closely related to the creation of new

word-initial vowels through the use of prefixation in the history of Romance

(cf. 1.7), lexicalized prepositional phrases can also generate apparent prosthetic

vowels. For instance, forms such as ara:s ‘full to overflowing’ < AD RASU(M) in

Milanese (Salvioni 1884: }91) and standard Italian appena ‘scarcely’ < AD POENA,

allarme ‘alarm’ < AD ILLAS ARMA-S do not represent examples of A-prosthesis but of

lexicalization-based (pseudo-)prosthesis.

Such cases of non-phonologically based prosthesis are intrinsically less inter-

esting than the three main categories identified above, since, unlike the latter, they

are typically sporadic and unpredictable. For this reason we have not proposed a

further category to cover them and they will only figure in future discussion when

they interact with I-prosthesis, A-prosthesis, and U-prosthesis.

2.5 Problems of classification

As has been noted earlier (1.3), the results from the three different categories of

prosthesis are not always sharply separated so that there can be cases where

problems of classification can present themselves. Thus, the Piedmontese forms

arbatu ‘beaten down’ and aste ‘to seat’ reported by Telmon (1975: 157, 161) might

appear at first sight to have arisen as a result of, respectively, A-prosthesis and a

variant form of I-prosthesis. To resolve such uncertainties, appeal needs to be

made to both the formal characteristics and the historical background of the

word concerned and the diachronic phonological patterns operating in the

relevant Romance variety. Thus, in the first case the etymon REBATT-UTU(M)

suggests that the appearance of the vowel [a-] is almost certainly not due

to segmental conditioning triggered by the original word-initial consonant

R-. Rather, it is an example of U-prosthesis which occurred widely in northern

Italy after the regular syncope of mid vowel [e] in an initial syllable located before

the stressed vowel. The etymon SEDERE of aste reveals that it too underwent the

syncope that affected arbatu and hence that it is likewise to be interpreted as an

instance of U-prosthesis. However, the appropriate classification of other ob-

served cases of prosthesis may be less easily arrived at, so that on occasions some

indeterminacy will inevitably exist.

40 Categories of prosthesis in Romance

3

The Latin Background

At the outset of the Imperial period, there is little evidence of any form of vowel

prosthesis operating as a phonological process in Latin. However, important

developments affecting syllable structure had got underway in preceding centu-

ries and these were to be of direct relevance in promoting the earliest case of

prosthesis of relevance to the present study, namely I-prosthesis. Particular

attention will therefore be focused on the syllable in this chapter. We begin

with a synchronic account of syllable structure in the best documented and

most prestigious variety of Latin, Classical Latin, which represents educated

(and especially written) usage of the capital during the period covering approxi-

mately the first century BC to the first century AD when the most celebrated

Roman authors flourished. A diachronic approach will then be adopted in

order to consider significant patterns of change in syllable structure during the

pre-classical period of Latin in the Republic.

3.1 The syllable in Classical Latin

In the Latin syllable, the nucleus was always made up of a vowel, syllabic

consonants evidently being unknown. The nucleus could consist of a monoph-

thong, /i e a o u/ distinctively long or short, or a diphthong, /ai oi au/ and more

marginally /ei eu/ and perhaps too for some speakers /ui/ [

h

i] (Biville 1994).

Flanking the nucleus there were an onset and a coda which could consist of

between zero and three consonant segments. For the formation of onsets and

codas, the following inventory of consonants was available:

voiceless plosives p t k kw

voiced plosives b d g gw

voiceless fricatives f s h

nasal sonorants m n (N)lateral l

rhotic r

approximants (w) (j)

The bracketed consonants aremajor positional variants of independent phonemes

and are included to complete the table. The nasal [N] is the allophone of /n/ beforevelar consonants and of /g/ before /n/; [w] and [j] are non-syllabic allophones of

/i/ and /u/.1 With the exception of /h/, the two labiovelars /kw gw/ and the

allophones [w] and [N], all the consonant phonemes could be geminated although

the possibility of gemination within individual morphemes was almost wholly

restricted to just the voiceless obstruents /p t k s/ and the sonorants /m n l r/.2 At

the level of the word, geminate consonants typically occurred medially in intervo-

calic position; they appear never to have been found in initial position and were

very rare indeed in final position, the deictic HOC being perhaps a rare example

[hokk] (Allen 1978: 76). They could however occur across a word boundary, as for

example in CUM NOBIS [kun’no:bi:s] ‘with us’ to which Cicero makes reference

(Orator 154).

Onsets and codas could each contain up to three consonant segments, so that

the maximum phonological syllable was theoretically CCCVCCC where ‘V’

covers all possible vowel nuclei, short or long. Maximum onsets and codas

were however only found at word edges. Thus, a maximum onset appeared in

words such as STRIX ‘screech owl’, SPLENDOR ‘splendour’ and a maximum coda

in FALX /falks/ ‘sickle’, URBS ‘city’, where it is notable that the outermost consonant

in each case is always and only the fricative /s/. It is presumably by chance that

there are no known cases of any Latin word containing a maximally filled onset

and coda, such as **SCRALX or **SPRINX. Word-medially, onsets and codas

contained up to a maximum of only two consonants within morphemes, as in

MONS|TRUM ‘portent; monster’.

The segmental composition of onsets and codas in Latin were subject to severe

constraints. Complex word-initial onsets were almost exclusively limited to the

two following types:

(a) obstruent þ liquid e.g. PLENUS ‘full’, GRANDIS ‘great’

(b) s þ voiceless plosive (þ liquid) e.g. STO ‘I stand’, STRAMEN ‘straw’

1 The spelling system used by the Romans offers strong support for this interpretation:

I is used for both [j] and [i], V is used both for [w] and [u]. Explanations can readily be

found for the tiny number of potentially problematic near-minimal pairs contrasting [j]

with [i] and [w] with [u], such as IAM ‘now’ (with [j]) vs IAMBUS ‘iambus’, ETIAM ‘also’ (both

with [i]) and SOLVIT ‘(s)he frees’ (with [w]) vs SOLUIT ‘(s)he freed’ (with [u]). For further

discussion see Allen (1978: 37–42), Marotta (1999: 291–2).2 Examples of other consonant types appearing intramorphemically do exist but they

are very rare and mainly appear in loanwords: OFFA ‘lump’, SUFFES ‘chief magistrate’

(a Phoenician loan), ABBAS ‘abbot’ (a Greek loan ultimately from Aramaic), ADDAX ‘type

of gazelle’ (probably an African word). Across morpheme boundaries, however, /ff/ and

geminate voiced obstruents were commonly found, e.g. OFFERO (¼ OB þ FERO) ‘I present’,

ABBIBO (¼ AD þ BIBO) ‘I begin to drink’, ADDO (¼ AD þ DO) ‘I add’.

42 The Latin background

Type (a) consisted of /pr- tr- kr- br- dr- gr- fr-/ and /pl- kl- bl- gl- fl-/, and type

(b) comprised the so-called s impura sequences /sp- st- sk- skw- / and /spr- str-

skr-; spl- stl-/. Other complex word-onsets existed but these were rare. They

included GN [Nn] which was found in occasional relics of archaic Latin, notably in

GNATUS ‘son’ and the proper name GNAEUS,3 although the sequence had generally

been simplified to /n-/ already by the end of the second century BC (Maniet 1975:

158); and /sm-/ which appeared in a few loanwords from Greek such as SMARAGDUS

(or ZMARAGDUS) ‘emerald’, SMARIS (or ZMARIS) ‘a kind of seafish’, SMURNA (SMYRNA,

ZMYRNA) ‘the town of Smyrna’. Also, the onset /sf-/ may have occurred amongst

some Latin speakers in Greek loans such as SPHAERA ‘sphere’ but it is noticeable

that popular reflexes of SPHAERA in Romance indicate restructuring to /sp-/

(cf. Ital. spera ‘celestial globe’, Old Ital. spero ‘mirror’, sperina ‘hand mirror’,

Log. isperiare ‘to discern from afar’, REW 8143). The exclusion of onset /sf-/

may reflect a general negative constraint against sequences of fricative consonants

in native forms.4

Problematic is the sequence STL- which appears in a small set of words which

includes the following items:

STLATTA or STLATA ‘kind of barge’

STLEMBUS ‘slow, sluggish’ (in Festus 413, 1)

STLIS ‘dispute’ especially in the official title DECEMVIR STLITIBUS IUDICANDIS ‘judge

dealing with cases of freedom and citizenship’

STLOCUS ‘place’

STLOPPUS ‘noise of slap on inflated cheek’

STLACCIUS, STLANIUS, STLOGA proper names appearing in inscriptions

(references in Dessau III: 137, 244)

3 Cf. Kent (1945: 54), Traina (1973: 61–2), Allen (1978: 23–5). The sequence GN also

appeared medially, as in LIGNUM, where it also had the phonetic value [Nn]. Later on,

medial GN was widely adapted through nasal dissimilation [Nn] > [gn] before passing to

[jn], but a different outcome evidently occurred in certain areas of the Empire notably S.

Italy and the Balkans, e.g. Romanian, LIGNUM > lemn, PUGNU(M) > pumn. For the latter

development, Lausberg (1967: }445) postulates the stages [ªn] > [n] > [mn], while

Rosetti (1978: 129) proposes rather less plausibly [Nn] > [NN] > [mn].4 The same restructuring of sf- to /sp/ was evidently used by less educated speakers of

sixteenth-century French when pronouncing the medieval learned form sph(a)ere (first

attested as espere in c. 1165, DHLF s.v. sphere). Rabelais in Gargantua, first published 1534,

refers (ch. 9) rather dismissively to the practice of devising coats of arms where a sphere

was used to signify hope, showing the near identity of sphere and espoir for many speakers

at that time. Forms with /sf/ such as Fr. sphere, Span. esfera, Ital. sfera represent of course

later forms adapted through learned influence.

The Latin background 43

The authenticity of some of these has been challenged by Pariente (1968) but

the items in the bottom two rows certainly appear to be genuine Latin words,

and indeed the others may also be genuine although they were probably

archaic by the first century BC.5 If we assume that some or most of these words

were in use by certain speakers of the Classical period with the pronunciation

[stl], it is certainly curious that /stl-/ still appears to exist in Classical Latin

when **/tl-/ and **/dl-/ had long ceased to be permissible. The non-appearance

of the latter pair finds a direct counterpart in many modern European

languages as well as in other languages further afield, which has led some

phonologists to postulate a principled theoretical basis for their general exclusion

(and by extension that of /stl-/) as possible onset sequences in language. However,

/dl-/ and especially /tl-/ have developed in many northern Italian varieties, e.g.

(Romagnolo) dleta ‘choice’ and tle ‘weaving loom’, and beyond Romance

both sequences are not uncommon; they are widely found for instance in

Slavonic languages, e.g. Czech dluh ‘debt’ and tlak ‘pressure’. There is therefore

no necessary reason for the sequences not to occur.6 Yet, they did disappear

from Latin but /stl-/ continued to remain permissible, albeit for a limited period.

Indeed, the presence of /stl-/ is perhaps all the more surprising in view of the

lack of native Latin words with initial /skl-/ and the occurrence of just one

native lexeme dSPLEND-e ‘gleam’ with initial /spl-/,7 even though /sk-/, /kl-/

5 Kiss (1971: 90) claims that the pronunciation [stl-] had disappeared from the spoken

language by the end of the third century BC. However, no proof is advanced in support of

this assertion.6 Noske (1982: 306, n. 20) comes to a similar conclusion for the lack of these onset

sequences in French. In recent years, however, the special status of coronal consonants has

not infrequently been invoked to ‘explain’ the non-occurrence of certain consonant

sequences or certain co-occurrences of consonants within morphemes (see Paradis and

Prunet 1991, Hall 1997 for general discussions). A widespread view is that coronals should

be interpreted as unmarked for Place specification, though Hall (1997: esp. 29–31) opts for a

privative [coronal] vs [peripheral] specification for Place in consonants. Marotta (1999:

299) accepts the underspecified interpretation of coronals claiming, ‘The lack of **tl

and **dl is related to the coronal syndrome’ [i.e. their special underspecified status].

Underlying this claim is the theoretical assumption that in two-place onset sequences

the first segment (which is the head of the sequence) cannot be less complex feature-wise

than the following segment. Since laterals are more complex than plosives, a sequence like

/tl-/ is impermissible. However, the sequence /tr-/ appears to show a directly comparable

pattern of relative feature complexity, but it is permissible in Latin. Given too the number

of languages which manifestly break this constraint, we may view such ‘explanations’ with

some scepticism.7 A Greek borrowing SPLEN together with various derivatives SPLENETICUS ‘splenetic’, etc.

also contains initial /spl-/.

44 The Latin background

and /sp-/, /pl-/ were all commonly found as word-initial onsets. However,

the restricted incidence of /spl-/ and /skl-/ may just be coincidental. Certainly,

the post-Classical development of /stl-/> /skl-/, for example in STL�OPPUS> *SCLOP-

PUS>Cat. esclop ‘wooden clog’,8 Occ. esclop ‘sharp noise’ (FEW XII, 278), Ital.

scoppio ‘explosion’, schioppo ‘gun’ (REW 8270) implies that /skl-/ was not struc-

turally debarred. The significance of the maintenance of the onset /stl-/ is

discussed further below (3.2).

Word-medially, intramorphemic syllable onsets (just like syllable codas)

consisted of at most two consonants, as was noted earlier. However, only

type (a) sequences could appear as onsets in this context, as in DU|PLUS, A|GRI,

thereby reflecting the fact that normally these were tautosyllabic in Latin.9

In contrast, two segment sequences of type (b) such as /st/ were heterosyllabic

word-medially and hence could not form an onset, CIS|TA, AS|TRUM. This is

confirmed not only by the facts of subsequent phonological evolution in

Romance but also by metrical evidence in Latin since medial /s/þ consonant

sequences ‘made position’, i.e. made the preceding syllable heavy because /s/

formed its coda. The heterosyllabicity of /s/þ consonant sequences within

words makes their occurrence as tautosyllabic onsets in word-initial position

appear anomalous, and it is easy to see in this anomaly a potential factor

for change.

The status of /s/ in complex onsets is thus exceptional in Latin and raises

some questions as to its appropriate interpretation. One strategy might be

simply to treat the disparity in syllabification between word-initial and

8 The semantic value of this Catalan form may represent the result of interference

between SCLOPPUS and SCULPONEA ‘clog’, cf. DECLC 3, s.v. esclop.9 The status (tautosyllabic or heterosyllabic) of type (a) sequences within words in fact

remains a debated question amongst Latinists. In Classical Latin, there is evidence that

a heterosyllabic treatment as in PAT|RES, was possible although unusual. In verse, such a

treatment is generally believed to reflect imitation of Greek metrical practice. Virgil (Aen. 2,

line 663) appears to play on native vs Greek practices when he juxtaposes words displaying

tautosyllabic and heterosyllabic syllabification: NATUM ANTE ORA PATRIS PATREM QUI OBTRUNCAT

AD ARAS ‘(Pyrrhus) who slaughters the son before the father’s eyes, and the father at the

altars’, the scansion here clearly indicating PA|TRIS but PAT|REM. (For a metrical analysis of the

Aeneid, see Ott 1973–85.) Subsequently in Romance, some southern Italian dialects show

regular patterns of vowel change which indicate that type (a) sequences in these dialects

were heterosyllabic, at least in the early stages of their development, cf. Loporcaro (2005).

The Greek-speaking historical backcloth to these dialects is doubtless not without

importance in this respect. We may perhaps conclude that tautosyllabicity was the norm

for type (a) sequences in Latin but that some varieties adopted heterosyllabicity,

sometimes under influence from contact languages.

The Latin background 45

word-internal positions as just a further example of the familiar tendency in

language for syllable onsets (and codas) to admit greater complexity at word

edges than word-medially (cf. Hulst and Ritter 1999). A rather different

approach is to assume that Latin had a core syllabic structure containing

at most the two onset consonants and the two coda consonants that can be

found in word-medial position. The additional outer consonant /s/ which

may appear in three-place margins at word edges would then be viewed as

being stray or extrasyllabic10 rather than forming part of the core syllable

(cf. Steriade 1988; Marotta 1999). Such an approach would capture the fact

that the consonant /s/ has a special status at both word-edge onsets and

codas—it will be recalled that word-final /s/ in complex codas almost

invariably acts as a grammatical marker. Using this approach, a representa-

tion for the Latin syllable is given in Figure 3.1 below. However, as we shall

see (section 3.2), this approach seems to be not wholly satisfactory when a

diachronic view is adopted, for as it fails to take sufficient account of the

close relationship between /s/þ voiceless obstruent sequences which has

clearly affected phonological evolution.

s C liq. V V C C s

CoN

O

R

σ

ω

FIGURE 3.1. Syllable structure in Classical Latin

10 Other terms that are used include ‘prependix’ for a stray consonant in an onset and

‘appendix’ for the counterpart in a coda.

46 The Latin background

3.1.1 SYLLABIFICATION ACROSS WORD BOUNDARIES

There is evidence that word boundaries were strong in Latin.11 The substantial

degree of freedom in word order and the near-absence of clitics12 are suggestive

and point to a relatively high level of autonomy in the word. In the light of this, it

might be expected that phonological processes operating within the word would

apply much less readily across word boundaries. However, such a view needs

some qualification. First, it is known that co-articulation and even full assimila-

tion could take place across boundaries, although this appears more typically

to have affected relatively weakly stressed syllables or weak monosyllabic words

within syntactic groups. Thus, Cicero warned against saying CUM NOBIS (Orator

154) or CUM NOS (Ad Familiares 9,22,2) since the -M N- sequence in each case would

be realized as /nn/ and hence suggest the obscene word CUNNUS. Phonological

processes could therefore operate across word boundaries.

Second, the presence of an intervening word boundary did not systematically

override normal syllabification patterns that are found operating within words.

Thus, when a word ending in single coda consonant was followed by a vowel-

initial word, the consonant was normally reassigned to form the onset of the

following syllable, just as an intervocalic consonant within a word always formed

the onset of the following syllable. For example, in NISUS AMORE PIO (Aen. V, line

296) the final consonant of NISUS is syllabified with the initial vowel of AMORI, as in

SU | SA.13 The similarity between the resyllabification here and enchaınement

in modern French (and other Romance varieties) is clear. However, obs-

truentþ liquid sequences were exceptional. Though usually tautosyllabic within

morphemes, they were evidently heterosyllabic across morpheme and word

boundaries, e.g. in AB|RIPIO and in INCENDAT | REGINAM ‘may fire the queen to

madness’, Aen. I, 660 (cf. Allen 1973: 140–1). Rightward resyllabification of a

consonant across grammatical boundaries in Latin thus only appears to have

11 Cf. Hill (1954), Kiss (1971: 18–19), and Marotta (1999: 301), the last named of whom

asserts that ‘in Latin, word boundaries are very strong’. Herman (1990: 22) offers a

diatopically nuanced view. Using evidence relating to the merger of <B> and <V> in

word-initial position in inscriptions from Gaul as against Rome, he concludes in the

Empire period that ‘le mot etait phonetiquement plus autonome en Gaule que dans le

centre de la Romania’ (1990: 22).12 Just three clitics are usually identified, ENIM, AUTEM, VERO, which serve as discourse

connectives. These are complemented by three enclitic connectives, -QUE, -VE, -NE. None of

these items, it may be noted, has left any subsequent trace in Romance. The familiar clitic

elements which are found in Romance such as personal pronouns and determiners either

have no counterpart in Latin (e.g. articles) or are not clitics but fully autonomous words in

Latin.13 For a full metrical scansion of the Aeneid, see Ott (1973–85).

The Latin background 47

operated where it could form an onset for an onsetless syllable but not where it

would merely add to an existing onset.

Given that rightward resyllabification was permissible in Latin, the possibility

of leftward resyllabification needs to be considered. Particularly interesting is the

treatment of word-initial heterosyllabic s impura onsets when they were preceded

by a word ending in a vowel. For we might expect that stray word-initial /s/ would

tend to be reassigned to form a new coda for the preceding syllable, e.g. BENE STARE

might be syllabified as BE|NE S|TA|RE. The Roman grammarians however say

nothing on this point, and the only relevant evidence readily available is metrical.

In verse, a basic distinction is made between ‘heavy’ syllables (whose rhyme

consists of either a long vowel or a vowel plus coda) and ‘light’ syllables (whose

rhyme contains just a short vowel). Of particular interest therefore are contexts

where there is a word ending in a light syllable followed by a word beginning with

s impura. For, if resyllabification does occur, the syllable will become heavy and

this will be reflected in the scansion. Unfortunately however, as Classical scholars

have discovered (Lindsay 1894: 131; Hoenigswald 1949; Collinge 1970; Allen 1973:

139–40), the circumstances here are problematic as sequences of word-final short

vowel followed by word-initial /s/þ consonant were not only rarely used, but

they were also not handled in a uniform way in versification. Usually, a word-final

syllable ending in a short vowel remains light when a type (b) word-initial onset

follows, i.e. there is no resyllabification. Thus, in PRAEMIA SCRIBAE (Horace Satires 1,

5, 35), the syllabification is -A|SCRI-. But because Greek metrical practice was

different in that it resyllabified such sequences so that the first syllable acquired

a coda /s/ and became heavy, Latin poets from Ennius onwards also used this

syllabification pattern on occasions (cf. Hoenigswald 1949: 276 for examples). It

was this conflict between native Latin syllabification and Greek practice that

appears to have led poets to avoid sequences of light word-final syllables and

word-initial /sC-/ wherever possible.14

However, limited and variable though the data here are, the apparent resistance

to reallocating word-initial /s/ to the coda of a preceding syllable in Latin

syllabification is noteworthy, particularly as resyllabification does occur across

14 Kurolywicz (1966) has useful statistics on this question. Lucretius has nine possible

instances where resyllabification would change syllable weight, but it happens in none

of them. In Virgil, there are five instances and in Horace there are eight, but again no

resyllabification occurred. However, Catullus and Tibullus do have cases of

resyllabification. Catullus indeed has one poem where both scansions appear (LXIV, 186,

357). Unfortunately, when discussing this problematic question, Vennemann (1988: 74, n.

29) rather oversimplifies matters by stating that ‘a final open syllable with a short vowel

metrically counts as light, even if the following word begins with /s/ plus plosive’. Zirin

(1970: 41), whom he claims to be citing, is in fact a good deal more nuanced in his account.

48 The Latin background

word-medial morpheme boundaries e.g. in RES|PLEN|DET ‘it gleams back’.15 It

indicates that although complex /sC-/ sequences are heterosyllabic medially,

they nonetheless show some evidence of remaining tautosyllabic when word-

initial in Latin even if preceded by a vowel-final word. The assumption that /s/

is ‘stray’ or extrasyllabic in s impura sequences therefore requires some qualifica-

tion.

3.2 Syllabic change in pre-Classical Latin

During the centuries leading up to the Classical period there is good evidence

from the philological record and from linguistic reconstruction that considerable

change took place in the phonological structure of Latin. Important develop-

ments affected the syllable, in most cases creating greater simplicity. One instance

of this was the lightening of syllable margins through consonant deletion. For

example, in *kertsna> *kersna> CENA, *sedstos> SESSUS,16 word-medial syllable

margins have been reduced (Maniet 1975: 98; Bassols 1981: 219, 225). At word edges

there was also simplification, though word-final codas were less affected as these

frequently carried grammatical information which ensured their preservation.17

Word-initial onsets, on the other hand, were more vulnerable and it appears that

they underwent widespread simplification (Steriade 1988). Examples are:

*wrad-> RADIX ‘root’, *wrizd-> RIDERE ‘to laugh’, *wlana> LANA ‘wool’

*ktunica> TUNICA ‘tunic’, *ptilia> TILIA, ‘lime tree’,*psaflom> SABULUM ‘sand’

*knıdos> NIDOR ‘burnt smell’, *dnuk-> NUX ‘nut’

15 Certain Romance linguists appear to be unaware of this pattern of word-medial

syllabification. Thus, Tekavcic (1974: }297) postulates Latin CON|STARE rather than CONS|TARE,

and uses the former syllabification as a basis for explaining the origins of I-prosthesis (see

4.1.5). The force of his argument is therefore weakened.16 The ancestral form for CENA is reconstructed on the basis of Oscan kersnu, kerssnaıs,

Umbrian sesna and the likelihood of a common basis for this word and CARO ‘meat’ and

possibly C�ORTEX ‘bark, rind’. For SESSUS, it is assumed that this word participated in the pre-

literary change whereby dental plosive þ [t] sequences developed a medial [s] before the

resulting sequence [tst] became [ss]; hence the medial consonant sequence evolved as [dt] >[dst] > [tst] with voicing assimilation, then > [ss]. The original stem SED- is of course

preserved in other parts of the verb, SEDEO ‘I sit’, SEDERE ‘to sit’, etc.17 Examples of simplification nonetheless can be found, such as PRAEDA < praidad, MILES

<mıless < *mılets, H�OMO < *homon, C�OR < *cord (Maniet 1975: 149–52). Significantly, coda

simplification in these examples is facilitated by the fact that it does not have any

morphological consequences.

The Latin background 49

*tlatos> LATUS ‘carried’, *dlongos> L�ONGUS ‘longus’

*sni-> N�IX ‘snow’, *sleubrikos> LUBRICUS ‘slippery’

(Leumann 1977: }}189–95; Walde and Hofmann 1938–56)

Alongside these items there were the special cases of GN- and SM- noted earlier

(STL- is discussed below) both of which are attested in Latin texts. Evidently, forms

like GNATUS, GNOSCO ‘I know’ were essentially confined to just written usage by the

beginning of the Empire period and hence are of marginal relevance. The onset

SM- had already disappeared in pre-literary times in native Latin items along

with other /s/þ sonorant onsets, e.g. * smık->MICA ‘crumb’, but it was later

introduced along with a few Greek borrowings although it doubtless would have

had a rather ‘exotic’ quality for many of the Latin speakers who used it. Both of

these onset sequences therefore are extraneous to the core phonological structure

of the Latin syllable.

All the complex onsets that were eliminated in pre-Classical Latin were doubt-

less heterosyllabic,18 even though in many cases they showed rising sonority and

therefore conformed with the sonority sequencing generalization (SSG) govern-

ing syllable structure (cf. 1.7). Their progressive elimination suggests a general

movement towards limiting complex syllable onsets to just the tautosyllabic type,

i.e. obstruentþ liquid. Against such a background, it is perhaps surprising there-

fore that the complex onsets /s/þ voiceless plosive should alone have continued

to exist into Classical Latin. For not only were they essentially heterosyllabic (but

see above 3.1), they also contravened the SSG. The prolonged existence of word-

initial STL- appears to be related to the tenacity of these anomalous onsets. A

possible factor explaining their preservation may lie in their formal structure. As

many phonologists have observed, a special bond seems to exist between a

sibilant and a following voiceless plosive, enabling such a sequence to function

as a sort of single complex phonological unit (cf. Kohler 1967, Fudge 1969, Ewen

1982 for English and German; Steriade 1994: 244–50 for native American lan-

guages). In his analysis of German, Wiese (1996: 43) even proposes a special label

‘suffricates’ to refer to such units. Kurylowicz (1966) adopts a similar view in his

interpretation of sibilantþ voiceless plosive onsets in Classical Latin. He notes

that not only does word-initial /s/ in these sequences not normally syllabify with a

preceding word-final vowel (cf. above), but also the facts of verb reduplication

similarly point to their unitary treatment, cf. SPOPONDI (vs SPONDEO), STETI (vs STO),

SCICIDI (vs SCINDO) with dissimilatory loss of /s/ in the verb root, unlike in

languages like Greek where reduplication reflected the segmental separability of

such onset sequences (��ÅŒÆ < *se-sta, etc.). Morelli (2003) highlights a further

characteristic of fricativeþ stop sequences that points to their special

18 That is, like s impura sequences they were syllabified into different syllables when

word-medial, as in [-k|t-], [-k|n-] etc.

50 The Latin background

phonological status. This is that they are more commonly found cross-linguisti-

cally than other possible obstruentþ obstruent onset sequences. Her data allow

two implicational universals to be postulated: SS) SF) FS( FF (where ‘S’ ¼stop, ‘F’ ¼ fricative). That is, stopþ stop onsets imply the presence of stopþfricative onsets19 which in turn imply fricativeþ stop, while fricativeþ fricative

sequences imply fricativeþ stop (no direct implications exist however between

FF on the one hand and SF or SS on the other). And of the FS sequences,

sibilantþ stop represents the most common type by far.

A rather different aspect which likewise points to a special bond between

sibilant and stop segments relates to their treatment in loanword phonology.

As Fleischhacker (2001) has noted, adaptation strategies for sibilantþ stop se-

quences in languages which permit no complex word-initial onsets are often

different from those used for other sequences. Thus, in Hindi, epenthesis is the

usual strategy as in (Engl.) frock> [fırPk], cloth> [kılPŁ], but uniquely with

sibilantþ stop sequences prosthesis is adopted instead, as in school> [ıskul],

station> [ısteʃ‰n], spelling> [ısp¡lıN] (cf. Singh 1985).20 Fleischhacker presents

experimental data to support the hypothesis that important perceptual factors

underlie the preferential use of prosthesis with sibilantþ stop sequences since an

intervening vowel segment in these serves to distort recognition of the original

sequence more severely than it does with, say, stopþ liquid sequences such as

/tr-/. Thus, once more a particular bond, this time perceptual in character, can be

seen to hold between fricativeþ stop.

There is therefore some suggestive data to indicate that groups composed of /s/

þ voiceless stop may have formed closely knit clusters capable of functioning as

phonological units. However, the unifying bond was evidently never strong

enough to establish full tautosyllabic status in all onset contexts in Classical

Latin, but it was sufficient to allow tautosyllabicity in onsets occurring after

word boundaries. It seems not inconceivable that it was the syllabically flexible

treatment of /s/þ stop sequences that made them more resistant to restructuring

in word-onset position than other sequences that were unambiguously hetero-

syllabic.21 The later retention of STL-¼ (Sþ T)þ L- as compared to TL- may well be

connected with the special phonological status of /s/þ stop sequences.

19 Affricates are excluded from this category, since they function as single segments.20 Broselow (1991) reports a number of other languages, including Wolof and Egyptian

Arabic, where a similar pattern of prosthesis vs epenthesis occurs in borrowings containing

complex word-initial onsets. Thus, Wolof kalaas, silip, sonob < French classe, slip, snob, but

estati, espoor < French statue, sport; Egyptian Arabic bilastik, fired, silaid, siwetar < English

plastic, Fred, slide, sweater, but #iskii, #istadi, #ispiriN < English ski, study, spring.21 A similar fluidity has been reported in the syllabification of medial /s/ þ stop

sequences in French by Laeufer (1991) and in Italian by Bertinetto (1999).

The Latin background 51

To conclude, there is little evidence of Latin undergoing vowel prosthesis

during the centuries that led up to the disintegration of the Republic. However,

in this period a number of developments occurred which resulted in the progres-

sive elimination or simplification of the great majority of complex syllable onsets

other than the tautosyllabic obstruentþ liquid type. The one remaining anomaly

in word-initial position was the complex onset type /s/þ consonant. The appear-

ance of the first type of vowel prosthesis in the Empire period may be seen as a

direct response to this.

52 The Latin background

4

I-prosthesis

I-prosthesis represents the earliest and the most familiar category of vowel

prosthesis in Romance. It operated on words beginning with onsets consist-

ing of /s/þ obstruent, often referred to as s impura, as in SPINA, STATU(M),

SCRIPTU(M) > Cast. espina, estado, escrito; Fr epine, ete, ecrit ‘thorn, been (p.

pt.), written’. In early attested cases of prosthesis, the initial vowel segment

which was inserted usually had the quality [i], hence our use of the term ‘I-

prosthesis’. Subsequently, however, the quality underwent change in many

regional forms of Late Latin and early Romance. The first indications of I-

prosthesis date from the early Imperial period.

Much work has been done by Romanists on the origins of this category of

prosthesis and this has shown that it probably developed as a result of factors

relating to syllable structure, as was the case with the two other major categories

of vowel prosthesis to be considered in Chapters 5 and 6. However, other aspects

of I-prosthesis have been less well studied. These include the implementation and

chronology of this development. A further area in which earlier research has been

muted concerns the fate of I-prosthesis in later medieval and modern periods of

Romance. The relative lack of attention given to this might suggest that little of

consequence has happened over the past 1000 years or so. As we shall see, this is

far from true.

4.1 Rise of I-prosthesis: early developments

As has been noted, I-prosthesis operated on words beginning with s impura

onsets. A sample set of prosthetic forms attested from the first millennium AD

is cited below, grouped according to the nature of the immediately pre-

ceding linguistic environment: namely, (i) post-pausal, (ii) post-consonantal,

intra-phrasal, (iii) post-vocalic, intra-phrasal. The significance of the phonologi-

cal environment for the occurrence of prosthesis will become apparent in due

course.

## sC - (post-pausal) - C # sC - (post-consonantal)

ISCINTILLA (Audollent 279,

N. Africa)

DE CET[ERIS HOC] ISCIATIS (CILVI, 18659)

ISCOLA (Dessau 2791, Rome) FURIUS ISPARTACUS (CIL X, 1974)

ISCRIBONIUS (Diehl 4128, Rome) IN ISPATIUM (Audollent 244, N. Africa)

ISCOLASTICUS (CIL II, 5129, NE

Spain)

ARTIS ISPECLARARIE (CILVI, 33911)

ISPECULATOR (CILVIII, 2833, N.

Africa)

PER ISPIRITALLES (Audollent 253, N. Africa)

ISPIRITO (269 AD, CILVI 10013,

Rome)

HANIMAM ET ISPIRITUM (Audollent 250 a,b,

N. Africa)

ISPIRITUS (4th-6th cent, CILV 210) ANTONINUS ISPOSE (CILVIII, 3485)

ISPUMOSUS (CIL II, 5129, NE Spain) IN ISTATUAM (375 AD, CIL XI 5996)

ISTATUIS (Dessau 6091, Imperial

letter)

SULLIUS ISTEFANUS (CILVI, 26942)

ISTORICUS (CIL II, 1482, Spain) BENEMERENTI FE[CIT] ISTILIUS (CILVI, 27259)

ISTEFANUS (Diehl 1593a, Rome) FECIT ISCELESTA MATER (CILVI, 13353)

ISTERCOLUS (Diehl 2543 add.,

N. Africa)

ET ESPONSA (CIL III, 13124)

- V # sC – (post-vocalic)

EGO ISPERABI (CIL X, 8189, S. Italy)

OPSECR . . .A ISPERATA (Audollent 220a,b, N. Africa)

CLODIA ISPES (Diehl 763a, Rome)

IULIA ISPES (CIL X, 754)

ACILIA ISSPES (CILVI, 7974)

RUBRIA ISTEFANUS (CILVI, 25551)

FILIO ISPELDIDO (CILVI, 31850)

MIHI ISPELUNCOLA (Le Blant 1892: 247–8, Poitiers, Gaul)

CUI ISPONSUS (CILVIII, 9940, 21788)

QUE ISTETIT (Diehl 2756, Rome)

SOLO ISTI[TUERUNT] (CILVIII, 9985add.)

E[QUES] AL[AE] [MILIARIAE] ISTIPEN[DIORUM] (Dessau 9227)

PRO ESPIRITUM EIUS (CIL IX, 6408)

To these may be added cases of ‘internal’ prosthesis where a prosthetic vowel has

been inserted before the s impura root of a word to which a prefix has been added.

Examples are:

54 I-prosthesis

ABISTULERUNT (Prov. Caceres, Spain)1

INISTANTE (CILVIII, 4498, 18639)

INISTITUI (Le Blant 1892: 247–8, Poitiers, Gaul)2

SUPERISTITEM (Diehl 1464, 3053a, Rome)

PERESTREPEBAS (Stotz 1996: 107, 7th cent. Spain)

SUPRAESCRIPTHIS (Vielliard 1927: 105, 709 AD, Gaul)

These cases of internal prosthesis reflect the transparency of the prefixation for

contemporary speakers and form part of a more general trend towards prefixal

transparency in early Romance.3 Forms showing internal prosthesis become more

frequent in texts dating from the centuries immediately following the collapse of

the Western Roman Empire. However, perhaps surprisingly, they seem to have

left few direct traces in modern forms of Romance. Where such prefixal forms did

remain current in popular usage, a non-prosthetic form of the root appears to

have developed instead, e.g. PERSCRUTARI > O.Span. pescudar4 (instead of **

periscudar) ‘to examine’, CONSTARE > Span. costar (instead of ** conistar), Fr. couter

‘to pay’.5 Here, it is apparent that restructuring was achieved by other already

familiar phonological processes, such as assimilation of [rs] > [ss] (cf. SURSU(M) >

Span., OIt. suso, Fr. sus) or pre-sibilant deletion of [n] (cf. MENSE(M) > Span. mes,

It. mese, Fr. mois). It is only in rather more recent times with the coining of new

1 Cited in Annee Epigraphique 1957, no. 37. In the same inscription, a further case of

prosthesis also appears, IN TE ISPEN (= SPEM).2 This appears in the same inscription as MIHI ISPELUNCOLA noted above. The inscription

which dates from the seventh century begins HIC MELLEBAUDIS REUS ET SERVUS IHM (= IESO)

CHRISTO INISTITUI MIHI ISPELUNCOLA ISTA . . . ‘Here I, Mellebaudis a sinner and servant of Jesus

Christ, set up this crypt for myself . . . ’. It appears on one of the stone supports to the

entrance of the crypt built for the abbot Mellebaudis.3 Thus, for example, the Latin verb RETINERE ‘to hold back’ which historically goes back

to prefixal RE-þ TENERE was remodelled throughout Romania continua to RETENERE and the

stem subsequently evolved in an identical way to the base form TENERE, e.g.

(proparoxytonic) RETINET > (paroxytonic) RETENET>Fr. retient, Ital. ritiene, etc. ‘(s)he

holds back’.4 Pescudar and the derived noun pescuda are attested from the thirteenth century, e.g.

Berceo (Milagros 293, where the verb has undergone conjugation shift to pescudir) though

not in Alfonsine prose. In the sixteenth century, this lexical family is fast losing currency

and becoming archaic, cf. ‘Pescuda y pescudar, por pregunta y preguntar, nunca me

contento’ Valdes (1535, ed. Barbolani, p. 66).5 It may be that an epenthetic vowel did develop in these forms but was subsequently

deleted through syncope. However, this seems less likely as the epenthetic vowel in these

forms would presumably have carried the main stress in present-tense forms, e.g. conısta <

*CONISTAT. We would therefore expect some trace of the vowel to have remained in such

high-frequency forms.

I-prosthesis 55

prefixal forms building on long-established prosthetic stems, such as Span. in-

esperado, Fr. des-etatiser, that (pseudo-)prosthetic vowels have once again ap-

peared in word-medial position.

4.1.1 SOURCES AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

The first unambiguous indications of I-prosthesis appear in lower register texts

of the second century AD such as execratory tablets (defixionum tabellae) and

non-official inscriptions, as in the following items already noted above:

ISPATIUM, ISPIRITALLES from North Africa,

ISCOLASTICUS, ISPUMOSUS from Barcelona,

and also ISCRIPTA from Rome 197 AD, cited in Schuchardt (1867: 338) but with no

phonological context provided.

Two early Christian inscriptions also probably date from the second century.

Both come from Rome and are proper names: C. ISCANTIUS (Diehl 755 add.) and

CLODIA ISPES cited above.

Older apparent examples of prosthesis exist but these are problematic.6 There

are two cases involving proper names of Greek origin with original SM-, namely

ISMURNA ‘the town of Smyrna’ which was found in Pompeii and hence dates at the

latest from 79 AD (CIL IV, 7221; Vaananen 1966: 48) and IZMARAGDUS ‘Emerald

(personal name)’ from Rome, datable to 105 AD (CIL VI, 156). However, the

consonant sequence SM, probably pronounced [zm], was unknown in contempo-

rary native Latin phonotactics since original pre-Classical SM sequences had been

simplified to M both initially and medially, cf. *smık- > MICA, *prıs-mos > PRIMUS.

So, the attested forms ISMURNA, IZMARAGDUS could well represent the result of the

attempted nativization of an impermissible complex word-initial sequence,

where Latin speakers adapted the sequence to the syllabically less problematic

ISM- which was already known from other borrowed Greek names, e.g. ISMARUS

and ISMENE, ISMENUS (CIL V 3802, Vives 5890; CIL VI 11795, 8967). Dressler (1965: 97) in

fact reports the attested forms � ���æ�Å and � ¯Ø���æƪ��� from Asia Minor

Greek, both dating from the Imperial period.

Another indicator of prosthesis is aphaeresis caused by hypercorrection. This

occurs when etymological word-initial [i-], and later [e-], are deleted as a result of

their being (wrongly) interpreted by speakers as a prosthetic vowel, the presence

6 A remarkably early case is cited by Ronsch (1965: 467), namely the form ISTEGA from

STEGA ‘deck of a ship’ allegedly found in Bacchides (II, 3, 44) by Plautus (231–188 BC).

However, the reading of the Plautine text is very suspect. Modern editors give for the

relevant line: DOMI (or DOMUM) CUPIENTES. FORTE UT ADSEDI IN STEGA.

56 I-prosthesis

of such a vowel being in conflict with the norms of Classical orthography.

An apparent example is found in the letters written by Claudius Terentianus, a

Latin-speaking soldier stationed in Egypt, and dating from the first quarter of

the second century AD (Adams 1977). The relevant form is SPECTEMUS ‘let us

await (subj.)’7 which probably represents a hypercorrection of EXSPECTEMUS. As

SPECTEMUS occurs in sentence-initial position, the absence of the expected initial

vowel cannot be attributed to the influence of a preceding (vowel-final) word

that might have triggered elision. Instead, the writer has evidently viewed it as

a prosthetic vowel and suppressed it. If this interpretation is correct, we would

have here one of the earliest extant indications of I-prosthesis.8

The form SPECTEMUS in Claudius Terentianus’s letter is in fact just one instance

of the extensive interplay that took place in Late Latin between words originally

beginning with s impura and those beginning with etymological unstressed [isC-]

and [esC-] whether or not these sequences contained a prefixal element, an

interplay which resulted in numerous cases of aphaeresis appearing in texts of

the later Empire and early Middle Ages.9 Looking more closely at the forms

concerned, we find that, in all, four etymologically distinct types of word-initial

context were involved:

examples

(i) words with a non-prefixed stem in [sC-] (with

prosthesis)

(I)SPERARE, (I)STARE

(ii) words with etymological non-morphemic (H)IS-,

(H)ES-, (H)AES-.

HISTORIA, ISCIATICUM

HESTERNUS, AESTATEM

7 The form appears at 471.24 in the edition of Calderini (1951a, b).8 Mention may be made of a further proposed case which appears in the Natural

History (12, 7) of Pliny the Elder (23/24–79 AD). Here, Pliny identifies HISPANIA ‘Spain’

with the Greek word ��Æ��Æ� ‘rare (f.sg.acc.)’ which occurs in the corresponding section of

his main source, the History of Plants (4, 5, 6) by Theophrastus. The assumption is that he

saw HISPANIA as a form developed from original SPANIA through prosthesis (Leumann 1977:

104–5). However, Prinz (1938: 104) and Stotz (1996: 120 and n. 300) note that Hellenistic

Greek had the variant forms ��Æ��Æ ‘Spain’, ��Æ��� ‘Spanish’ which were doubtless known

to Latin speakers, so it is not clear whether Pliny’s etymologizing was simply drawing on

his familiarity with both the Greek and Latin words for Spain rather than mistaking an

etymological Latin word-initial vowel for a prosthetic vowel. It may be noted that the form

SPANIA is attested in a Spanish inscription, CIL 2, 3420.9 Malkiel (1975) explores in some detail the effects of this interplay particularly in Ibero-

Romance, identifying the action of various phonological and non-phonological forces

which we too recognize. The study rebuts certain of aspects of ‘Ascoli’s Law’ (cf. Ascoli

1878), notably the assumption that just phonological forces were operative in determining

cases of aphaeresis involving etymological unstressed word-initial [i(s)-].

I-prosthesis 57

(iii) words with prefixal EX-, EXTRA-, and also DIS-

preceding a consonant-initial stem (see below)

EX-PANDERE, EX-STARE,

EXTRANEUS, DIS-LIGARE

(iv) words with prefixal IN- preceding a stem in [sC-] IN-SCRIBERE, IN-

STRUMENTUM

In (ii), the initial vowel occurred as part of the root of a word, HISTORIA, etc., but

its phonetic identity with the prosthetic vowel of (i) could lead to hypercorrective

graphies as in <storia> for HISTORIA, for instance in the Itala and in the writings

of the bishop Fulgentius who died in 532 (Stotz 1996: 119). Type (iii) forms

containing EX-, EXTRA- provided numerous words with initial unstressed [es-],

and in many regions these were added to by forms originally containing prefixal

DIS- which became aligned phonologically with forms in EX- and EXTRA- (cf. Italian

slegare, spandere < DISLIGARE, EXPANDERE). In type (iv), prefixal IN- before [sC-]

developed to [i-], presumably via the phonetic stage [ı-], before passing to [e-] in

the many areas of the Empire where unstressed �I > [e] was regular. The formal

similarity which developed between words of all types (i)–(iv) thanks to the

operation of prosthesis and aphaeresis led to much variation between them in

Late Latin. Attested forms for nominals include EXPLENDIDO for SPLENDIDO

(CIL IX, 259), STRUCTUS for INSTRUCTUS, STRUMENTUM and EXTROMENTO for INSTRU-

MENTUM (Vielliard 1927: 103–4), INSPANUS for HISPANUS (Stotz 1996: 108). The situa-

tion with verbal forms was even more fluid. Orthographic variants such

as EXSPOLIARE � SPOLIARE, EXSPIRARE � INSPIRARE � SPIRARE, EXSCULPERE � INSCULPERE

� SCULPERE are widely found with little discernible difference in meaning being

intended by certain scribes10 (Ernout 1957; Vaananen 1967: 49; Stotz 1996: 107–8).

Where there was little semantic difference in Classical usage between the

simplex and prefixal form, it is difficult to know whether hypercorrection is

present, e.g. EXPOLIARE as against SPOLIARE, since both meant ‘to strip, plunder’.

But with forms like EXSPECTARE ‘to await’ and SPECTARE ‘to look at’, hypercorrective

use of SPECTARE is more readily detected (cf. SPECTEMUS above).

The extent to which the fluctuation in written forms mirrored contemporary

patterns of spoken usage is difficult to establish with any certainty. However, in

Italy and the Balkans, subsequent evolution suggests that from early times all four

types (i)–(iv) came to be treated in the same way, as they have emerged with

identical results, cf. It. strumento, storcere, stretto, slegare (< INSTRUMENTUM, EX-

TORQUERE, STRICTUM, DISLIGARE). In other parts of the Empire, it appears that

10 The ‘confusion’ between simplex s impura forms and their prefixal derivatives

(especially those containing EX-) was noted by grammarians in the later Empire and

attempts were made by them to maintain distinctions (Stotz 1996: 109). Thus, the fifth-

century Ars de Orthographia by the grammarian Agroecius has SPIRARE VIVERE EST, EXSPIRARE

MORI; i.e. ‘SPIRARE means to live and EXSPIRARE means to die’ (Keil 7, 122, 19).

58 I-prosthesis

the formal identification may have been less complete, notably with forms in

etymological DIS-, as in the corresponding reflexes found in Old French, estru-

ment, estordre, estreit but deslıer.

Against the background of the growing number of attestations of I-prosthesis

from the third century onward in texts written by less educated scribes,11 it might

be expected that some reference to the use of prosthetic vowels would have been

made in the metalinguistic writings of the many normative grammarians who

lived during the later Empire period. However, it receives no direct mention at all

in such writings, not even in clearly pedagogical texts like the Appendix Probi

where four items occur which would have offered scope for noting (and perhaps

condemning) the use of prosthesis: (3) SPECULUM non SPECLUM ‘mirror’, (137)

VICO STROBILI non VICOSTROBILI ‘a street name in Rome’,12 (142) STABULUM non

STABLUM ‘abode’, (192) STROFA non STROPA ‘trick’. The nearest thing to a reference

comes when grammarians try to distinguish formally between related prefixal

and non-prefixal verb forms (cf. n. 10 above). The first time that the existence of

I-prosthetic vowels is indicated in a metalinguistic text, albeit obliquely, comes in

the writings of the Spanish bishop St Isidore (574–636).13 The long delay before

any grammarian formally called attention to the presence of prosthetic vowels

may well have been caused in part by their being perceived as a predictable sandhi

vowel on-glide and also by their having no basis in conventional Latin spelling.14

It is not until the establishment of vernacular-based orthographies for represent-

ing Romance in the period from the ninth century onward that prosthetic vowels

11 Higher-register texts by writers of any education show few direct signs of prosthetic

vowels, cf. our comments below on Italian documents of the Lombard period (4.3.3). Even

informal and private compositions by educated writers in the late Empire period, such as

the Peregrinatio Egeriae, contain no examples.12 Baehrens (1922: 93–4) rejects the reading VICOSTROBILI for the second item, proposing

VICO TROBILI instead. He argues that above the S in the manuscript there is a diacritic

indicating that the letter underneath should be deleted. This entry therefore does not offer

safe evidence for our purposes.13 In his Etymologiae, Isidore cites the forms ESCARUS (= Classical Latin SCARUS) ‘kind of

sea-fish’ (12,6,30) and ISCURRA (= Classical Latin SCURRA) ‘jester’ (10,152), and assumes them

both to derive from the word ESCA ‘bait’, indicating that SCARUS and SCURRA would normally

have been pronounced with a prosthetic vowel. Velazquez (2003: 39) also notes a further

example from Isidore’s Etymologiae, namely STIPULA ‘outer covering of the stalk of cereal

crops’ whose pronunciation is described as QUASI USTA ET QUASI USTIPULA. STIPULA DICTA AB

USTO ‘like USTA and USTIPULA, since STIPULA derives from USTUS’ (i.e. burnt), in 17.3.18. Once

again, for such an etymological association to be drawn the presence of a prosthetic vowel

in the pronunciation of STIPULA seems probable.14 Cf. Jackson (1953: 528) who suggests similar reasons for the failure of scribes to

represent prosthetic y- in early Welsh texts until the eleventh century.

I-prosthesis 59

can begin to appear systematically in writing, though the influence of Latin

spelling long remains an obstructing factor in certain areas of Romania continua.

4.1.2 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

Given the political unity of the Roman Empire and the relative freedom of

movement of its inhabitants during the Imperial period and to a decreasing

extent in the centuries immediately following the collapse of the Empire, I-

prosthesis had the opportunity of becoming generalized throughout all parts of

the Latin-speaking world. To discover whether this in fact occurred, a valuable

source of evidence is the epigraphical record. Extant inscriptions are not only very

numerous (well over 250,000 in all), they also permit ready localization and often

they can be accurately dated. Prinz (1938: 106) compiled useful statistics from a

detailed study of the attestations of I-prosthesis in pagan and Christian inscrip-

tions from across the Empire. These we cite below together with the findings of

Gaeng (1968: 263–6) and Omeltchenko (1977: 418–27) for Christian inscriptions

only. The bracketed figures followings Prinz’s totals are subtotals for pagan

inscriptions to the left of the colon, and Christian inscriptions to the right.

Differences between the two sets of corresponding statistics reflect the slightly

different range of sources exploited by Gaeng and Omeltchenko and also the

more critical stance towards reliability adopted by Gaeng in particular.

Despite the statistical discrepancies, two areas in particular stand out for the

relatively high incidence of attested cases of I-prosthesis: Central Italy, especially

Rome, and Northwest Africa. In contrast, Gaul (Transalpine) and Spain offer

few examples. There is therefore a striking paradox. In the latter two areas, where

I-prosthesis later became fully established in Romance, there is minimal inscrip-

tional evidence in Roman times, whilst in Rome and the surrounding area, where

Prinz

Rome and Latium 107 (34 : 73) 37 (G.)

Northwest Africa 52 (34 : 18) 17 (O.)

Asia 22 (22 : 0)

Southern Italy and Sicily 11 (7 : 4)

Northern Italy and Gallia Cisalpina 7 (3 : 4)

Spain 7 (2 : 5) 5 (G.)

Gallia Transalpina and German provinces 5 (1 : 4) 1 (G.)

Balkans 2 (0 : 2) 2 (O.)

Egypt 1 (0 : 1)

Britain – 0 (O.)

Gaeng/Omeltchenko

FIGURE 4.1. Epigraphical attestations of forms containing a prosthetic vowel

60 I-prosthesis

few if any traces now remain of the phenomenon in Romance, the epigraphic

record for the Roman period is rich. (North Africa of course ceased to be Latin-

speaking following the Muslim invasion and occupation in the later seventh

century.) Do the variable totals of attested cases directly reflect major differences

in the incidence of prosthesis from region to region in Roman times? A wide-

spread view is that, notwithstanding the inscriptional evidence, I-prosthesis came

into fairly general use throughout all the Latin-speaking community of the

later Roman Empire but that later developments in certain areas led to its

subsequent elimination (Schuchardt 1867: 348; Meyer-Lubke 1890: }29; Prinz1938: 115; Lausberg 1967: }353; Vaananen 1967: 49). However, Omeltchenko (1977:

425–7) has contested this, claiming instead that I-prosthesis did not spread across

the whole Empire and that in particular it never penetrated into Britannia nor did

it reach beyond the Dalmatian coast in the east (cf. also Siadbei 1958: 155;

Mihaescu 1978: 273). Omeltchenko’s view seems fairly plausible in the case of

Britannia where it finds support in the sociolinguistic situation in this region. For

the Latin language here enjoyed limited diffusion since relatively few Latin-

speaking colonists came to settle here. As a result, Latin was used more generally

by native Britons belonging to the higher social classes who lived in the new

towns established by the Romans, and it was characterized by a general bookish

conservatism that reflected its conscious acquisition.15 In the light of the more

‘top-down’ introduction of Latin (cf. Labov 1994: 78; 2001: 272–5), the failure of

lower register features like prosthesis to gain any significant acceptance and their

consequent absence from the 2314 inscriptions of Britannia appearing in Colling-

wood and Wright (1965) is perhaps understandable.16

No such case can readily be made for the Balkans or other regions of the Latin-

speaking world however. The near-total absence of cases in the 21880 extant

inscriptions (as of 1978) from the Balkans and the complete lack of examples

from Dacia in particular are certainly curious.17 However, the sociolinguistic

15 Cf. Jackson (1953: 94–112) who highlights the conservatism of British Latin and notes

of its phonetic peculiarities that ‘time and again they tend to agree with the pronunciations

recommended by the grammarians’ (p. 108).16 Cf. also Smith (1983) who points out however that the apparent conservatism of

British Latinity may be partly due to the later influence of the Latin-speaking Celtic

Church after the collapse of Imperial rule. With regard to prosthetic vowels, he reports

no cases of their appearance even in the more recently discovered sources of data which he

considers. His conclusion is that prosthesis ‘may have passed Britain by, or it may not have

been sufficiently well-established for it to have been felt as an essential in words taken into

Celtic’ (p. 941).17 The figure for the overall number of inscriptions is cited by Mihaescu (1978: 1). It

compares with a total of 15220 in CIL III, which covers Asia Minor, the European mainly

Greek-speaking provinces and Illyria. All the examples of prosthetic vowels in inscriptions

I-prosthesis 61

situation in Dacia was quite different from that in Britain since, after the conquest

by Trajan in the early second century AD, there had been a major influx of mainly

humble Latin-speaking immigrants.18 The inhabitants were thus probably more

socially diverse and used forms of Latin more similar to those spoken elsewhere

in Continental Europe than was the case in Britain. If there are no signs of

I-prosthesis in Dacian inscriptions, it cannot be plausibly attributed to the

absence of the phenomenon in spoken usage, any more than we can account

for the very small number of cases in Gaul or Spain in this way. In all these three

regions, other factors must surely have been at work masking the presence of

prosthesis in inscriptions although their identity remains unclear.

4.1.3 QUALITY OF THE PROSTHETIC VOWEL

As has been noted, in the earliest cases of I-prosthesis the vowel inserted was

almost always represented as <i> which presumably indicated a high front

quality [i]. But from the fifth century, it was also sometimes written <e> , e.g.

in PRO ESPIRITUM (IC, 4983), this graphy coming into use at a time when the regular

sound change �I > [e] was well on the way to completion in many areas of the

Empire. However, <e> remained a fairly unusual graphy until the seventh

century.19 Just a dozen examples are inventoried by Prinz (1938: 108) from a

total of more than 200 attestations of vowel prosthesis. Of the other vowel

graphies, Prinz reports that <u> is never found whilst <a> and <o> are

extremely unusual, though no actual epigraphical data are cited by him for

these graphies. The relative frequency of the different vowel graphies used can

be represented in the parameter in Figure 4.2.

Various types of explanation have been proposed for the overwhelming use of

the vowel quality [i] in the early stages of this type of prosthesis, phonetic and

phonological. Already in the nineteenth century, Schuchardt (1867: 349) had

are from Dalmatia. However, a small number of cases of prosthesis are reported for Dacia

from the historical works of the sixth-century Dacian-born writer Iordanes (Mihaescu

1978: 193).18 The fourth-century historian Eutropius claims that the new inhabitants who settled

in war-ravaged and much depopulated Dacia at Trajan’s behest came from all over the

Roman world (EX TOTO ORBE ROMANO INFINITAS EO COPIAS HOMINUM TRANSTULERAT Breviarium

ab urbe condita 8, 6). But linguistic evidence suggests that a major component of the new

arrivals probably came from southern Italy (cf. Ludtke 1957: 146; Leonard 1978: 32;

Sampson 1985: 355).19 Cf. Carnoy (1906: 111) who claims that attestations of forms with <e> remain rare

until the seventh century. Prinz (1938: 108, n. 2) observes that ‘e taucht erst spater und auch

nur vereinzelt auf ’.

62 I-prosthesis

identified the close phonetic relationship between [s] and [i] as the reason for the

selection of a high front unrounded quality for the prosthetic vowel, and this was

later echoed by Prinz (1938: 109), though neither develop the idea further.

Acoustic-perceptual factors were appealed to by Richter (1934: }52A), who

claimed that the high-frequency energy of [s] led to its forming a quasi-sonority

peak before voiceless plosives which was perceptually akin to a lax [i]. More

recent experimental phonetic investigation has confirmed the link between [s]

and the vowel [i]. Acoustically, [s] has its energy situated principally at about 3500

Hz and above, and [i] is the vowel type whose F2 has the highest frequency. For

French, it is about 2500 Hz (Leon 1992: 83) and for Italian it likewise averages

at about 2500 Hz (Gaspari and Tirondola 1976: 127).20 Given that the frequency

of F2 in vowels is a major factor in determining the perceived quality of a vowel,

it is apparent that significant perceptual and acoustic links exist between

the vowel [i] and the sibilant [s], which complement the evident articulatory

similarities between the two segment types. The association between [s] and

[i]/[j] receives some further support from diachronic evidence, for [s] has

vocalized to [i]/[j] in the history of a number of Romance varieties, e.g. Italian

(NOS > noi, CRAS > OIt. crai), Romanian (NOS > noi, TRES > trei), varieties of

Occitan (Michel 1948, 1956: 102–5, 128–9; Ronjat II: 190, 271; Straka 1979: 454–5)

and modern Spanish dialects of the Choco area in Colombia (Florez 1951: 194–5,

cited in Seklaoui 1989: 53).

More recent investigations of epenthetic vowel quality undertaken by general

phonologists drawing on cross-linguistic and interphonological data (see section

1.6 above) serve to clarify the selection of [i] more fully. In accordance with the

principle of minimal saliency which governs the selection of quality in epenthetic

vowels, we would expect [‰] to have been adopted (Kenstowicz 2003: 95).

However, in the absence of such a vowel quality in Late Latin, a closed vowel

would be expected in view of its relatively brief duration and hence minimal

saliency. The choice of [i] rather than [u] is evidently motivated, on the one hand,

by the fact that phonologically [i] is less marked than [u] and, on the other

hand, by the close phonetic link between [s] and [i] already identified by earlier

scholars—both share certain acoustic-perceptual characteristics and from an

articulatory viewpoint both are unrounded speech-sounds and share a similar

i e a,o

less commonmore common

(u)

FIGURE 4.2. Parameter of vowel quality for early stages of I-prosthesis

20 Gaspari and Tirondola’s data distinguish adult male from adult female speakers. The

former show F2 values lying between 1900–2320 Hz and the latter 2400–3200 Hz.

I-prosthesis 63

posture involving the elevation of the front part of the tongue. Phonologists using

a framework that builds on articulatory-based features have formalized the link

by classifying segments which share such an articulatory posture as [þ coronal]

(Clements and Hume 1995: 277). The link may be represented diagrammatically as

in Figure 4.3 below, where we assume that the intrasyllabic adjacency of the

segments has played an important role in establishing the link.21

i

Root

C Place

V Place

s

σ

Root

C Place

Coronal

FIGURE 4.3. Agreement of the prosthetic vowel in respect of Place feature

Finally, it may be noted that markedness has been invoked by some scholars in

a rather different way to explain the selection of the quality [i] in I-prosthesis.

Here, it is not the relative degree of marking of the high vowels [i] vs [u] which is

in question but the supposed marking relations which hold between vowel

quality and syllable structure.

The initial assumption is that vowel prosthesis occurred as a result of a type of

‘diphthongization’ or intrasegmental differentiation affecting the initial conso-

nant [s], giving rise to a sequence of two segments. The first of these took on an

unmarked distinctive feature value with respect to the marked value found in the

21 We have drawn here on the interesting interphonological study by Rose and Demuth

(2006). Here it is claimed (p. 1124) not only that ‘consonant-to-vowel sharing must take

place within the same syllable’ but also that ‘a consonant to the right of the epenthetic

vowel can never contribute place features.’ The latter claim, however, relates to conditions

specifically found in Sesotho where there is an exclusively CV syllable structure. In this

language therefore, a post-vocalic consonant would necessarily belong to a different

syllable from the preceding consonant. The data (and our formulation) for Late Latin

demonstrate the primacy of intrasyllabic adjacency over simple directionality.

64 I-prosthesis

original segment [s]. The new segment thus became [þ vocalic] and then [þsyllabic], i.e. it became a true vowel, as against the marked [– vocalic] value of [s]

(cf. Andersen 1972: 34–5). The selection of the quality [i] was then determined by

the marked value of the syllable in which the prosthetic vowel appeared. Had the

syllable been of the unmarked CV type, the unmarked [a] vowel would have been

used, but the marked VC type led to the adoption of the corresponding marked

vowel [i] (cf. Francard 1981: 174). However, various problems present themselves

with this view. Rather obviously, it is not quite clear why [i] should have emerged

rather than another equally marked vowel like [u].22 Furthermore, there are

numerous cases in Romance where, despite their marked nature, VC syllables

arising from prosthesis contain the unmarked vowel [a] (cf. especially Chapter 6).

Such an approach therefore provides no real basis for predicting the quality [i] in

the prosthetic vowel that arose in Imperial Latin.

4.1.4 ACTUALIZATION

The actualization or linguistic implementation of I-prosthesis has been the

subject of some controversy which centres on whether or not it was a staged

process. According to the staged view, the prosthetic vowel arose first in specific

structural contexts before becoming generalized, in some areas at least, to all

contexts. Two versions of the staged view have been advanced. On the one hand,

I-prosthesis has been claimed to have arisen first of all in post-consonantal

contexts, e.g. IN SCALA, before being subsequently generalized (Niedermann 1954:

78; Bourciez 1956: }54b; Michel 1956: }123; Leumann 1977: 105). On the other, the

assumption is that it first affected s impura words when they were both post-

consonantal and post-pausal (Meyer-Lubke 1890: }29; Politzer 1959: 32; Fouche1966: 694–6; Lausberg 1967: }353). Despite their differences, both versions of the

staged view share a common rationale. Prosthesis is taken to have been a syllabi-

cally conditioned sandhi phenomenon, whereby a vowel [i] was inserted in

contexts in which the initial [s] of s impura sequences could not be resyllabified

to the preceding syllable (cf. 4.1.5 below).

It is not clear which of the two versions is to be preferred. On theoretical

grounds, reference to both post-consonantal and post-pausal contexts certainly

seems more appropriate since both context types would have been equally likely

22 Synchronic data also argue against the necessary selection of [i]. For example, in his

phonology of Spanish, Harris (1983: 29–30), having postulated initial /sC-/ for esfera,

estudio, etc., proposes a scenario whereby /s/ ‘becomes syllabic’ and gives rise to a less

marked VC syllable. Yet the new vowel is realized as /e/, not /i/. Harris offers no explanation

as to why /e/ of all possible vowel types should appear, but more relevant here is the fact

that a mid vowel rather than a high one is selected.

I-prosthesis 65

to give rise to resyllabification in s impura sequences. Some empirical support

from modern Romance for this view comes from the Gascon dialect of Bagneres-

de-Luchon where forms like espyo ‘thorn’ (< SPINA) show regular alternation with

and without a prosthetic vowel:

(post-pausal) espyo ‘thorn’

(post-consonantal) dues espyes ‘two thorns’ where u = [

h

]

but (post-vocalic) era spyo ‘the thorn’

(data: Sarrieu 1903: 319)

However, other Romance varieties have continued to operate with a sandhi-style

prosthesis which typically inserts the prosthetic vowel in just post-consonantal

contexts only, e.g. in Piedmontese varieties (4.4.5) and, in a more marginal way,

standard Italian (1.4, 4.3.3). Such data would suggest a multi-staged process in the

actualization of prosthesis: post-consonantal > post-pausal > post-vocalic.

It might be expected that the epigraphic record would provide some decisive

evidence for establishing the likely stages of actualization. However, this proves

not to be the case. The statistics assembled by Prinz (1938: 109) on the basis of

attestations from across the Empire reveal the following distribution for pros-

thetic vowels:

The lack of any clear predominance of one type of context over another would

seem to argue against staged actualization despite the theoretical arguments

which support it. However, these statistics are rather less revealing than they

might appear to be. This is because the overall total of attestations for I-prosthesis

is relatively small; there is a lack of information about the number of cases where

prosthesis could have occurred but is not attested; and the statistics are frequently

skewed by the repeated appearance of certain words such as the personal name

(I)SPES (cf. Prinz 1938: 110; Lofstedt 1961: 111; Adams 2007: 672–3).

Perhaps the safest conclusion to be drawn is that the actualization of I-pros-

thesis may well have been staged in Late Latin, and that it may even have come to

be generalized to all linguistic contexts by some speakers in the communities

which seem to have first developed the new pronunciation, i.e. the less educated

classes of Central Italy and North Africa. A significant factor fostering

post-pausal 87

post-consonantal 65

post-vocalic 56

uncertain cases 6

total 214

FIGURE 4.4. Epigraphical attestations of I-prosthesis according to phonological context

66 I-prosthesis

generalization is that the post-pausal form of a word usually corresponds to its

citation form, so we can imagine that when prosthesis appeared post-pausally,

there was a fair possibility that the resulting alternant could be interpreted as the

base form and extended to all contexts. However, amongst the great bulk of Latin

speakers in the late Empire period, the presence of considerable sociolinguistic

variation can be envisaged, some individuals systematically avoiding the pros-

thetic variant and others (perhaps the overwhelming majority) limiting its use to

just certain contexts or situations.

4.1.5 CAUSATION

There have been many attempts to explain the appearance of I-prosthesis in

Latin. Most have assumed the action of internal structural factors of some sort

but the possibility of outside linguistic influence has also been considered, for

example by Schuchardt (1867: 348) and Prinz (1938: 114). Schuchardt speculates on

whether there was influence from the east which spread westwards to Italy along

with Christianity or whether the source of influence was a pre-Roman language

(but not Phoenician) acting on the vernacular Latin of North Africa. Prinz alludes

to possible influence from the Middle East, either from Semitic or Asia Minor

Greek. The evidence in support of outside causation is slight, however, since we

do not know enough about relevant adstratum or substratum languages of the

time except for Greek. In fact, prosthesis akin to what develops in Latin is attested

in Asia Minor Greek but Dressler (1965) demonstrates that this prosthesis is only

found from the first century AD, becoming more frequent up to the sixth century.

It seems unlikely therefore that a substandard novelty limited to a regional form

of Greek could have had such a rapid and extensive effect on Latin across the

Empire. And certainly it does not seem likely that any other language would have

had sufficient status to influence a prestigious language like Latin. Nonetheless, it

is not inconceivable that external linguistic influence may have helped to promote

prosthesis, once it had arisen in Latin. This is suggested by Lausberg (1963: 99)

who observes that where (unspecified) pre-Roman languages prohibited complex

word onsets like s impura, speakers of these languages may have tried to impose

this structural constraint on Latin when they began to acquire the language of the

Empire. As a result, any existing internal tendency to abandon such onsets in

Latin would have been reinforced by such speakers. Such a view is not implausible

but it is difficult to confirm given the paucity of reliable phonological data about

pre-Roman languages.23

23 Greek would not be involved here since complex onsets with fall sonority including

s impura sequences were well established there. Oscan and Umbrian too had s impura

I-prosthesis 67

Turning to internal explanations, three broad types may be distinguished. First,

appeal has been made, rather unconvincingly, to the alleged development of a

tenser articulatory set position in the ancestral form of Romance (Seelmann 1885:

317–18). As a result of this, it is suggested, momentary tensing took place at the

start of s impura sequences giving rise to an [i]-like sound effect. However, such

an explanation lacks any empirical basis and is essentially speculative.

Second, prosthesis has been viewed as a consequence of the presence of

certain inherent properties in the segment [s]. In s impura onsets, [s] is

assumed to have greater articulatory power, longer duration, or higher relative

sonority than the plosive which followed it. This allegedly gives [s] incipient

syllabicity—Spanish linguists sometimes refer to [s] in this context as

‘s lıquida’ or liquid s (e.g. Menendez Pidal 1966: }39,3; Garcıa Arias 1988:

110). It is then assumed that as the result of further enhancement or rein-

forcement of [s] in such onsets, full syllabicity of [s] occurred leading to I-

prosthesis (Grandgent [1907] 1963: }230; Richter 1934: }52A; Michel 1956: 23–4;

Jungemann 1955: 286, and, more recently using a broader theoretical frame-

work developing a special conception of diphthongization, Andersen 1972:

34).24 However, the suggestion that [s] became fully syllabic appears question-

able. The only independent indication of the possible syllabicity of [s] in Latin

comes in isolated forms such as the interjection ST ‘sh!’ which is found in

Naevius, Plautus, and Cicero (Michel 1956: 24). Such affective items of course

reveal little of the phonological structure of Latin. Certainly, it would be

curious that a fricative should be able to operate syllabically when other

consonants more usually found with a syllabic value (notably sonorants)

were unable to do so in Latin. A further problem for this view is the general

lack of any indication as to why possible moves to establish full syllabicity for

[s] should have begun in early Imperial times rather than at some other time.

The only proposal that has been advanced in this connection is that prosthesis

came as a response to an earlier development in Latin that threatened the

integrity of the segment [s] in word-initial pre-consonantal contexts (Deferrari

1954: 98, and, following him, La Scala 1975: 36, 64).25 A tendency to assimilate

[s] to a following consonant had developed, it is asserted, and it was in order

to protect the fricative that speakers strengthened its articulation to such an

onsets, e.g. (Umbrian) scriftas = Latin SCRIPTAE ‘written (f.pl.)’ and (Oscan) statıf = Latin

STATUA ‘statue’. Such s impura forms appear without a prosthetic vowel in both languages in

all types of phonological context including post-consonantal (cf. Buck 1904: }47 and

p. 254).24 See above 4.1.3.25 Curiously, La Scala makes no reference at all to the work of Deferrari either in his text

or bibliography.

68 I-prosthesis

extent that it became syllabic and gave rise to the creation of a prosthetic vowel.

The assumption of previous [s] weakening finds some support from three sources:

the earlier weakening of Latin word-final [-s] after a short vowel; the development

of a few isolated words in Late Latin such as the Greek loanword SPASMUS > PASMUS26

beside ESPASMUS (Stotz 1996: 105); and various graphies appearing in later Latin

manuscripts where an expected <s> is missing (cf. the compilation of Schuchardt

1867: 354–8). Nonetheless, there is little solid evidence in early Romance of any

general weakness of [s], especially preceding voiceless plosives.27 The proposal

is therefore of doubtful validity. Indeed, it appears unlikely that any account of

I-prosthesis based on intrinsic phonetic properties of the segment [s] will prove

satisfactory.

Much more plausible have been the explanatory accounts that invoke

syllabic factors as the main cause of I-prosthesis (cf. 3.2 above). Two broad

subtypes can be identified, depending on whether syntagmatic or constituency

considerations are given prominence. In the former, prosthesis is taken to

represent a strategy for resyllabifying pre-consonantal word-initial [s] when it

appeared in sequences which violated the sonority sequencing generalization.

In word-initial s impura onsets preceded by a vowel-final word, it is assumed

that no restructuring was necessary as [s] was automatically resyllabified to

the coda of the preceding syllable, as in BO|NA S|CA|LA (BONA SCALA).28 Else-

where, resyllabification occurred by inserting a prosthetic vowel. In this way, it

is envisaged that I-prosthesis first developed as a sandhi phenomenon trig-

gered when words with original s impura onsets were preceded by either a

pause or a consonant-final word. Some linguists who advocate this interpre-

tation have also suggested an incipient syllabicity in the initial [s] segment of

26 The loss of initial S- in (S)PASMUS has been claimed to be due to aphaeresis following

prosthesis and confusion with prefixal EX-, SPASMUS > ESPASMUS > PASMUS (cf. Grandgent 1963:

}301, DCELC s.v. pasmar) or to dissimilation of the first /s/ or to blending with another

Greek word palmos ‘palpitation’ (DHLF s.v. pamer). However, the form SPASMUS was

adopted in learned borrowings and gave Old and Middle French espame (from 13th c.),

It. spasimo, and Catalan espasme. Castilian has both pasmo (< SPASMUS) ‘temporary

paralysis (caused by cold); amazement’ ! pasmar ‘to amaze’ and the later learned form

espasmo ‘spasm’.27 In fact, Schuchardt recognizes the lack of data indicating generalized weakening of

[s]: ‘Die rustike Erweichung des s kann demnach keine allgemeine und durchgreifende

gewesen sein; wahrscheinlich war sie nur dialektisch’ (1867: 359). Revealingly, standard

works on ‘Vulgar Latin’ make no mention of any weakening of [s], e.g. Grandgent [1907]

1963, Vaananen 1967.28 The appropriateness of such an assumption, however, is questionable. As noted in

3.1.1, native Latin patterns of syllabification as reflected in metrical practice did not favour

the leftward resyllabification of [s] in initial s impura sequences.

I-prosthesis 69

s impura sequences (cf. the segmental approach above), but syllable structure

considerations are of primary importance.29

A fuller version of this scenario is provided by Tekavcic (1972: }297) who also

addresses the question of why I-prosthesis should have occurred when it did. It is

claimed that the key development was the deletion of [n] before [s]. Hence, in

words such as CON|STO > COS|TO the new syllabification resulting from loss of [n]

had the effect of leading to the prohibition of [s]þ consonant sequences in

syllable onsets. This would have impacted on such sequences in word-initial

position too (cf. 3.1.1). However, objections have been raised to this proposal.

As various Classical scholars have noted, e.g. Michel (1956: 25–6) and Marotta

(1999: 303), the syllabification of such prefixal forms as CONSTO, PERSTO is prob-

lematic. The likelihood is that they were syllabified CONS|TO, PERS|TO, thereby

destroying, as Marotta puts it, the ‘principle of agreement between morphological

structure and syllabic representation’.30 A further criticism may be made on

chronological grounds. This is that [n] deletion before [s] is clearly attested

already in the third century BC, as in COSUL ‘consul’ and CESOR ‘censor’

corresponding to later Classical Latin CONSUL and CENSOR, which appear on the

sarcophagus of Cornelius Scipio who was consul in 259 BC (CIL I, 8 and 9). Given

the early dating of [n] deletion, it is surprising that no attestations of authenti-

cally prosthetic forms are to be found until the second century AD (cf. 4.1.1 above).

In a contituency-based approach, however, the elimination of a s impura onset

through prosthesis is interpreted in the light of the changing permissible internal

architecture of the syllable in Latin. In Classical Latin, as we have seen (3.2), the

syllable was already subject to a number of constraints which limited its internal

complexity. Various diachronic developments in pre-Classical times leading to

greater simplicity had brought this about, one of which was the progressive

elimination of complex onsets and especially those of falling sonority. Of these,

s impura onsets were the last type. Their restructuring and the consequent

generalization of only complex onsets of maximal rising sonority, i.e. the obs-

truentþ liquid type which are widely licensed across languages, can therefore

be seen as the culmination of a long-running process of syllable simplification

(cf. Steriade 1988).

29 Thus, Lausberg (1963: }94) refers to [s] as forming a ‘Nebengipfel’ while Kiss (1971: 91)

more mysteriously assumes a vowel i or e to be an ‘element adventice’ contained as a

‘virtualite’ within [s].30 To try to reconcile morphology and phonology here, Marotta (1999: 303) proposes an

ultimately morphological-based interpretation PER|STO but where the sibilant S is viewed as

‘a sort of appendix’ which may be associated with the preceding coda or following onset

(i.e. it is ambisyllabic).

70 I-prosthesis

4.1.5.1 Towards a unified explanation

It seems very probable that syllabic considerations played the key role in trigger-

ing I-prosthesis in Romance. As we have seen, two types of syllable-based factor

can be distinguished but rather than viewing them as alternatives, it seems

preferable to see them as working directly in tandem with one another. Thus,

on the one hand, the falling sonority of s impura onsets marked these off as

exceptional so that some restructuring was likely. These onset sequences were less

problematic phrase-medially when preceded by a vowel-final word since the

sibilant [s] could in principle be reinterpreted as the coda of the preceding

syllable, even though Classical Latin metrical practice offers little evidence that

reinterpretation of this type was regular (cf. 3.1.1). But in other phonological

contexts, i.e. post-pausal and post-consonantal, no such reinterpretation was

possible so that the solution adopted in order to ensure syllabifiable syntagmatic

sequences was the introduction of a sandhi vowel. On the other hand, a general

diachronic movement towards greater simplicity in early Latin syllable architec-

ture entailed a progressive and systematic reduction in the complexity of onsets.

Eventually, this development was to affect the last remaining type, s impura

clusters. In this way, two complementary forces, syntagmatic and structural,

may be seen to underlie I-prosthesis.

One important question remains unresolved. If there was to be restructuring,

why was prosthesis selected as the means of bringing it about? In fact, prosthesis

represents just one of three possible strategies alongside epenthesis and deletion,

as in IN SCALA! IN ISCALA or IN SICALA or IN CALA, respectively.31 Very few examples

of epenthesis in this context have been found, however. Indeed, in the literature

just one attested case is usually cited which occurs in a second-century North

African execratory tablet written in Latin but using Greek letters, namely �ıØØ�ı�

�Ø�ØæØ��ı� = HUI(I)US SIPIRITUS ‘his breath’ corresponding to Classical Latin HUIUS

SPIRITUS (Audollent 1904: 270). The epenthetic <i> in SIPIRITUS, however, may be

just a scribal error induced here by the presence of the high front vowel [i] in the

two following two syllables. The presence of the form STELLAS in the phrase SEPTEM

STELLAS (������ �Ł�ººÆ�) in the same text, with no epenthetic vowel indicated,

points to the anomalous nature of SIPIRITUS and suggests the plausibility of this

31 A further strategy is also possible, metathesis. However, while PS- TS- KS- would yield

onset sequences of increasing sonority, the majority (TS and all three-place sequences PSL,

KSR, etc.) were impermissible as onsets or codas in Latin. Only PS and KS (= X) were licensed

but only as codas, as in forms like DAPS ‘feast’, FAX ‘torch’. The non-use of metathesis here is

therefore understandable and finds parallels elsewhere in other languages (cf. Gouskova

2001).

I-prosthesis 71

explanation. As regards deletion as a possible strategy of eliminating s impura

sequences, it is certainly true that unfamiliar word-initial consonant sequences

appearing in loanwords could be nativized by deleting one of the consonants, as

in PSALMUS > SALMUS, PNEUMA > NEUMA borrowed from Greek (Stotz 1996: 246), but

even so exceptions are found, e.g. the Greek loanword XENIUM which was restruc-

tured by prosthesis or pseudo-prefixation to EXENIUM (Stotz 1996: 109).32 The

implication is therefore that significant factors existed promoting the use of

prosthesis in preference to other adaptive stategies. Although the identity of

these factors remains somewhat mysterious, at least two seem very likely to

have been involved.33 First, at a morpho-lexical level, there may have been a

desire amongst speakers to maintain maximal formal identity between the root of

s impura words and forms derivationally related to them. Thus, the phonological

link between the root elements [skri:b], [sta:] in DESCRIBERE � ISCRIBERE, RESTARE �ISTARE is transparently preserved after prosthesis, whereas it would be more

obscure in DESCRIBERE � **SICRIBERE (via epenthesis) or RESTARE � **TARE (via

deletion). The significant number of familiar Latin verbs beginning with s im-

pura34 and the increasing use of prefixal verbal forms during the Imperial period

would doubtless have strengthened the importance of this factor. Second, a

special phonological bond holding between [s]þ voiceless plosive sequences

has been noted by phonologists across many languages (cf. 3.2). Its effect has

commonly been to preserve the integrity of such sequences when moves towards

simplification of complex onsets and codas occur. In the history of Latin before

the Classical period, there is evidence that wide-ranging simplification of conso-

nant sequences took place word-initially. Yet, [s]þ voiceless plosive onsets re-

mained despite their falling sonority, and by the Classical period they represented

the last surviving type of complex onset apart from the obstruentþ liquid type.

The special cohesion between [s] and voiceless plosive in onsets therefore may

well have served to block possible moves to separate them.35

To summarize, we can see I-prosthesis as a development which arose in Latin for

syllabic reasons. As the last remaining phonologically anomalous type of word-

initial onset, s impura sequenceswere susceptible to restructuring. Thiswas achieved

through prosthesis rather than other strategies such as epenthesis formorpholexical

32 A further and more doubtful example is the proper name IPSITHILLA which appears in

a poem of Catullus. This has been claimed to contain a prosthetic vowel (Gratwick 1967).33 There have not been many serious attempts to explain the choice of prosthesis. For

example, Kiss (1971: 89–90) merely suggests that [s] deletion would have threatened

homonymic clash, e.g. SPES � PES, but he does not pursue the subject any further.34 E.g. SCANDERE, SCOPARE, SCRIBERE, SPERARE, SPONDERE, SPUTARE, STARE, STERNERE, STRINGERE.35 Epenthesis was to occur with word-initial [s]þ voicelss plosive onsets, however, in

Walloon during the later Middle Ages. The reasons for this are explored below in 4.4.2.1.

72 I-prosthesis

and phonological reasons. Mainly on theoretical grounds, it seems likely that I-

prosthesis was carried through in a two-stage process; first, these sequences were

modified in contexts where they were anomalously tautosyllabic, i.e. post-conso-

nantally and post-pausally, and subsequently the restructuring could be generalized

to post-vocalic contexts (where the sequences were already heterosyllabic).

4.2 Medieval and modern developments

By the sixth century AD, I-prosthesis was probably a phenomenon of pronuncia-

tion known in almost all parts of Romania continua. However, it seems very likely

that prosthetic forms had not entirely displaced their earlier non-prosthetic

counterparts amongst all speakers in any region. We may envisage the existence

of much variation in the use of the two competing forms from area to area,

speaker to speaker, situation to situation and from one phonological context-type

to another. Subsequently, the variation was usually resolved as one or other

variant form was generalized. The pattern of use or non-use of I-prosthesis

found in many present-day Romance varieties appears already to have been

established by the time that the first written records become available for them.

However, in certain varieties there have been significant changes during the

period for which we have written records, notably in Gallo-Romance and Tuscan.

In tracing the history of the prosthetic vowel in the different varieties of

Romance, we need to recall the direct link holding between the fate of this

vowel and that of the etymological vowel appearing in the prefixes EX-, EXTRA-,

IN þ /s-/ and also DIS- in areas where this prefix has merged with EX-. As

already noted (4.1.1), even in Imperial times there was a good deal of interplay

between the two types of vowel, and in Romance this interplay led to direct

association. As a result, both types of vowel have always shared a common

evolution in individual varieties: either they are both maintained, perhaps

becoming fully generalized in all phonological contexts, or they will both be

lost. In this way, observation of the fate of the etymological prefixal vowel

(henceforth referred to as ‘prefixal vowel’ for short) can shed invaluable light

on the incidence and development of the prosthetic vowel during periods

when relevant documentation is lacking.

A further aspect concerns syllabic structure. Word-initial s impura sequences,

as has been seen (3.1.1, 3.2), represented the only remaining falling-sonority and

therefore heterosyllabic onset type in the Classical period. However, in many

Romance varieties later developments have resulted in the reappearance of

heterosyllabic onsets. Where this has occurred, s impura sequences are always

among the restored onsets and moreover they are usually the first such onset to be

restored. We therefore seem to have a striking example here of the last-out, first-

in principle which has been noted elsewhere in language change.

I-prosthesis 73

4.2.1 GENERAL PATTERNS OF EARLY MEDIEVAL CHANGE

A broad distinction between western and eastern Romance in the treatment of

I-prosthetic forms has long been noted (cf. Schuchardt 1867: 349). To the west

and north of the La Spezia-Rimini line36 which is conventionally recognized as

a useful and convenient dividing line in Romania continua, the I-prosthetic

variant was generalized during the Middle Ages in almost all areas but not in

Rheto-Romance, North Italian and certain varieties of Gallo-Romance. To the

east and south, the non-prosthetic variant was generalized although Tuscan is

problematic, as we shall see (4.3.3). Sardinian follows the western pattern. Illus-

trative derivations appear below in Figure 4.5.

Port. Cast. Cat. Occ. Fr. Sard. (with I-prosthesis)

SCĀLA ‘ladder’ escala escala escala escalo échelle iskāla

STĒLLA ‘star’ estrela estrella estrella esteilo étoile istèlla 37

Wall. R-R. NIt (Bol.) St.It. SIt (Nap.) Dal. Rom. (no I-prosthesis)

SCĀLA ‘ladder’ hâle šcela scala scala šcala šcala scarăSTĒLLA ‘star’ steûle šæla strèla stella štella štala stea

FIGURE 4.5. Prosthetic and non-prosthetic reflexes across Romance

Select sources: Sardinian, AIS pt. 943 (Macomer); Walloon, Haust (1933); Rheto-Rom.,

Walberg (1907); Dalmatian, Hadlich (1965)

Building on the assumption that I-prosthesis developed as a sandhi phenomenon

triggered by the presence of a preceding consonant or pause, the different

development of prosthetic vowels across Romance may be seen to be connected

with the treatment of word-final consonants in the later Empire period and early

Middle Ages. In the east, final consonants were regularly deleted or a paragogic

vowel inserted, as in PONTES ‘bridges’ > St.It. ponti, Rom. punti as against Cast.

pontes, Fr. ponts,38 CANTANT > S.It.dial. cantanu, Rom. cınta but Cast. cantan,

36 This line formed by a bundle of isoglosses passes from west to east across Italy just

north of Tuscany. It was first identified by Walther von Wartburg in 1936 and its

significance was explored more fully in Wartburg (1950).37 The singular form STELLA has unusually yielded reflexes with a lateral [ll] in almost all

the localities of Sardinia used in the AIS, presumably through influence from Italian. It

seems that in early Sardinian a masculine variant *STELLU(M) was adopted and this emerges

in certain varieties, e.g. [is’teffu] at pt. 938 (Bitti) where the expected geminate coronal

retroflex [ff] is found as the reflex of Latin -LL-. However, the masculine variant provides

the plural form across almost all localities reported in the AIS. Thus, for point 943, the

reported form is [is’t¡ffos].38 In standard French and in other northern Gallo-Romance varieties, final [s] was

deleted during the later Middle Ages in pre-consonantal position and during the

74 I-prosthesis

Fr. chantent.39 The only exceptions were certain function words like prepositions

which occurred in syntactic groups where they operated like proclitics. As a

result, if post-pausal contexts are left aside, words beginning with [s]þ conso-

nant were statistically much more frequently found in post-vocalical contexts,

where the preceding vowel could provide syllabic support for the initial [s], than

in post-consonantal contexts (Politzer 1959, Tekavcic 1974: 231). However, in the

west including Sardinia, word-final consonants were widely preserved. This

meant that in phrase-medial contexts, word-initial s impura onsets appeared

statistically more frequently in post-consonantal contexts where I-prosthesis

occurred for syllabic reasons; the prosthetic variant therefore appeared with far

greater frequency than its non-prosthetic counterpart.40 Subsequently, in all areas

of Romania continua the alternation between prosthetic and non-prosthetic

forms was gradually eliminated during the course of the Middle Ages as a result

of the more frequent variant being generalized. The relative frequency of one or

other variant can thus be seen as the key factor.

This scenario provides a plausible basis for understanding early developments

with I-prosthesis in Romance. Also, given the identification that took

place between prosthetic forms and prefixal words in EX-, EXTRA-, IN-þ s impura

stem- and DIS-, it offers a rationale for the occurrence of aphaeresis in the initial

vowel in the latter words. It was the abandonment of the prosthetic alternant

in s impura forms that can be seen to have acted as the catalyst for this

development.

However, the expected patterns of prosthesis have not always materialized. On

the one hand, one eastern variety evidently saw the continued use of I-prosthesis

seventeenth century in pre-pausal position too, e.g. ponts modernes and j’aime les ponts.

Pre-vocalically (and hence intervocalically) it may still appear as [z] in liaison contexts, e.g.

ponts et chaussees and (depending on register) plural noun phrases with a following vowel-

initial adjective like ponts espagnols.39 The literary Italian language has always had cantano where the inflexion -no is

analogical (Rohlfs 1968: II, }532; Maiden 1995: 130–2). The original early Romance form

in Italy was probably canta and this is the form preserved in many Central Italian dialects,

e.g. that of Servigliano in the Marche (Camilli 1929). The final consonant of Fr. trois and

chantent was lost in the later Middle Ages except in liaison contexts, for example, troi[z]

ans, chanten[t]-ils.40 Detailed statistics in support of this view are seldom provided by Romanists.

However, Hall (1964) offers data of some relevance in the course of his study on a

different aspect of historical Romance phonology. These were based on an analysis of

textual material from Old Occitan and indicated that, if the textual material was projected

back into Late Latin, approximately two thirds of the consonant-initial word tokens would

have appeared in post-pausal or post-consonantal position.

I-prosthesis 75

and its extension to a wide range of phonological contexts in the medieval period

(cf. 4.3.3). On the other hand, a number of western Romance varieties such as

standard French developed a fully productive rule of I-prosthesis in the course of

the Middle Ages, as expected, but later abandoned the rule. However, no exam-

ples appear to exist of the reverse change whereby at first a rule of I-prosthesis

failed to develop in a given variety during the medieval period but thereafter such

a rule was acquired.

The familiar simple binary east-west division therefore offers a broadly appro-

priate but not entirely satisfactory basis for covering the fate of I-prosthesis

in medieval and modern Romance. Despite its limitations, it will nonetheless

be convenient to use it as a starting point for our treatment rather than

operating with a classificational framework that risks being excessively complex

and fragmented. Within each of the divisions, we examine the divergent

and changing fortunes of prosthesis geographically and chronologically up to

the present day.

4.3 Type 1 (‘Eastern Romance’): general non-development of

unconditioned I-prosthesis

Already in the pre-literary period, I-prosthesis was abandoned as a phono-

logical process in all varieties of Romance spoken in southern Italy and the

Balkans. Nonetheless, there is evidence to indicate that alternation between

prosthetic and non-prosthetic forms remained for some time before the

former were abandoned. One area of what is traditionally understood as

eastern Romance is problematic in its treatment of prosthesis, namely Tus-

cany and the adjacent region of Umbria. Here, the evidence points clearly to

the widespread use of prosthetic vowels during the medieval period. Today,

although prosthesis no longer operates as a phonological process, unmistak-

able residues still survive in certain varieties bearing witness to its former

productivity.

4.3.1 BALKAN ROMANCE

Extant inscriptions and texts from the Balkans which date from up to the sixth

century suggest that I-prosthesis was known to at least some Latin speakers of the

area, more especially those of Illyria. However, the phonological process evidently

failed to take root so that no direct trace remains of I-prosthesis in any known

variety of Romance used in areas to the east of the Adriatic, as the following

examples illustrate.

76 I-prosthesis

Dalmatian (Vegliote) Daco-Romanian

STR�ICTU(M) strat strımt 41 ‘narrow, tight’

SCRIPTU(M) skrit scrit ‘written’

SPINA/-U(M) spajna spin ‘thorn’

SPICA/-U(M) spajka spic ‘ear of corn’

STELLA stal stea ‘star’

And, predictably, loanwords from medieval times onward which contained origi-

nal s impura word-initial onsets likewise developed no prosthetic vowel. For

instance, Romanian borrowings from Slavic dating from the seventh or eighth

century include stapın ‘master’, scump ‘expensive’, stına ‘sheepfold’, smıntına

‘cream’, slab ‘weak’, and more recent loans such as structura, scandal similarly

preserve initial [s]C- intact.

Unfortunately there is little textual evidence available before fairly recent times

to help us trace developments while I-prosthesis was abandoned as a process. As

we have seen, there are some relevant pieces of data from the Imperial period

but they are far from abundant.42 Thereafter, no substantial extant documentation

exists for Romanian between the end of the sixth century until the sixteenth

century when a tradition for writing in the Romance vernacular becomes estab-

lished.Moreover, during this thousand year period there is not even the possibility

of inferring vernacular change from medieval texts composed in Latin, since the

written medium in the Balkans was Slavonic which remained the chancellery

language of the Romanian princedoms until the late sixteenth century and

continued to be used in the liturgy until the early eighteenth century (Coteanu

1981: 88). The historical record for Dalmatian is even more limited. The most

substantial surviving text for this Romance variety is the reminiscences, recorded

in phonetic script, of the last known native speaker who died in 1898, Antonio

Burbur.43 Given the minimal direct knowledge of language patterns in Balkan

Romance during the medieval period, we have to rely on linguistic reconstruction.

41 Theoriginal past participle form STR�ICTU(M)was remodelled to *STR�INCTUto conformwith

the stem appearing in finite parts of the verb STR�INGERE (> strınge ‘to press, squeeze’); cf. FRACTU

(M) > *FRANCTU (influenced by FRANGERE) > frınt ‘broken’.Analogical *STR�INCTU also developed

inotherRomance varieties, e.g. Sardinian istrintu,S. Italian andOldTuscan strinto (REW 8305).

In modern Daco-Romanian, a new past participle strıns has developed, leaving strımt as an

adjective only meaning ‘narrow, tight’. For the postulation of a short stressed vowel in STR�ICTU

(M), FRACTU(M) rather than a long vowel as some latinists assume, see Sampson (2006).42 Arvinte (1980: 20) claims that after 268 AD there are no inscriptions from Dacia, and

south of the Danube there are no inscriptions from Moesia Inferior after 392 and Moesia

Superior after 287. In Pannonia Inferior, surviving inscriptions cease after 377. Further west

in Illyria, however, epigraphic evidence is much more extensive and there are numerous

inscriptions dating from beyond the fourth century.43 The text of these reminiscences and all surviving documentation relating to

Dalmatian appear in Bartoli ([1906] 2000). This amplifies the earlier study of Ive (1886).

I-prosthesis 77

The poverty of evidence for prosthetic vowels in s impurawords in the Imperial

period and their absence thereafter in the Balkans has led some scholars to doubt

that I-prosthesis ever really existed here (cf. 4.1.2 above). However, the more

general view is that this process was introduced but was subsequently abandoned.

The main evidence for this assumption lies in the treatment of words which

contain etymological initial /es-/ typically arising from the prefixes EX- or EXTRA-.

In such words, aphaeresis has regularly taken place. For example, Romanian:

EX-CADERE > scadea ‘to fall due’ EX-PULVERARE > spulbera ‘to dust’

EX-CAMBIARE > schimba ‘to change’ EXT�INGUERE > stinge ‘to extinguish’

EX-PER-LAVARE > spala ‘to wash’ EXT�ORQUERE > stoarce ‘to twist’

EXTRANEU(M) > strain ‘foreign’

EXTRA-B�ONU(M) > strabun ‘ancestor’

EXTRA-LUCERE > straluci ‘to shine brightly’

For Dalmatian, there are forms such as44

EX-CALDARE > scalduar ‘to heat’ EX-PETRARE > spetrar ‘to remove stones’

EXCUTERE > scutro ‘to lift’ EX-TEMPTARE > stentuar ‘to work’

EXP�INGERE > spangro ‘to push’ EX-TUTARE > stutuar ‘to extinguish’

EXPENDERE > spiander ‘to spend’

The implication is that aphaeresis operated on forms beginning with unstressed

[es-] along with the elimination of the prosthetic alternants which had developed

from s impurawords (cf. Densusianu [1901–38] 1975: 107). There are rare instances

where aphaeresis failed to affect forms with prefixal EX-; for example, EX-TEMPER-

ARE > astımpara ‘to quieten, calm’, EX-COT-IRE > ascuti ‘to whet, sharpen’ and

EXSPECTARE > astepta ‘to wait for’. These appear to have retained their initial vowel

because of early prefix-switching EX->AD-/A(B)-.

The problem remains of establishing what factors may have led to the loss of I-

prosthesis and, by association, aphaeresis in prefixal EX-, EXTRA- forms. Nandris

(1963: 175) appeals to substratum influence but without offering any substantive

supporting evidence. Other linguists have more plausibly appealed to the action

of internal structural factors, notably the widespread loss of original word-final

consonants in Balkan Romance which resulted in the statistical predominance of

vowel-final words. This would have meant that prosthesis was less frequently

needed to resyllabify the initial /s/ in s impura forms; the prosthetic alternant was

therefore abandoned in favour of its more frequent non-prosthetic counterpart

(cf. 4.2.1 above).

44 The Vegliote forms are drawn from various sources and appear in Bartoli/Duro 2000.

Formal variations, e.g. -ARE>-uar or -ar, reflect the different sources used. No variation in

the outcome of prosthetic or etymological /i-/ is found, however.

78 I-prosthesis

A further factor may also be mentioned. From the beginning of the seventh

century, the Balkans increasingly came under Slav control and, as noted earlier,

Slavic came to fulfil the functions of anH-language in awidely bilingual society. It is

notable that Slavic has always licensed syllable onsets of considerable complexity

and, as a result of borrowing, Romanian has itself developed a range of complex

onset types rarely found in other Romance varieties, for example [ml-, hr-] e.g. in

mlastina ‘swamp’, hrana ‘food’. Loans with a range of sibilantþ consonant onsets

also figured, such as [sn-, zm-, ´g-] in snop ‘sheaf ’, zmeu ‘dragon’, jgheab ‘open

conduit’, and amongst these were numerous words containing the [s]þ voiceless

plosive type that was comparable to the s impura sequences of native Latin words,

such as spor ‘progress’, stana ‘flag’, scump ‘expensive’. Although some phonological

adaptation of unfamiliar onset sequences in Slavic loans did take place as in (Slav.)

tlumacı > (Rom.) talmaci ‘interpreter’, a much enlarged range of possible onsets

evidently became acceptable in early Balkan Romance. One effect of this may well

have been to undermine themotivation for using the prosthetic alternant of original

s impura forms inherited from Latin. Although other factors were doubtless

involved, it seems not unlikely that Slavic played a supporting role in the abandon-

ment of I-prosthesis in Balkan Romance.

Finally, a special caseof vowelprosthesis developed inpronominal forms incertain

Daco-Romanian varieties and is attested from the later sixteenth century. This later

development, which has nothing to dowith I-prosthesis, is examined in 6.1.4.3.

4.3.2 SOUTHERN ITALIAN

The use of prosthetic vowels in southern Italy during the Imperial period is

indicated by inscriptional evidence. Prinz (1938) reported some eleven examples

from this area including EGO ISPERABI ‘I hoped’ (CIL X, 8189) which occurs in an

inscription found at Pozzuoli, near Naples. This example is striking as it offers

evidence that prosthesis could operate post-vocalically as well as in other types of

phonological context where its appearance is more to be expected on theoretical

grounds. However, later linguistic developments in southern Italy suggest that for

most speakers there was usually nevermore than alternation between prosthetic and

non-prosthetic formswith etymological s impurawords in Imperial times and in the

early Middle Ages. But during the course of the medieval period the use of I-

prosthesis progressively disappeared and the non-prosthetic alternant was

generalized to all contexts. Just as in Balkan Romance, the abandonment of the

prosthetic alternant was accompanied by aphaeresis in the phonologically asso-

ciated set of prefixal words containing original EX-, EXTRA-, DIS-, INS- (cf. 4.2.1, 4.3.1).

Evidence confirming the abandonment of I-prosthesis by the later Middle Ages

is provided by the substantial body of vernacular writings which becomes

available for certain southern Italian varieties. Thus, the thirteenth-century

I-prosthesis 79

Neapolitan poem Bagni di Pozzuoli shows no signs of prosthetic <i> and also has

regular aphaeresis of the related etymological prefixal vowel, as in da sturdire (l. 7)

< EX-TURD-IRE, per spesse fiate (l. 198), et splena (l. 366), in strectura (l. 391); and the

fourteenth-century prose Cronaca di Partenope, also from Naples, shows a similar

pattern, per spacio, pote stare, fugereno scazati, per stancia de lo papa (Altamura

1949). Late medieval texts may show graphic evidence of the vowel but influence

from the Tuscan-based literary language may well account for this. Thus, the

version of the Libro di Sidrac composed in Salento around 1440 contains a

significant minority of <i-> graphies, non fosse ispessa (20r,32), so’ isparte

(23r,37), la piu isnella (31r,21), but it is notable that the vowel is very rarely

found in the most expected context, namely post-consonantally, e.g. non stecte

(5v,25), non sguardano (22v,26), in scripta (49v,21), although one instance with an

initial vowel non escialequare ‘not to squander’ (19r,2) < EXHALARE þ AQUA (REW

3011) does occur (Sgrilli 1983). In recent times, it is not without significance that

in linguistic studies of southern Italo-Romance, from Schneegans (1888) onward,

no reference is made to any trace of I-prosthesis.45

As with Balkan Romance, the disappearance of I-prosthesis as a phonological

process can readily be related to the early elimination of word-final consonants

in southern Italian varieties and in consequence the much higher frequency of

occurrence of non-prosthetic alternants leading to their subsequent generalization.

4.3.3 TUSCAN: A PROBLEM CASE

Lying just south of the La Spezia-Rimini line, Tuscany is usually classified within

eastern Romance. An early abandonment of I-prosthesis similar to that found in

southern Italian and Balkan-Romance might therefore be expected. Certainly, the

lack of prosthetic vowels in the Florentine-based standard Italian language, e.g.

spesso, stare, and scrivere (< SP�ISSU(M), STARE, SCRIBERE), would seem to confirm this

expectation. Instances of prosthesis can be found when s impura words are

preceded by a consonant-final monosyllabic grammatical form as in per iscritto,

in ispecie, but such cases are rare and might perhaps appear to represent a residue

of the substantial influence experienced during the early medieval period from

northern Italian varieties which, as types of western Romance, would be expected

to preserve I-prosthesis. However, the textual evidence from medieval Tuscany

presents a rather different picture. Far from being a phenomenon sporadically

found as a result of possible external influence, I-prosthesis was a phonological

45 Vowel prosthesis of another and later type in southern Italy, however, does receive

attention (cf. Chapter 5). The silence over I-prosthesis thus does not simply reflect

scholarly unawareness of prosthetic developments in this Romance area.

80 I-prosthesis

process native to Tuscan and came to enjoy widespread use amongst speakers of

the region. Indeed, by the later Middle Ages it even appeared to be extending the

range of phonological contexts in which it occurred and moving towards

generalized use in certain Tuscan varieties. Only in the following centuries was

it progressively abandoned leaving just a few traces, in a reversal that is compara-

ble though not identical to what occurred in French (cf. 4.4.3).

Looking more closely at historical developments from the collapse of the

Roman Empire onward, we are fortunate in having substantial numbers of

original texts composed in Tuscany dating from the early Middle Ages. These

are legal documents or charters, consisting of donations, testaments, and legal

transactions, which have survived from the period of Lombard control. The

Lombards, or Langobards, entered northern Italy in 568 and established a state

there (capital in Pavia) which also incorporated Tuscany. It lasted until 774 when

it was destroyed by the Franks under Charlemagne. The documents of this

period, which have been edited by Schiaparelli (1929–33), are written in Latin

but their orthography often provides useful evidence on vernacular usage includ-

ing vowel prosthesis. This is because they were written by scribes in a way that

reflected spoken usage, since they would usually be read out loud.46 Over 180 of

the collected documents come from Tuscany and in particular from Lucca which

was a major Lombard cultural and administrative centre. In fact, no fewer than

143 are from Lucca. The incidence of attested prosthetic vowels was as follows:

total of possiblesites for prosthesis +PV -PV %PV

Lucca 370 90 280 24%Pisa 27 9 18 33%other 47 13 34 28%

Total 444 112 332 25%

(where ‘+PV’ indicates the presence of a prosthetic vowel and ‘-PV’ its absence).47

FIGURE 4.6. Incidence of prosthetic vowels in Tuscan legal texts of the Lombard period

46 Cf. Everett (2003: 141): ‘Charters were intended to be read aloud, both at the time of

their redaction and when used in court to substantiate a claim . . .Moreover, the structure

of the charter was anchored in orality.’47 The statistical details presented here differ slightly from those in Politzer and Politzer

(1953: 2, 11), partly because we have included nine texts excluded by them and partly

because their criteria for identifying prosthetic vowels are not identical to ours. Even so,

the discrepancy between the two sets of results is small: P. and P. identify ninety-eight cases

of prosthesis from Luccan documents rather than ninety, and one more (fourteen) in those

from the ‘other’ category which covers documents from towns such as Siena and

Toscanella. The figure of nine for Pisan documents emerged in both analyses.

I-prosthesis 81

The data here indicate that prosthesis remained fairly well established as a

phonological process in early medieval Tuscany. Indeed, they suggest that for

some speakers the use of prosthetic forms may even have been well on its way to

full generalization in all phonological contexts. For cases can readily be found

where the prosthetic vowel appears not only in post-pausal position, e.g. Escripsi

ego Appo (text 97, 750 AD), una cum fondamento, corte, istationem, ortalia (text 193,

765 AD) but also post-vocalically within a phrase as in de istato nostro (text 55, 736

AD), una iscala de uno lato (text 91, 747 AD),modo ispondeo (text 177, 764 AD).48 No

clear evidence is available for prosthesis in post-consonantal position within

phrases, since by chance the documents contain no unambiguous examples of

relevant sites where etymologically s impura forms appear in this context. The

nearest that we find are cases involving et, such as et ispundeo (texts 85 and 86, 746

AD), which are of uncertain interpretation since what is spelt et may well have

been realized as [e], in which case ispundeowould be post-vocalic. However, given

that post-consonantal phrase-medial contexts are the most susceptible to I-pros-

thesis in Romance, we may hypothesize that the presence of prosthetic vowels in

other types of context in a text implies that they would be expected to have

occurred post-consonantally as well.

The impression that the use of I-prosthesis was gaining ground amongst at

least some Tuscan speakers is strengthened when the usage of individual scribes is

scrutinized. Fortunately, this is possible as scribes identify themselves at the end

of each charter, through formulae stating that the agents of the document

appointed a specific individual to draw it up, e.g. Dauid iscriuere rogauimus

(text 138, 759 AD) ‘we asked David to act as scribe’. Comparison of the documents

reveals a good deal of variation between scribes in the representation of prosthetic

vowels. Some consistently indicate them. For instance, Prandulus (texts 220, 286

from 768–773 AD) has all five of five possible cases showing prosthesis, and

Prandulo (texts 178, 227 from 764–769 AD) and David (texts 127, 138, 186 from

757–765 AD)49 each have all eight of eight possible cases. In contrast, Austripert

indicates no prosthetic vowel in thirty-four possible contexts within the fifteen

documents he wrote (767–773 AD), and similarly no instances are found in the

48 The Latin etyma of the relevant s impura words whose graphies contain an initial

vowel are, respectively: SCRIPSI ‘I wrote’, STATIONEM ‘homestead’, STATU(M) ‘situation’, SCALA

‘ladder’, SP�ONDEO ‘I pledge’.49 There is one other document dated 773 which is also written by a scribe ‘David’. This

text however only has one instance of a possible four displaying prosthesis. It is therefore

unclear whether this David is different from the scribe of the earlier documents or whether

in the period between 765 and 773 one and the same scribe received some further training

in Classical-style orthography.

82 I-prosthesis

seventy possible contexts figuring in the thirty original documents drawn up

(753–770 AD) by Osprandus, who was a deacon and hence likely to be more

schooled in Classical-style spelling than many ordinary scribes. In fact the only

occasion when a prosthetic vowel appears in a text written by Osprandus comes

in a copy of a document of 718 that was executed by him in 756–757 (text 22).

Here, he faithfully reproduces three cases: nobis placire cotidie istudis ‘to please us

each day with studies’, per nostram iscriptam ‘through our writing’, and lectori

nostro iscriuere iuss[imus] ‘we instructed him who reads written texts aloud to us

to act as scribe’. As Austripert and Osprandus account for forty-five original

documents, almost one third of the total for Lucca and more than one quarter of

all the Tuscan texts, their more conservative scribal practice has clearly helped to

diminish the proportion of attested cases of vowel prosthesis significantly.

When account is taken of scribal conservatism, a conclusion that may be drawn

from the evidence of the Lombard documents is that vowel prosthesis with

s impure words was probably already a familiar phenomenon of the evolving

spoken volgare of eighth-century Tuscany. Unfortunately, however, the docu-

ments are not numerous and diverse enough to provide reliable information on

its sociolinguistic distribution at this stage.

We must wait some centuries before Tuscan texts written in the volgare and

using vernacular spelling become available. The earliest extant item is a list of

naval expenses drawn up in Pisa, known as the Conto navale pisano, which dates

from around 1100 (Castellani 1976: 123–48, text 128–30). A prosthetic vowel is

indicated on all possible occasions and represented as <i> ; the initial etymologi-

cal vowel from the prefix EX- or DIS- is also present. The relevants items are:

(prosthetic) a lo ispornaio50 which appears four times, aguti ispannali (< Frankish

spanna ‘span’ REW 8117) ‘nails a span long’; and (prefixal) .vi. Iscaricatura, where

Castellani notes that the reading for the opening syllable <Is-> is uncertain, and

finally there is the unrevealing graphy <dis> in e discaricatura. The first surviving

literary text from Tuscany dates from the very end of the twelfth century or

the beginning of the thirteenth, the Ritmo laurenziano a verse composition of

forty lines. It contains just two relevant cases: on the one hand, di paura

sbagutesco ‘I am distressed with fear’ (cf. Ital. sbigottire ‘to dismay; be dis-

mayed’)51 where the loss of initial [i-] may be due to metrical needs, and on

50 Meaning ‘the maker of speroni ’, a sperone being the beam projecting from the prow of a

vessel for its defence. The form (i)spornaio derives from Frankish sporo- ‘spur’ (REW 8130a; cf.

modern St. Italian sprone ‘spur’) and the native Tuscan agentive suffix –aio < -ARIU(M),.51 The origins of this word are not clear. Its etymological foundation is generally

assumed to lie in a loan from Old French esbahir ‘to astound’ (mod.Fr. ebahir) < EX-

*BATARE with later conjugation change (DHLF, s.v. ebahir). However, it has evidently

undergone subsequent remodelling on the basis of a form or forms whose identity

remains uncertain.

I-prosthesis 83

the other hand, a post-pausal form written <stenettietti> whose interpretation is

disputed. Little can therefore be gleaned from the evidence of this text.

During the thirteenth century, the number of surviving Tuscan texts becomes

substantial. The majority of these are non-literary and often relate to mercantile

activity. The importance of literacy for practical matters was clearly recognized in

Tuscany, and numerous schools and institutions arose in Florence and other

towns to cater for this need. As a result, literacy levels were high and the volume

of written material produced was correspondingly great. In the thirteenth and

fourteenth centuries, Italy stands out from the rest of Europe in its prolific output

of documents, and at the forefront was Tuscany ‘una regione con la penna in

mano’.52 In contrast, the use of the volgare for literary writings was slower to

emerge as northern French or Occitan continued to enjoy prestige as the premier

vernacular cultural languages. The literary language which gradually developed,

however, was not founded on general usage but represented a consciously elabo-

rated medium created by the educated intellectual classes. In this way, two related

but distinct written traditions can be broadly distinguished. One was literary-

based and imbued with Classical influences. It was cultivated especially by the

litterati (i.e. those who knew Latin) and would often be set down on parchment.

The other was of a practical character and much closer to general spoken usage.

It was typical of merchants and artisans, the illitterati or idiotae (i.e. literate

in volgare but knowing no Latin), who normally used paper not parchment for

their writings and also developed a special cursive handwriting (mercantesca)

which was exclusively used for their business or private writings and never

for texts composed in Latin (Bartoli Langeli 2000: 41–2). Various formal and

sociolinguistic characteristics therefore serve to distinguish these two broad types

of written Tuscan. A further point of difference emerges in their representation

of prosthetic vowels.

In the emerging literary language, the general practice develops of not indicat-

ing prosthesis. Thus the prose writings of Dante (1265–1321) contain no prosthetic

vowels and also systematically show aphaeresis in prefixal forms originally in EX-.

In his great verse composition, the Divine Comedy, initial prosthetic or

prefixal <i-> is represented, though only on sixteen occasions out of hundreds

of possible contexts.53 Metrical considerations may well explain the presence of

these sixteen cases, particularly as half of them occur in the least expected

phonological context, namely post-vocalically. Thus, O isplendor is found twice

52 This remark was made by Duccio Balestracci, cited by Bartoli Langeli (2000: 45). In

the same spirit, the fifteenth-century architect and man of letters Leon Battista Alberti had

as his watchword ‘sempre scrivere ogni cosa’.53 This figure is based on the concordance of Lovera, Bettarini, and Mazzarello (1975)

which uses the edition by Petrocchi (1966-7) for the Societa Dantesca Italiana. Other

analyses using different editions may yield slightly different results.

84 I-prosthesis

(II, 31, 107 and III, 30, 97), whereas splendor appears with no prosthetic vowel on

twenty occasions and is even used post-consonantally, ch’un splendor (II, 32, 71)

and se non splendor (III, 13, 53).

The vernacular writings of Petrarch (1303–73), which are almost exclusively in

verse, provide even fewer examples. The data from the concordance of McKenzie

(1912) indicate just six relevant cases, all of which involve the retention of the

initial vowel of prefixal EX- or EXTRA-.54 In five of the cases, the vowel appears post-

consonantally. However, this does not reflect a phonological regularity since

prosthetic or prefixal <i-> is far more frequently absent in this context. It is

omitted six times after per (e.g. per strade aperte / onde per strette a gran pena si

migra, in Trionfo d’Amore IV, 149–50), twenty-two times after non, six times after

in and once after con. Furthermore, un rather than uno occurs six times before

s impura forms, e.g. un stil (Trionfo della morte 2: 59), un strido (canzone 360: 147).

The use of an initial <i-> again seems to arise from metrical exigencies.

In the vernacular prose works of the remaining member of the Tre Corone,

Boccaccio (1309–75), more examples of I-prosthesis and prefixal vowel retention

are indicated in the spelling although they still represent only a small minority of

all possible cases. Of the approximately seventy-five instances where scribal <i->

is found,55 more than two thirds appear in a post-consonantal context. However,

there are exceptions in which the vowel fails to occur even in this context; e.g. in

spazio (II, 7, 1) as against per ispazio (II, 7, 40); per non spendere (I, 8, 5) but per

non ismarrirle (VIII, 6, 39); and per speziali ambasciadori (II, 7, 119) but in

ispezielta (X, 2, 14).

In the prestigious usage of the three great fourteenth-century Florentine

writers, therefore, the presence of the prosthetic vowel and the etymological

vowel from prefixal EX-, EXTRA-, and DIS- was not usually indicated except in

post-consonantal position and even here its appearance was not entirely regular.

This pattern of written usage, which may well have been prompted in part by

Latin where prosthetic vowels had no orthographic representation, concurred

with usage in other parts of Italy. In southern Italian these vowels had undergone

total abandonment, as we have seen. Also, in many types of northern Italian they

had been lost (see below, 4.4.5). This was the case in the influential model for

literary prose first formalized by the Bolognese rhetorician Guido Faba which was

later introduced to Florence by Brunetto Latini and entered documents of the

Florentine chancellery in the second half of the thirteenth century (Schiaffini

54 These are (references follow the 1975 edition of Petrarch’s works published by

Sansoni): come suol fare, iscusilla i martiri (canzone 23: 16); per isfogare (canzone 72: 59;

sonnet 102: 8); per iscolpirlo (canzone 50: 66); per isvegliare (canzone 119: 110); con estrania

voce (canzone 23: 63).55 Forms deriving from etyma beginning with non-prefixal I- (e.g. istanotte < ISTA NOCTE,

istoria < HISTORIA) have not been included in this total.

I-prosthesis 85

1961: 38). The new mode of prose discourse together with the emerging literary

language used in verse composition came to be viewed as a basis for writing

amongst the literary elites and those in contact with them. Just how closely

spoken usage corresponded to this ideal written model is difficult to establish.

However, the practice of suppressing prosthetic and prefixal orthographic <i>

everywhere except post-consonantally in the new prestigious style of formal

writing may be assumed to have influenced speech amongst the educated in

Tuscany.

Earlier scholars, basing their interpretations mainly on the evidence of literary

works and non-literary official texts, have concluded that by the fourteenth

century the abandonment of prosthetic [i-] was well on its way to completion

in Florence and other parts of Tuscany.56 However, a very different picture

emerges when non-literary texts of a mercantile and private character are exam-

ined. These are typically the writings of the illitterati discussed earlier and consist

mainly of accounts and letters. Examples of them are available from the beginning

of the twelfth century (cf. the Conto navale pisano considered above) up to the

fifteenth century. They reveal that the use of the prosthetic and prefixal vowel was

much more widespread in everyday usage than literary writings suggest. For

instance, amongst thirteenth-century Florentine texts of a private nature there

is a banker’s account-book of 1211 which has quant’elle isstessero (2, 16), iera

iskritta (4, 10), and ke [de avire] issterlino (8, 50) ‘sterling’57 (Castellani 1980: II,

82–103). Disregarding proper names, eight forms in all appear with a vowel

present as against twenty-four with no vowel. However, sixteen of the latter

cases are accounted for by repeated occurrences of the phrase se piu stanno ‘if

they run beyond’. In this phrase and in almost all the other forms where a

potential word-initial <i> is lacking such as per lo storamento ‘for indemnifica-

tion’ (6, 58), we see that there is a preceding grammaticalized or semi-gramma-

ticalized form present consisting of a vowel-final monosyllable. Such forms

behave as proclitics, i.e. grammatical satellites which attach to a following host

element and effectively form its opening syllable. Where a vowel-final proclitic

form is present, we might expect that a prosthetic or prefixal vowel [i] would be

less likely to occur. In other thirteenth-century mercantile texts from Florence we

56 Cf. ‘In den ordinamenti della compagnia di Santa Maria del Carmine 1280–1298 ist

der heutige Zustand fast durchgefuhrt’ (Meyer-Lubke 1929: 28), although the more

widespread retention of the prosthetic vowel in Sienese texts is noted. (For the text of

the Ordinamenti, see Schiaffini 1926, text 4.) More circumspectly, Rohlfs (1966: }187)observes ‘Gia nei testi italiani antichi, le forme senza la i prostetica sono in numero

prevalente.’57 The reading of the bracketed material is uncertain. It appears to mean ‘which he has

to have as sterling’.

86 I-prosthesis

find that the presence of a proclitic form has a comparable effect on the occur-

rence of prosthetic and prefixal [i].58

Alongside the mercantile texts, another source of data exists offering informa-

tion on more popular modes of Tuscan usage of the period, namely private

letters. These are especially valuable linguistically as they tend to be more

informal and spontaneous in their expression.59 Letters in the volgare survive

from the thirteenth century and they serve to shed interesting light on likely

patterns of usage with prosthetic and prefixal [i] amongst ordinary Tuscan

speakers. One collection of early Sienese letters dating from 1253 to 1311 indicates

the presence of the vowel in well over half of all possible cases (90 out of 171), and

here again the great majority of the 81 cases where no vowel was written involve

contexts where there is a preceding vowel-final proclitic word (Paoli and Picco-

lomini 1871). However, of particular interest are the large collections of letters

which become available from the later fourteenth century onward. The authors of

the letters were all born and/or educated in Florence or a nearby town where

linguistic usage was directly comparable.60 Five collections are considered:

(i) the correspondence dating from 1384–1410 between Francesco Marco

Datini (183 letters) and his Florentine wife Margherita (243 letters);61

(ii) 73 letters of Alessandra Macinghi Strozzi (1406–71), widow of the

Florentine banker Matteo Strozzi, which she wrote to her two exiled

sons over the period 1447–70;

58 Thus, in the two account-books of Bene Bencivenni covering 1262–96 the prosthetic

or prefixal vowel is indicated in more than half the possible contexts, appearing for

example post-pausally iscritti (II, 48), ischontatone (II, 50), post-vocalically una ispada

(II, 6), questa iscritta (II, 10) and post-consonantally per ispese (II, 17), per ispelda (II, 45).

Cases of omission of a possible prosthetic vowel arise almost exlusively when a

monosyllabic vowel-final grammatical element precedes, e.g. di spelda (II, 4), e sstanghe

(II, 7). The text of the account-books is in Castellani (1952: 212–28, 363–458).59 Cf. the remarks by Lodge (2004: 142) in relation to French: ‘The type of data which is

likely to contain the strongest traces of everyday speech is perhaps the personal letters of

people whose normal business was not writing. Less influenced by ingrained habits of a

conventionalised spelling system, inexperienced writers might be expected to show a

higher level of vernacular influence than people like secretaries and clerks, who spent

their professional lives writing.’60 Francesco Datini was from Prato which was close to Florence geographically and

linguistically. Serianni (1977: 24) observes, ‘La base fondamentale del pratese e dunque

fiorentina.’ Michelangelo was born in Caprese, which lies NE of Arezzo, but came as a

youth to study in Florence.61 Many letters were dictated and written by amanuenses but approximately a quarter of

Francesco’s 183 letters were in his hand. Margherita, who at first was illiterate, later taught

herself to write and has left nineteen letters of her own among the total of 243.

I-prosthesis 87

(iii) 95 letters of her son-in-law Marco Parenti (1421–97);

(iv) 78 letters of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527);

(v) 135 letters which Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475–1564) wrote to his

father and brothers.62

These sources provide the following results, where the figure in brackets indicates

the total possible for the particular context concerned:

FMD 1223 537 = 44% 56 (81) 58 (65) 68 (477) 355 (600)AMS 1183 392 = 33% 53 (67) 29 (30) 18 (481) 292 (605)MP 1156 208 = 18% 42 (133) 36 (36) 19 (443) 111 (544)NM 1008 10 = 1% 0 (40) 3 (53) 0 (310) 7 (605)MB 640 32 = 5% 3 (19) 10 (18) 2 (196) 17 (407)

Overall total ofpossible cases (after single proclitic)<i->present post-pausal post-cons. elsewhere

MD 1507 729 = 48% 78 (83) 62 (69) 105 (561) 484 (794)

post-vocalic

FIGURE 4.7. Incidence of prosthetic vowel graphies in later medieval epistolary texts

By way of illustration, the following extracts from two letters may be taken. Forms

showing prosthesis are in italics or underlined where no prosthetic vowel is

present.

(a) from a letter of Margherita Datini, dated 28 January 1386

Io non sono achoncio mai di risponderti a niuna chosa che tu mi scriva, se non sopra

questa parte che ttu tti chonsumi bene: questa mi tocha, e l’altre non mi tochano nulla; ma

io non chredo chosa che tu mi scriva . . .Bernabo e suto qui ed e venuto ame e ami detto che rivorebe i’ libro suo: io gl’o detto ch’io

non so dov’egli si sia, ma ch’io te lo iscrivero; se tu vogli che no’ glele diamo, sı llo iscrivi.

Tu iscrivesti a Piero ch’io gli dessi la chiave della chassetta e nonne iscrivesti nulla a me: io

non glele dava volentieri . . .A’ trovato quelle iscritte che gli chiedesti: eravi presente

Nicholo di Piero, e io, Simone, e rimettemovi denttro ongni iscritta, sı che ista bene.63

62 Editions of the letters: Rosati (1977), Cecchi (1990) for the Datinis; Bianchini (1987)

for Alessandra Macinghi Strozzi; Marrese (1996) for Marco Parenti; Gaeta (1981) and

Milanesi (1875) for Machiavelli and Michelangelo.63 ‘I am never in a position to reply to anything that you write to me about, except in

this matter that you are pacing yourself properly: this concerns me and the other things do

not concern me at all; but I don’t believe what you write to me . . .Bernabo has been here and came to me and told me that he would like his book back: I

told him that I don’t know where it is, but that I will write to you about it; if you want us

to give him it, just write to say so.

You wrote to Piero that I should give him the key of the box and you wrote nothing to

me about this: I was not too willing to give him it . . .Have you found the writings that

you asked for: Nicholo di Piero was there and me and Simone and we put inside it all the

writings, so all is well.’

88 I-prosthesis

(b) opening of a letter by Alessandra Macinghi Strozzi dated 4 November 1448

to Filippo degli Strozzi

Ne’ dı passati ebbi una tua de’ dı 8 d’agosto, alla quale non ho fatto prima risposta perche

ho auto male di scesa piu d’un mese; e rincrescemi oggimai lo scrivere, che forte invecchio,

e divento poco sana piu l’un dı che l’altro. E ancora non ho sollecitudine a scriverti perche

fo iscriverti a Matteo; e si perche s’avvezzi a dettare un poco le lettere; che quando iscrive

adagio e che ponga il capo a quello ha fare, iscrive bene: e cosı dice Antonio Strozzi,

e Marco (che ho mostro loro de’ fogli ch’egli scrive), che ha buona forma di lettera: ma

quando iscrive ratto, diresti che non fussi di suo mano; e tal differenza e da l’una a l’altra,

quanto il bianco dal nero: e no gli posso tanto dire, che voglia iscrivere adagio. Fa’, quando

gli scrivi, ne’l riprenda, che giovera; e che sia buono e riverente; che pure teme quando tu

gli scrivi: e scrivigli ispesso, accio che abbia cagione di scrivere a te . . .64

The findings suggest that, far from disappearing from use by the fourteenth

century, the prosthetic vowel and the etymological vowel of prefixal EX-, EXTRA-,

and DIS- continued in widespread use amongst Tuscan speakers up to at least the

later fifteenth century.65 And judging from the markedly lower level of frequency

of the vowel in literary texts, we may suspect that it was more normal amongst the

less educated and that in general it was a feature of less formal registers.

Looking more closely at the evidence from our first three sources, we find

that alternation rather than fully lexicalized use of the vowel <i-> was usual.

However, the distribution of the vowel was not determined on simple phonolog-

ical lines. The vowel clearly occurred with very high frequency when post-

consonantal and post-pausal, especially in the first three sources which we have

consulted. In post-vocalic contexts, the use of the vowel is less common but it is

nonetheless well represented in those sources. But there is a good deal of variation

64 ‘In recent days I got a [letter] from you of 8 August which I have not answered earlier

because I have had the falling disease for more than a month; and writing is troublesome

for me as I am getting very old and I am becoming sicker day by day. Also I am not

worrying about writing to you because I am getting Matteo to write to you instead, in

order to get him more used to taking down letters. For when he writes slowly and puts his

mind to what he has to do, he writes well and this is what Antonio Strozzo says and Marco

too (because I have shown them some of the pages that he has been writing). He forms

letters well. But when he writes quickly, you would say that it wasn’t his hand(writing);

there is such a difference between one and the other, it’s like black and white. I can’t tell

him often enough that he should write slowly. When you write to him, tell him off about

this, it will help. And (tell him) that he should be obedient and respectful, for he is afraid

when you write to him. Write to him often so that he will have reason to write to you . . . ’65 Further evidence is provided in a fifteenth-century collection of mercantile 107 letters

from Pisa, which show widespread use of prosthesis. E.g. sia istato, vole istare, io peinso

istara but a lo stare in a letter dated 1458 by Bartolomeo Gettalebraccia (Biasci 1998).

I-prosthesis 89

in its incidence post-vocalically, depending in large measure on the prosodic

nature of the context (cf. the parameter indicated below).

after monosyll. vowel-final forms after polysyll. vowel-final forms

vowel-final object infinitive after post-verbalpreposition article clitic pronoun modal/causative vb noun, adj. post-pausal post-consonantal

lesser use of I-prosthesis greater use of I-prosthesis

FIGURE 4.8. Parameter showing variable frequency of use of prosthetic forms

As was seen in earlier Tuscan texts, least favourable to the use of the vowel are

those contexts where a monosyllabic unstressed proclitic form precedes. The

next-to-rightmost column of the figures cited in Figure 4.7 above relate specifi-

cally to contexts involving an unattached definite article, single clitic object

pronoun, or monosyllabic preposition. Other contexts containing monosyllabic

grammatical forms such as e, o, ma, che show comparable statistical results. If

these contexts which all involve a proclitic or near-proclitic element are set aside,

the remaining types of post-vocalic context show a picture of fairly high frequen-

cy of occurrence for the prosthetic and prefixal vowel <i->. For Margherita

Datini, it reaches 78 per cent and Alessandra Macinghi Strozzi 67 per cent. Within

the specific sub-category of post-vocalic context types, it appears that particularly

favourable to the occurrence of the vowel <i-> are post-verbal lexical forms

(predicative adjectives and nouns) and infinitives governed by a modal or

causative verb.66 Prosodic considerations thus seem to be significant in deter-

mining whether the prosthetic or prefixal vowel appears or is absent. Where a

monosyllabic unstressed form precedes, the vowel does not usually occur but

where a polysyllabic form containing a partially or fully stressed syllable precedes,

the vowel is typically present. This becomes more apparent when contexts con-

taining a single monosyllabic (near-)proclitic form are compared with those

containing either a sequence of these or a single polysyllabic grammatical form.

In the former, the presence of the vowel <i-> is unusual, as we have seen, but in

the latter its presence is more common. For instance, in letters by Margherita

Datini from 1397 we find (preghomi) te lo iscrivesi ‘he asked me to write to you

about it’ (complex clitic, prosthetic vowel present) as against ti scrivesi; and

e perche istetti as against e stette in two letters of 1465 by Alessandra Macinghi

Strozzi. The implication is that a preceding polysyllabic form would have

contained one syllable carrying at least a secondary stress, so that a phonological

66 In the the letters of Margaret Datini and Alessandra Macinghi Strozzi respectively, the

statistics are: predicative adjective 11 (out of a possible 12) and 21 (21); post-verbal noun 29

(33) and 19 (27); infinitive after modal or causative 64 (82) and 46 (60).

90 I-prosthesis

boundary of some sort was created which would have been sufficient to promote

the presence of the vowel [i-].

The linguistic evidence provided by the other sources of private letters points

to changing usage. From the later fifteenth century onward, it seems that use of

the prosthetic and prefixal vowel [i-] declines rapidly. Thus, in the correspon-

dence of Marco Parenti, a silk merchant who enjoyed a solid reputation for his

learning, the frequency of use of the vowel is a good deal lower than in the letters

of his mother-in-law, Alessandra Macinghi Strozzi, although it is still significantly

represented. It occurs without exception in post-consonantal position, but post-

pausally it occurs in about one third of possible cases only. Post-vocalically, if all

types of context containing a preceding monosyllabic form of (semi-)proclitic

type are excluded, the vowel appears in 32 per cent of possible cases.

The two other collections of private letters show the effective abandonment of

the vowel. In Machiavelli’s letters, even in the most favoured context for the

earlier letter-writers, post-consonantal position, it is only very sparingly used67

and we find numerous cases such as in spirito (letter of 9March 1498), per scusarsi

(22 April 1499), in Spagna (12 June 1506), in specie (10 December 1513), per starmi,

per scusato (17 August 1525), si mettera in scritto (4 April 1526). In Michelangelo’s

private letters, the vowel appears a little more frequently but, apart from post-

consonantally, its incidence is at best marginal. It is doubtless significant that

both writers were educated and came from families of some social standing,

particularly Niccolo Machiavelli whose father was a cultivated bibliophile.

A doubly interesting picture thus emerges from the linguistic evidence

provided by private letters. On the one hand, it indicates that far from being

abandoned by the fourteenth century, the prosthetic and prefixal vowel [i-]

remained in widespread use amongst Tuscan speakers up to the late fifteenth

century at least. On the other hand, having apparently progressed towards

generalized use in all contexts except following a proclitic or near-proclitic

vowel-final monosyllabic form, the vowel mysteriously appears to have lost

productivity and to have been abandoned with remarkable speed. To explain

these circumstances, it is important to recall that in later medieval Tuscany two

distinct written traditions had developed: the style used by the merchant class for

their letters and accounts, and literary discourse. The former had its roots much

more directly in spoken usage whereas the latter represented a learned, conscious-

ly elaborated medium drawing extensively on Latin and gradually taking on its

definitive form in two stages, in the fourteenth century through the works of the

67 In fact, just one letter (15 April 1520) in the collected edition of Gaeta accounts for six

of the overall total of ten cases where the vowel appears. The explanation for the

exceptionally high incidence of the vowel in this one particular letter is not clear.

I-prosthesis 91

Tre Corone and in the fifteenth century through Humanism.68 The more vernac-

ular-based mercantile style remained in use up to the end of the fifteenth century

when moves towards establishing a codified written standard Italian language

got under way. After a good deal of controversy in the questione della lingua

debate, the model proposed by Pietro Bembo in his Prose della volgar lingua (1525)

found general acceptance in the second half of the sixteenth century. This

advocated taking the usage of the fourteenth-century writers Petrarch and Boc-

caccio (and Dante with some reservations) as the basis for literary Italian. In the

new ideal, the prosthetic and prefixal [i-] vowel had little place. As we have seen,

in the writings of Petrarch and Boccaccio the only context where the vowel occurs

with any degree of frequency is in post-consonantal position. Accordingly,

Bembo only acknowledges the acceptability of the vowel post-consonantally

and states that prosthesis in s impura words ‘fassi per lo piu quando la voce,

che dinanzi a queste cotali voci sta, in consonante finisce, per ischifare in quella

guisa l’asprezza, che ne uscirebbe se cio non si facesse’.69 The only other manifes-

tation of prosthesis sanctioned by Bembo is the use of the masculine definite and

indefinite article alternants, lo, gli, and uno, whose form is due in part to the

earlier presence of an initial vowel.70 Lo appears to correspond to l’ which

developed prevocalically as in l’uomo, l’atto, etc., but before singular s impura

nouns (and later loans with word-initial heterosyllabic onsets) the vowel of lo was

preserved to perform the same function as a prosthetic [i], hence los|pecchio > lo

specchio (and lo psicologo). The normal plural form was at first li whose vowel [i]

regularly developed to [j] when a vowel-initial form followed, hence li atti > [lj]

atti > [L] atti (gli atti). Etymological s impura nouns similarly show [L] as in gli

specchi, indicating that they too were vowel-initial in earlier times (Rohlfs 1966-8:

}} 187, 414; Maiden 1995: 118–19). The indefinite article takes on a comparable

pattern of alternation in the masculine singular form, uno before nouns begin-

ning with s impura or other word-initial heterosyllabic onets (uno specchio and

uno psicologo) where [o] was similarly retained to perform the same role as a

prosthetic vowel and with un elsewhere (un atto, un muro). This arrangement is

likewise established from the sixteenth century.

The prestige of the new literary-based standard was such that the use of the

prosthetic or prefixal vowel [i-] in contexts other than post-consonantally came

68 Cf. Sanga (1995: 86): ‘L’italiano e frutto di un ritorno al latino: e l’elaborazione del

toscano (e piu precisamente della sua componente egemone, il fiorentino) sul modello

latino. La latinizzazione del toscano avra due tappe: la prima e fondamentale col

preumanesimo di Dante, Petrarca e Boccaccio; l’altra con l’Umanesimo nel Quattrocento.’69 ‘it is used mainly when the word which stands in front of these words [i.e. those

beginning with s impura] ends in a consonant, so as thereby to avoid the roughness that

would result if it was not used’ (book I, 11; p. 103 in the edition by Dionisotti).70 Prose III, 9. Cf. also Rohlfs (1968: }414), and also below.

92 I-prosthesis

increasingly to be shunned by any educated writer from the sixteenth century

onward. Migliorini (1984: 280) reports that the prosthetic vowel ‘was well ob-

served in popular usage’ in the seventeenth century, though he cites no sources of

information but just the examples non istare and per isposa where characteristi-

cally the vowel appears post-consonantally.71 Subsequently, the vowel has become

less and less common even in post-consonantal position. In the nineteenth

century, Alessandro Manzoni still scrupulously observed the ‘rule’ that the

vowel was used post-consonantally in his celebrated novel I Promessi Sposi, e.g.

che non ista bene (6, 36), a non iscriver nulla (9, 75), per istrascinarlo (32, 10)

(Serianni and Castelvecchi 1988: 24). And exceptionally, through reinterpretation

as a result of crossing with prefixal IN- (cf. 4.1.2), the prosthetic vowel has been

lexicalized in individual words, notably in the form istesso which is found in the

verse of Leopardi written prior to 1820 and is also more frequent than stesso is his

prose works Pensieri and Epistolario, although the form istesso was evidently

coming to be judged ‘popolare e dialettale’ in this century (Vitale 1992: 232).72

However, from the later nineteenth century onward after the unification of

Italy had finally been achieved, various sociolinguistic forces served to promote

and diffuse an increasingly standardized form of Italian. These forces included the

establishment of mass education, the introduction of national service, the rise of a

71 In the Italian edition, Migliorini notes that prosthesis ‘e bene osservata nell’uso

popolare,’, but adds ‘mentre qualche volta si sgarra nella scrittura.’ Presumably, ‘scrittura’

here refers to formal, and especially literary, writing.72 Comparable forms with lexicalized initial [i-] are found elsewhere, in northern Italy

and beyond. For instance, Listess ‘equal, same’ occurs in the Lower Engadinish variety of

Rheto-Romance spoken in Sent, where all traces of regular I-prosthesis have otherwise

been lost (Pult 1897: }169). The initial palatal lateral [L-] is the regular outcome of original

[l-] preceding a high front vowel. In many northern Italian varieties the initial prosthetic

vowel has been reinterpreted as prefixal in-, as in instess in Milanese and Romagnolo

corresponding to <instesso> which appears in late medieval texts from northern Italy

(Mussafia 1873: 95). Other comparable cases of reinterpretation are to be found in medieval

northern Italian texts where etymological [e-] is present. Thus, the northern poet Bonvesin

da la Riva c.1250- c.1315 uses the verb inxir ‘to go out’ (< EXIRE), and the feminine past

participle insida ‘gone out’ appears in a Venetian document of 1313 (Stussi 1965: text 66).

Though sometimes attributed to analogy from INTRARE (e.g. Stussi 1965: lix), the verb

probably owes its form largely to the interplay between prosthetic and etymological

prefixal vowels. Similar cases of reinterpretation involving non-prefixal etymological [e-]

are instade ‘summer’ < AESTATE(M) which was widespread in earlier times in northern

dialects (Mussafia loc. cit.) and ingual < AEQUALE(M) which appears in the fifteenth-century

Milanese vernacular version of the Elucidarium (Degli Innocenti 1984). Further afield,

Malkiel (1975: especially 505–12) examines in detail the interplay of ens-, enx- (> enj-), and

etymological EX- in Hispano-Romance, as in ensayo ‘test, trial’, enjambre ‘swarm (of bees)’

< EXAGIU(M), EXAMINE.

I-prosthesis 93

central bureaucracy, the growth of mass media and major demographic move-

ments, especially from south to north Italy, due to industrialization and the

consequent need for manpower. They encouraged the formation of a non-

literary-based, practical form of Italian in which rarely occurring and variable

phenomena like prosthetic vowels found little place. In the early twentieth

century, school textbooks for Italians were still advocating the use of the pros-

thetic vowel in s impura forms preceded by the consonant-final words in, per, con,

non. One grammar published in 1919, for instance, cites model forms such as in

iscuola, per istrada, con istento, non iscomodare (Tomasini 1951: 116). However,

more recently the use of the vowel has been all but abandoned in written and

educated Italian, although it may appear in literary and other high-register

writings in certain residual set phrases such as per iscritto.73 In addition to the

vowel’s statistical infrequency and the various sociolinguistic forces that would

have militated against its preservation, De Mauro (1993: 410–11) has identified a

further formal factor which may have hastened its abandonment. This relates to

the appearance in modern times of numerous loanwords in Italian which end in a

consonant or sequence of consonants. When such words are followed by another

word with an initial consonantal sequence, the result is a complex consonantal

sequence unthinkable at earlier stages of the language, for example in flirt

pseudoserio, snob straordinario, quiz mnemonico. Speakers have evidently avoided

consonant assimilation, epenthesis, or deletion in such cases—no speaker would

ever say **quiz imnemonico, for instance. Instead, they have sought to preserve the

phonological integrity of each individual word, prompted no doubt by influence

from the written form. However, the individuation of the word seen here runs

counter to the use of sandhi phenomena such as prosthetic or prefixal [i-], and

thus seems to provide a further factor which would undermine use of the vowel.

Nonetheless, despite the almost total abandonment of the vowel in written

Italian and, as a result of this, in the spoken usage of the more highly literate, it

continues to exist in a number of other varieties of Tuscan up to the present day,

particularly in the speech of those of lesser education and in geographically more

rural and peripheral areas. Thus, in his dictionary of the Tuscan of Lucca and

the surrounding area, Nieri (1902: 95) states that prosthetic [i-] was still used

with almost total regularity (‘quasi costantemente’) by ordinary speakers and

especially by peasants, not only post-consonantally where its occurrence is sys-

tematic but also post-pausally, as in Ispingiallo!, Ista fermo!. 74 It is also claimed

73 Cf. ‘Il fenomeno [sc. la prostesi] . . . e oggi in forte regresso, tranne nelle locuzioni in

iscritto, per iscritto’ (Serianni and Castelvecchi 1988: 24).74 For post-pausal contexts, the ALEIC (map 326) reports non-prosthetic [staf ’f¡rmo]

at pt. 54 Lucca (Mutigliano) for Sta fermo!. However, prosthetic realizations are given for

other items at this location, such as post-consonantal [un is’tavo ’b¡N] Non stavo bene

94 I-prosthesis

that prosthetic forms appear post-vocalically too although no examples are cited.

Drawing on Nieri’s data, Rohlfs (1966: }187) similarly reports the occurrence of

prosthetic [i-] in varieties of Lucchese, identifying post-pausal position as the

preferred context. The linguistic atlas of Corsica, ALEIC, which also includes

responses from three points in Tuscany, Pisa (53), Lucca (54) and Stazzema (55),

provides further examples. For Pisa (Putignano), we find post-consonantal [un

is’tava] non stava (map 322), [per istris’sa] per strizzare (map 906) and [¡n’trayanis’kP:la] e intrata in iscuola (map 1478). See also footnote 74. Other cases are

cited by Rohlfs for varieties spoken in the NWand E of Tuscany. The presence of

the vowel is also reported for the Tuscan-based varieties spoken on the islands of

Elba and Corsica (see Map 6). The ALEIC, which reports a single locality in Elba

(pt 52, Marciana), cites forms such as [un es’tava] (map 322), sentence-initial [is’pjana] ‘Roll out . . . !’ (map 1623), and [is’to pper ezve’nimmi] Sto per svenire ‘I

am about to faint’ (map 1833) where [i-] appears to be used sentence-initially and

[e-] elsewhere. In Corsica, the vowel is always realized as [i-] and is reported by

Rohlfs to be ‘molto diffusa’ and especially common when in sentence-initial

position and after the (consonant-final) article un (1966: }187).75 However, the

ALEIC indicates that the use of [i-] is more especially found in an area lying

roughly south of a line from Vescovado across to Galeria and down as far as

Portovecchio and La Monacia but excluding Bonifacio. The vowel reportedly

occurs sentence-initially and post-consonantally only, cf. [una s’tr¡a . . . un is-

tri’�Pne] una strega . . . uno stregone ‘a witch, a wizard’ (pt. 27 Guagno, map

1929), and the latter context also includes negative un(n) ([un(n)is’tawa] non

stava ‘he was not’ (pts. 19, 22, 27, 30, etc.; map 322) and other consonant-

final semi-proclitics such as par (= per), cf. maps 906, 1833.

Though use of I-prosthesis is now increasingly restricted to rural speakers

who have been less exposed to standard language influence, urban speakers

may also still preserve traces of the vowel. In the informal local usage of

Florence itself, forms such as [uniz’mette] ‘he is not stopping’ (= non smette)

are found where the use of [i-] has been maintained. Also, forms such as

[Lis’krive] ‘he writes’ [Liz’mette] ‘he stops’ indicate the presence of the vowel

[i-] since the masculine third-person singular subject clitic only appears as [L]pre-vocalically (pre-consonantally it is realized as [e]). Such forms occur at

all levels of Florentine usage according to Giannelli (2000: 39, n. 85), although

(map 348) and phrase-initial and post-consonantal [is’to per izve’nimmi] Sto per svenire

(map 1833).75 Curiously, there is no indication of the use of the vowel in the detailed linguistic

studies on Corsican by Dalbera-Stefanaggi (1978, 1991). However, Melillo (1977: 107–8)

notes some cases of I-prosthesis. The first linguistic atlas of Corsica, the ALF: Corse is

unrevealing.

I-prosthesis 95

it seems likely that with more educated speakers they are more usual in informal

styles.

4.4 Type 2 (‘Western Romance’): general development of

unconditioned I-prosthesis

I-prosthesis appears to have become an unconditioned phonological process in

virtually all types of Sardinian and Ibero-Romance during the course of the

Middle Ages. In Gallo-Romance, the great majority of varieties likewise acquired

a rule of prosthesis but in both the langue d’oıl in the north and Occitan (or langue

d’oc) in the south there were some exceptions where the rule was abandoned.

Prosthesis has widely continued to be a productive rule where it had become

established by the later Middle Ages, but for various reasons, sociolinguistic and

structural, it has ceased to operate as a regular process in certain varieties.

4.4.1 SARDINIAN

Sardinian represents a dialect complex showing a good deal of diversity from

northern varieties (Sassarese, Gallurese, etc.) through the conservative central

varieties (Logudorese, Nuorese, etc.) and down to Campidanese in the south (see

Map 7). There is no recognized standard variety of Sardinian, although Campi-

danese has come to acquire a certain prestige thanks to the influence of the capital

Cagliari which is located on the south coast.

Despite the many differences between the varieties of Sardinian, a shared

feature is that prosthesis appears to have become established as a phonological

process everywhere during the medieval period (Wagner 1941: }79). The prosthet-ic vowel has the quality [i] in Sardinian since Latin ı did not undergo lowering to

/e/ as in most other types of Romance. Indications of the vowel are found in the

earliest vernacular texts that were composed between the eleventh and fourteenth

centuries.76 These are all non-literary prose works and include several substantial

condaghi, i.e. official registers of legal acts such as sales, purchases, or judgements

in land disputes, which involve individual monasteries. In the Logudorese con-

daghe of San Pietro di Silki dating from the eleventh to thirteenth centuries

(Bonazzi 1979) we find prosthetic vowels in all context types: (post-consonantal)

in Istefane ‘against (I)stefane (i.e. Stephen)’ (200) and (post-vocalic) a ffiios de

Istefane ‘to the sons of (I)stefane’ (24), and with words other than proper nouns

76 For a convenient inventory and brief characterization of the earliest extant texts, see

Blasco Ferrer (1995: esp. 252–9).

96 I-prosthesis

assa iscala lancinosa ‘to the slippery steep path’ (198), ad iscala (4), prossu istaniu

(i) ‘for the pool’ (64), prossa isclatta (284) ‘for the stock/issue’. As may be

predicted, there has been coalescence between words with a prosthetic vowel

and prefixal forms containing etymological EX-, DIS- þ consonant or IN-þ /sC-/

(cf. 4.1.1), for example non la potho iscoiuuare ‘I cannot unmarry her’ (< EX-/DIS-

CONIUGARE) (66). Prosthesis is likewise regularly indicated in the twelfth-century

condaghe of San Nicola di Trullas (Merci 1992) which also comes from the

Logudoro region: dessa isscala ‘of the steep path’ (63), sos fratres, ki lu iscian

‘the brothers who knew of it’ (14), abe ispelunca tuva ‘from the deep cave’ (50),

and (post-pausal) istande a cclaru su curatore ‘the administrator being in a place

with a clear view’ (179). Rare cases where no prosthetic vowel graphy occurs are to

be found in both texts; for example, the Condaghe of San Pietro di Silki contains

the name Petru de Scanu (439) though this is matched by Jorgi d’Iscanu (25), and

in the other Condaghe there is qui scribo (296) which occurs in a formulaic

latinizing sentence. Exceptional non-prosthetic forms like these are often attrib-

utable to the conscious use of a latinizing orthography or they may just reflect

inadvertent omission by the scribe.77

In other areas of medieval Sardinia, a similar picture emerges with prosthetic

forms being widely found. However, it has been noted that prosthesis was more

sporadically attested in documents written in Campidanese, e.g. maiore de scolca

in a twelfth-century charter from Cagliari (Guarnerio 1906: 207; Wagner 1907:

}50, 1941: }79). In view of later developments in southern varieties of Sardinian,

this may perhaps be seen as an early indication of the retreat from I-prosthesis

which these varieties were to undergo.

After the definitive establishment of the Aragonese as the rulers of Sardinia

in 1478, Catalan took over as the official language.78 Direct attestations of

77 Cf. dessa scala de Gitilesu (113) in the Condaghe of San Nicola di Trullas, where no

orthographic prosthetic vowel is present. In the same section where the form scala appears,

however, there are four other etymological s impura forms attested and each has a

prosthetic vowel indicated: two occurrences of sa iscala and one each of suta iscala and

suta ispelunca. Scribal oversight seems a likely explanation here for the non-prosthetic

form therefore.78 Already in 1326, the Aragonese had taken over power in the southern part of Sardinia.

Control over the whole island came as a result of the battle of Macomer in 1478 when the

resisting forces of Arborea were finally defeated. Catalan remained the working language of

officialdom after the unification of Castile and Aragon in 1479. It continued to be used

widely, especially amongst the upper classes of the towns, even after Castilian finally was

adopted in 1643 as the exclusive language for laws and decrees. Considerable influence from

Catalan and, later, Castilian radiated northward from Cagliari and the south; Alghero, in

contrast, seems to have remained a rather isolated linguistic area and exercised little effect

on language usage elsewhere in Sardinia (Wagner 1951: 183–244).

I-prosthesis 97

Sardinian became fewer as it ceased to be used as a written medium for adminis-

trative and other high-profile purposes. Knowledge of developments in the

period from the fifteenth century onward is therefore limited until modern

times when systematic linguistic investigations of contemporary Sardinian vari-

eties got under way. These indicate that the use of prosthetic [i-] has continued to

be general everywhere except in Campidanese and Gallurese where extensive

aphaeresis has taken place.79 In the south, the general retreat from I-prosthesis

is especially evident in the variety of Cagliari which probably represents the focal

point for the development. Fostered doubtless by influence from Italian (Wagner

1941: }79), aphaeresis has affected not only the prosthetic vowel in original

s impura words but also the etymological vowel of prefixal EX- and DIS- > /is-/.

Examples are skala, spıssu, stai, skrıri < SCALA, SP�ISSU(M), STARE, SCRIBERE (Virdis

1978; Blasco Ferrer 1984: 210); skruttsu < DIS-CALCEU(M) ‘barefoot’ with stress vowel

change /a/ > /u/, skuðiri < EX-CUTERE ‘to strike’. However, the process of aphaeresis

has not been carried through completely so that prosthetic and prefixal vowels

continue to be used. In the speech of the dialect of Sestu just north of Cagliari, for

example, there appear phrases such as (post-pausal) [’skruttsu | iskorri’au . . . ] <* DISCULCEU(M),80 EX-CORRIGIATU(M) ‘Barefoot, ragged . . . ’ and [izbar’kaus] < EX-/

DIS-BARCAMUS ‘We land’, where a prosthetic or prefixal vowel is variably found

amongst different speakers. However, in post-consonantal contexts a prosthetic

vowel systematically occurs, often realized with a quality [i, a, u] copied from the

preceding vowel [iz is’pPzuzu] < SPONSOS ‘the bride and groom’, [’duazas’kattuKaza] < It. scatola ‘two boxes’, [ki zi ffuz uspi¡’�aða] < It. spiegate ‘if

you explain them to them’ (Bolognesi 1998: 62–4). A comparable prosthetic vowel

is also found before the word-initial sibilant geminates [tts] and [ʃʃ], althoughthe favoured quality for the vowel here appears to be just [i].81 The facts thus

seem to suggest that in this variety there has been partial retention of the earlier

prosthetic and prefixal vowel, with subsequent generalization of the vowel in

order to resolve other complex word-initial onsets containing sibilants.

Wagner (1941: }80) notes comparable incomplete abandonment of the pros-

thetic and prefixal vowel in varieties lying further north of Cagliari. In particular,

he reports that the etymological vowel [i] of prefixal forms like (i)skufiri appears

79 In the south of Sardinia, aphaeresis is found in dialects as far north as the

Gennargentu area, e.g. SPECULU(M) > (Cagliari) sprigu but (Aritzo) isprigu (Wagner 1907:

}145 and map VI).80 REW 2662. This unattested form is a variant of DISCALCEU(M) ‘barefoot’ but its

existence is indicated by other Romance reflexes such as Romanian descult, Engadinish

scuz, Friulian discolts all of which also preserve the original meaning ‘barefoot’.81 For example, is tsugusu [iz it’tsu�uzu] ‘the necks’, at sipiu [að iʃ’ʃippju] ‘has known

(p.p.)’, no siu [nP iʃ’ʃi:u] ‘I do not know’. The latter two examples illustrate the preference

for [i] rather than a quality copied from that of the preceding vowel.

98 I-prosthesis

to have been deleted less rapidly than prosthetic [i-]. For example, in the dialect

of Villacidro located about 60 km NW of Cagliari, prosthetic [i-] has been

regularly deleted but a prefixal form such as EX-P�INGERE gives ispıngi ‘to press’.

The explanation for this may be that original s impurawords still showed /isC-/�/sC-/ alternations in varieties like that of Villacidro when moves towards aphaer-

esis began to operate, so that in contrast to prefixed forms there was already an

existing non-prosthetic alternant which could readily be generalized.

In the north and north-east of Sardinia, Gallurese has similarly experi-

enced general aphaeresis, skala, skola, speccu, sganatu ‘unwilling, lacking

appetite’ (< DIS-GAN-ATU, derived from Germanic gainon ‘to strive’ cf. Sp.

ganar, gana) and, as with Campidanese, the development appears to owe

itself in no small measure to external influence (Bottiglioni 1920: }}35, 51).The northern area of Sardinia was largely depopulated through wars and

disease in the later Middle Ages and was subsequently repopulated from the

sixteenth century onward by Corsican and Tuscan immigrants (Wagner 1951:

393–5). Gallura received mainly southern Corsicans who had largely aban-

doned the use of prosthesis in their native speech. It seems not unlikely

therefore that this substantial influx of new speakers served to reinforce any

tendency to abandon prosthesis amongst the few remaining native Gallurese

inhabitants.

Elsewhere, the prosthetic and prefixal vowel [i-] has been more generally

preserved. However, limited cases of deletion have been noted in present-day

usage in even the more conservative varieties, Nuorese and Logudorese.

Thus, the use of prosthetic [i-] is general in Nuorese but Pittau (1972: }23)indicates that post-pausally the vowel can be optionally deleted in words

originally containing more than two syllables, i.e. either in etymological

paroxytones containing a pre-stress syllable (i)sposare < SPOSARE or in pro-

paroxytones (i)strınghere < STR�INGERE. Corda (1994: 177) reports the same

phenomenon in Logudorese. Prosodic factors may be operating here, as

speakers seek to limit the syllabic structure of polysyllabic words. Also, it

seems not unlikely that this constraint on the scope of prosthesis may be due

in part to influence from the prestigious usage of the capital Cagliari and

other southern varieties where non-prosthetic realizations are normal, as has

been noted. However, it is not clear why [i-] deletion has so far been limited

to post-pausal contexts only.

Finally, attention might briefly be called to a highly distinctive phonetic

development found in varieties of Sassarese in the NW of Sardinia, where

sequences of /s/þ consonant undergo major phonetic change. In these varieties,

the contrast between /s/ and the liquids /l/, /r/ was neutralized in pre-consonantal

position and the resulting sound thereafter developed differently according to the

I-prosthesis 99

place or articulation of the following consonant. Thus, in the dialect of Sennori

(Jaggli 1959):82

/l, r, s/þ velar consonant > [xx] or [ªª] SCALA > [ix’xa:la]/l, r, s/þ labial > [j]þ geminate labial SPIN(U)LA > [ip’pilla]83

/l, r, s/þ coronal > [¸]84þ coronal STARE > [i¸’ta:re], STR�INGERE >[i¸’triNgere]

Prefixal forms follow the same path of change, EX-BATTULARE > ibbattulare ‘to whip

(liquids)’. And despite the substantial phonetic change undergone in the opening

sequence of these forms, later borrowings have been adapted to conform with

them, e.g. Catalan estimar > [i¸ti’ma:re] ‘to love’, Italian scarpa > [ix’xappa].The present-day status of I-prosthesis as a truly productive process in Sassarese

and other northern and central varieties of Sardinian remains uncertain, however,

as available descriptions seldom make clear whether it still continues to operate

with loanwords as it did in earlier times.85 Also, the increasing influence in

education, the mass media and general social interaction from standard Italian

where this phonological process has been effectively abandoned seems likely to

pose an ever stronger threat to its stability in northern and central Sardinian

varieties. Also, at a regional level, the disuse of I-prosthesis in the influential

variety used in the capital Cagliari can only further contribute to this destructive

influence.

4.4.2 IBERO-ROMANCE

In Ibero-Romance, the use of the prosthetic alternant was progressively

generalized during the first half of the Middle Ages. By the thirteenth century

at the latest, a systematic rule of vowel prosthesis had become fully established

and it has continued to operate in all eastern and central varieties. However, in

some western areas of the Iberian Peninsula more recent change has led to the

weakening and even elimination of the prosthetic vowel in speech although it

82 Directly comparable reflexes are found in the nearby dialect of Sorso (p.c. Amina

Kropp).83 Where a preceding [i] is present, there is merger with the following yod, [ij] > [i].

The regular creation of yod is confirmed by the evolution of words such as VESPA > [¡jppa]‘wasp’.

84 This is a voiceless lateral fricative similar to the sound spelt ll in Welsh.85 Loporcaro (1999: 137), for instance, states that Sardinian resembles modern French in

no longer having a productive rule of prosthesis with s impura words. However, there is

some uncertainty as to whether just ‘standard’ Sardinian based on the usage of Cagliari is

being referred to or whether the conservative central varieties are also being characterized.

100 I-prosthesis

continues to find representation in spelling and to maintain a presence at an

underlying level.

Turning to the stages of evolution of I-prosthesis, we have noted (4.1.3) that

there are comparatively few signs of prosthesis in the surviving Latin epigraphical

record for Hispania.86 However, in the early Middle Ages, written evidence of

various sorts points to the growing use of prosthetic vowels, although their

presence can often be concealed either as a result of such vowels being viewed

as predictable sandhi phenomena which could therefore be ignored, or because

scribes tried to abide by conservative Latin spelling conventions thanks to the

preservation of relatively high educational standards in Visigothic Spain, at least

among the elite of the Church. Various revealing sources of data exist for this

early medieval period: (i) texts composed by the less educated, such as legal

writings, e.g. istatuimus and hypercorrect sta lex = ISTA LEX, legis stius = LEGIS ISTIUS,

or inscriptions on coins, hypercorrect Spali for HISPALI ‘in Seville’ (Gil 2004: 156);

(ii) medieval inscriptions, as in ispiritum and hypercorrections like Spalis =

HISPALIS and ste = ISTE (Vives 1969: 439, 273 respectively); (iii) false etymologies,

as in Isidore’s identification of the contemporary forms ESCARUS and ISCURRA with

the word ESCA ‘bait’ rather than with Classical Latin SCARUS, SCURRA (Etym. 10,152

and 12,6,30; cf. also n. 13 above); (iv) inscriptions on slate which contain forms

such as ispe, istare (Velazquez 2000: items 29, 40); (v) rhythmic hymns with a

fixed number of syllables per line, e.g. (5þ 7 syllable line) septem stellae || micant

agni dextera where a prosthetic vowel must occur at the beginning of stellae to

satisfy syllabic structure (Stotz 1996: 103).87

The disintegration of Visigothic Spain in 711 led to some decline in levels of

education in the Christian-held areas of the Peninsula, but the spelling tradition

where prosthetic vowels had no visual representation continued to influence scribal

habits in the way texts were written. In particular, set legal formulae tended to

preserve their original Latin form. In other linguisticmaterial, there is a good deal of

variability in the representation of prosthetic vowels, dependent on how formal and

official (and hence latinate) the document is and the degree of training of individual

scribes. The variability extends throughout the period up to the thirteenth century

86 Carnoy (1906: 110) lists thirteen examples, some hypercorrective; Prinz (1938)

identifies just seven reliable cases of prosthesis of which five are from Christian

inscriptions; Gaeng (1968) confirms the latter figure.87 The dating of these hymns is problematic and some doubtless date from post-

Visigothic Spain. The use of prosthetic vowels in them is not systematic but appears to

provide an optional strategy for meeting metrical demands. Thus, in one six-line verse in a

ninth-century hymn there are two lines containing words written with initial

sþ consonant—one shows evidence of prosthesis, the other does not: (5þ 7) Percalcans

pede || velut spurcissima and Sibi aeterna || acquirens stipendia, respectively (Wright

1982: 69).

I-prosthesis 101

when substantial numbers of texts written in vernacular rather than Latin-based

orthography start to become available. For example, in a legal document dated

approximately 1100 from the province of Burgos inCastile,88 various non-prosthetic

forms occur: there are the Latin formulae ita dicit scriptura, Ihoanes Galindez

presbiter scripsit and the proper name Stefan Fannez (a witness to the document).

However, che aesso extidiesent is also found, where the final word which derives from

STETISSENT ‘might be (3rd pl. imp.subj.)’ is of interest. Evidently, the scribe was used

to hearing an initial vowel element [e-] in this form and he has interpreted it as being

the reflex of a Latin verb containing prefixal EX- (cf. 4.1.1).

A similar picture is found in western and eastern areas of Christian Spain.

For instance, the Latin texts of the cartulary of San Julian de Samos in Galicia,

though showing significant signs of vernacular influence, typically have non-

prosthetic forms such as frenos et sellas et duas spatas et II scutos (982–90), una

strectura (1074) (Lucas Alvarez 1986; Lorenzo Vazquez 2003: 166–7). But in the

cartulary of San Vicente de Oviedo in Asturias, prosthetic forms such as

escripsit (890), espontanea (1037), and estant < STANT (1069) are reported

(Jennings 1940: 82). In the east, Aragonese texts written in Latin contain

only sporadic examples of prosthetic vowels up to and including the thir-

teenth century, e.g. Esteuano in a document of 1164 and espunia ‘river bank’ <

SP�OND-ULA (1216) from Sobrarbe (Alvar 1953: }85, 1973: 85). And in Catalonia,

prosthesis is likewise indicated only sporadically in Latin texts. Thus, in a

collection of legal documents from the Barcelona region edited by Russell-

Gebbett (1965), there is no indication at all of prosthetic vowels in, for

example, texts 6 (1028–47), 9 (1043–117), and 11 (1131). Yet, in text 13 (1076)

which is from the same region and of comparable content, three out of four

possible contexts show latinizing hypercorrections, ab ipso extret ‘gorge’ <

STR�ICTU(M), per ipsa exponna, illa exponna ‘river bank’ < SP�ONDA.89

Finally, in Al-Andalus, the area of the Peninsula under Islamic control,

Romance-based varieties collectively referred to as Mozarabic remained in

use after 711 and continued to be spoken up to the end of the fourteenth

century. However, our knowledge of the use of prosthesis in these varieties is

very limited. This is because all surviving evidence of them is written in

Arabic or, more rarely, Hebrew script which often fails to indicate vowels,

especially unstressed ones. Amongst the few pieces of relevant data that are

available there are two late twelfth-century Toledan Mozarabic documents

written in Arabic script (Gonzalez Palencia 1926-30: texts 71 and 1039), in

which there appears a form deriving from SANCTU(M) STEPHANU(M) ‘St Stephen’,

88 Text in Menendez Pidal (1966: 195).89 The only other item containing a potential context for prosthesis is in ipsa Spulga de

Franculi, a place name corresponding to present-day L’Espluga de Francoli.

102 I-prosthesis

corresponding to Castilian San Esteban, which may be transcribed as snt istabn

or snt istebn.90 The initial vowel of the second word is fortunately clearly

indicated in the text by the scribe, but the appropriate interpretation of its origins

is not without problems. In particular, it is not clear whether the vowel represents

the direct result of I-prosthesis within the Late Latin of southern Spain, or whether

it owes itself in large part to influence fromArabic. For the Arabic language did not

permit any complex word-initial onsets, a fact which explains forms like kireyo (=

Cast. creo) in the verse of Ibn Quzman (c.1080–1160) and iqridu, ikridu in six-

teenth-century writings of Valencian moriscos (Galmes 1983: 29, 336), where

interestingly both epenthesis and prosthesis were used as alternative strategies

for onset restructuring. We may note that in modern Egyptian Arabic a similar

double strategy still regularly operates with loanword adaptation: prosthesis with

word-initial [s]þ obstruent onsets, #istadi< Engl. study, but epenthesis elsewhere,

tiransilet < Engl. translate (Broselow 1991). As both Ibero-Romance and Arabic

had developed similar prosthetic processes for eliminating complex s impura

onsets, the assumption that a vowel was normally introduced at the beginning

of forms with such onsets in Mozarabic seems reasonable, particularly as most

Mozarabic speakers were doubtless effectively bilingual in Arabic by the twelfth

century.

Leaving aside the circumstances in Al-Andalus, we find that as a result of the

almost exclusive use in the Peninsula of latinizing spelling conventions for

the composition of texts and also the possibility that prosthetic vowels may still

have been understood as predictable and hence omissible sandhi phenomena,

the representation of prosthetic forms remained somewhat unsystematic in the

period up to the beginning of the thirteenth century. It is therefore difficult to

make safe judgments on how generalized I-prosthesis had become in this period.

Also, few reliable conclusions can be drawn on the process of actualization with

I-prosthesis, e.g. whether it first occurred post-consonantally and post-pausally

before spreading to post-vocalic contexts. Even when vernacular items are found,

as in theGlosas Emilianenses andGlosas Silenses of the later eleventh century91 which

90 Galmes (1983: 93) reads the original as snt stebn. The vowel e is justified by the general

use of the spelling for long [a:] to represent [e:] in Al-Andalus (Galmes 1983: 50).However, the

written form for the second word in the Arabic text appearing in Gonzalez Palencia’s

compilation clearly contains a word-initial vowel. In fact, Galmes recognizes this in his

transcription on p. 50 where he indicates the vowel as [a], but curiously he omits the vowel

in his reading on p. 93. In the Christian Arab world of Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and

Jordan, the name Stephen is rendered in Arabic as Ustufan, the quality of the first vowel

evidently copying that of the following vowel.My sincere thanks go to Abi Mnatzaganian, a

native speaker of Arabic, for his invaluable assistance in clarifying the linguistic details here.91 Much debate has surrounded the dating of these two compilations of Latin

ecclesiastical texts into which later scribes have inserted (vernacularized) Latin glosses to

I-prosthesis 103

are commonly claimed to provide the earliest direct indications of Castilian, the

evidence is unrevealing about prosthesis. In fact, no words of appropriate structure

to undergo prosthesis present themselves in the 147 vernacular glosses of the former

text, and in the latter there are just eight of the 368 glosses where a prosthetic vowel

might be expected to be indicated. However, it never is, and instead the attested

forms are scuitare (120), scuita (125), scriptura (313); speret (212), streita (201), stiercore

(332), stranglatos (319), studiosamientre (350) (= mod. Cast. eschuchar, escucha,

escritura, espere, estrecha, estiercol, estrangulados, estudiosamente, respectively).92

It is not until we have running texts which seek to represent vernacular usage

using a vernacular-based rather than a Latin-based spelling system that I-pros-

thesis begins to be more faithfully represented. Significant numbers of texts first

appear in the thirteenth century although, in more formal and official writings in

the vernacular, residues of the conservative latinizing spelling tradition can still be

apparent. The general picture which emerges from the available doumentation is

that I-prosthesis has become generalized in all Peninsular varieties. In Castilian,

evidence of this generalization is present in the earliest vernacular texts of the

thirteenth century. For example, in the two versions, Castilian and Leonese, of

the Tratado de Cabreros which date from 1206, prosthesis is general93 (Wright

2000). And although verse writings often provide less reliable evidence on the use

of prosthesis, as the addition of a vowel clearly has metrical implications, it is

notable that in the earliest substantial verse composition, the Cantar de Mio Cid

dating from 1207,94 prosthetic vowels are represented with almost total regularity.

clarify Latin words presumably incomprehensible to trainee clerics. Menendez Pidal

(1964a: 2, 9) dates them to the mid-tenth and to the second half of the tenth century,

respectively. This view has been challenged on paleographical and linguistic grounds,

however, and it is now generally accepted that they both date from the eleventh century,

and perhaps the second half of it (although this later dating has in turn been contested by

Garcıa Turza and Garcıa Turza 1998).92 In addition to these, a clearly latinate gloss statim appears twice (214, 357), and to

gloss STILLAM there is a prefixal form destello (14) that sheds no light on possible prosthesis.93 There is in fact one case in the Castilian version where an expected prosthetic vowel is

lacking, <como scpto> (with a superscript contraction diacritic on <p>). But it is

significant that, if we leave aside the concluding formulae which are traditionally written

in latinate style, all five other instances of forms of the verb escribir in the text show

prosthesis. The exceptional case may therefore owe itself to scribal influence from Latin.94 The dating of the Cid has been much discussed. In 1908, Menendez Pidal proposed

1140 as the original date of composition, a view which gained universal acceptance.

However, from the 1970s there have been increasingly dissenting voices and today it is

generally accepted that 1207 represents the date when the present version of the poem was

written down (cf. Smith [1972] 1989: esp. 37–46). Smith, p. 38, sees Per Abbat (cf. Per Abbat

le escrivio, l. 3732) as the poem’s author, while others view him as just the scribe who set

104 I-prosthesis

There are just four lexical items yielding twelve tokens which have word-initial

sþC- graphies.95 Three are etymological s impura forms where the expected

prosthetic vowel is not written, spirital (always in the latinizing set phrase Padre

spirital), parts of (e)sperar ‘to hope, wait’ and the place name Spinaz de Can, and

the fourth involves hypercorrected aphaeretic forms of espedirse ‘to take one’s

leave’ (< EXPETEREþ SE). However, all these lexical items except for the place

name96 appear elsewhere in the same poem with the expected initial <e-> , a

fact which suggests that those tokens where the vowel has not been written

probably reflect scribal omission due to Latinizing influence rather than phonetic

reality.97

Prosthetic vowels continued to be faithfully represented in the enormous

Alfonsine corpus of texts compiled later in the thirteenth century (Kasten and

Nitti 1978, 2002).98 There are few items written with word-initial sþ consonant

but those that do appear are predominantly Latin words cited as such; for

example, in the General Estoria I (fol. 199r, 69) we find ‘ . . .& por aquellos

vasos dize el latin dela biblia sciphos. Et por aquellas macanas. sperulas. ca en el

latin dizen otrossi spera por rondeza o por cerco.’99 However, Latinisms that have

been incorporated into Castilian usage appear only with graphies containing a

prosthetic vowel, estulto, escolastico, escandalo, especificar. The practice of system-

atically representing prosthetic <e> in prose emanating from the royal court

may well have been encouraged for sociolinguistic reasons as well as phonetic

ones. In the culturally and ethnically diverse society of later thirteenth-century

Castile there were three languages in widespread use, two of which were strongly

down the text possibly from live recitation by a performing juglar (Wright 2000: 98). The

sole extant manuscript of the poem dates by general consent from the mid-fourteenth

century.95 The exceptional items, with line numbers, are: spirital (300pv, 372pv, 1102pv, 1651pv);

sperare (1194pv), sperar (1457pv), spero (1481pc), sperando (2239pc); Spinaz de Can (393pv);

and spidios (226 pp, 1307 pv), spidies (1252 pc), where ‘pv’ = post-vocalic, ‘pc’ = post-

consonantal, ‘pp’ = post-pausal.96 Attested forms of this place name with a prosthetic vowel present do occur in other

vernacular texts from the thirteenth century, however (cf. Menendez Pidal 1964b: I, 41,

n. 2).97 An alternative explanation is that the omission is due to metrical constraints.

However, metrical constraints do not appear to be strict in this poem since there is

significant variation in the syllabic composition of its individual verses.98 Alfonso X ‘el Sabio’ reigned 1252–84. Under his leadership, a number of scholars

including Alfonso himself compiled a great range of prose texts in Castilian on historical,

legal, scientific, religious and even recreational topics.99 ‘and for those containers the Latin of the Bible says sciphos. And for those apples,

sperulas, for in Latin they also say spera for roundness or for circle.’

I-prosthesis 105

associated with specific religions, Arabic with Islam and Latin with Christianity.

In contrast, Castilian provided a religiously neutral language that would be

acceptable to all citizens (Penny 2002: 20–1). As the prosthetic vowel was a

characteristic and highly familiar Castilian phenomenon which clearly distanced

it from Latin, it is possible that its rapid acceptance and integration within the

orthographic system that was sanctioned for the formal writings of the king and

his scholars may have been in part politically motivated.

From the thirteenth century onward, I-prosthesis remains a fully productive

phonological rule in Castilian. Even in the Renaissance period when strong

latinizing tendencies arose which militated against the continued use of pros-

thetic vowels in the spelling and pronunciation of words of Latin origin,

Castilian was not affected in the same way as other Romance varieties. The

dominant figure in linguistic matters in the later fifteenth and early sixteenth

centuries was Antonio Nebrija (1464–1512), the leading Spanish Humanist

scholar of his day. In various works that pioneered the restoration of Classical

Latin in Spain, Nebrija considered the problem of the appropriate pronuncia-

tion of Latin and the view which he adopted was also applied to the appropri-

ate pronunciation of Castilian. This was that ‘ası tenemos descreuir como

hablamos y hablar como escriuimos.’100 The use of prosthetic vowels in Castil-

ian, which had been established in all styles of writing and speech since the

thirteenth century, was therefore not challenged. It was not until the early

seventeenth century that supporters of the etymologizing approach to spelling

and pronunciation began to raise their voices. This led to a conservative trend

that developed strongly from the eighteenth century resulting in the restora-

tion of ‘silent’ etymologically justified consonants in the standard pronuncia-

tion of more learned words, as in -ct- and –pt- in doctor, concepto (Claverıa

Nadal 1991: esp. 99–109). However, the converse process of eliminating etymo-

logically unjustified sounds like the prosthetic [e] did not gain ground. Struc-

tural factors doubtless played a part in preserving the vowel. Castilian had

developed a simple syllable structure with a maximum of two consonants,

plosiveþ liquid, permitted in word-initial onsets and at most one consonant in

word-final codas. Abandonment of the prosthetic vowel would have resulted in

this long-established simplicity at word edges being destroyed. Since there were

no other structural changes under way which would have similarly created

greater syllabic complexity at word edges, the chances of vowel prosthesis

being abandoned were slight (cf. Sampson 2005, and also standard French in

4.4.3.1 below).

100 ‘Thus we should write as we speak and speak as we write’, Ortographıa [1517] 1977:

Principio segundo, f. 3v. The same doctrine appears in his Gramatica espanola (1492: I, chs 5

and 10).

106 I-prosthesis

In eastern varieties of the Peninsula, the thirteenth century likewise brings for the

first time numerous texts written in a vernacular orthography, and these reveal the

generalized use of prosthetic vowels. The earliest known prose text in vernacular

(albeit with various Latin interpolations) is the Homelies de Organya which dates

from about 1200 and contains over a dozen examples of prosthetic vowels, e.g. les

espines, senes escarn, no estaue, al seu espirit, as against the formulaic latinate la sancta

scripturawhich appears twice (Molho 1961). Later prose writings, whether technical

or creative in character, similarly point to the generalized incidence of prosthesis

although scribal inconsistency can obscure the evidence. For instance, in the Libre de

Evast e Blanquerna by Ramon Llull (1233–1316) dating from 1285 but surviving in

fourteenth-century manuscripts only, we find a good deal of variation; for example,

Nastasia estava, per espos, Tota aquella nit estech but tota aquella nit stech, per spos,

que stegueswhich all occur in the same chapter (19).101 Nonetheless, the widespread

presence of an unetymological initial <e> whatever the nature of the immediately

preceding phonological context indicates that prosthesis has been established as a

regular phonological process, and, just as in Castilian, it remains productive to the

present day. The quality of the prosthetic vowel is [‰-] in standard Catalan, which isbased on the eastern variety of Barcelona (Badia 1981: 160). It is also realized as [‰] inRoussillonnais and in Mallorcan and parts of other Balearic islands (Fouche 1924:

134–5; Wheeler 2005: 250), whereas in western varieties it appears as [e-] or often as

[a-],102 which is also the usual outcome in Valencian. Further west, in Aragonese,

the reflex is [e-], as in the dialects of Gistaın (Mott 1990) and Bielsa (Badia 1950).

Beyond the Peninsula, the Catalan variety spoken in Alguer (Alghero) in north-west

Sardinia also preserves the rule of prosthesis systematically but the vowel used has

taken on the phonetic value [a] as part of a more general change affecting all

occurrences of earlier unstressed [e], for example astomak, aspera, askrivı ‘stomach,

to hope, to write’ < ST�OMACHU(M), SPERARE, SCRIBERE (Blasco Ferrer 1984). The

treatment of more recent loans in Algueres from Italian shows prosthesis to be

still as productive here as in Peninsular Catalan (cf. 1.2), stitico > astıtik ‘constipated’,

scarlattina > askarlatına ‘scarlet fever’.

Turning to western varieties, we find that vernacular texts in Galician-Portu-

guese also begin to appear in the thirteenth century.103 However, it is only from

the middle of that century that the use of vernacular for documents of a non-

literary character gains ground. Exceptionally, there are two isolated non-literary

101 The forms cited are taken from the edition by Galmes (1935).102 Badia (1981: 160) claims that [a-] is the normal reflex in western dialects, but Veny

(1987: 130) is more circumspect, ‘La /e/ atona inicial del romanc primitiu, especialment

formant part dels segments es- i en-, tendeix a confondre’s en una [a].’103 The earliest known cantiga, by the Portuguese poet Joan Soares de Paiva, has in fact

been dated to 1196 (Lorenzo Vazquez 2003: 161). But this forms a rare if not unique example

of a vernacular work pre-dating 1200.

I-prosthesis 107

texts which were written much earlier in the century, the Notıcia de Torto (a draft

of a notarial document dating from 1205–11) and the will of King Afonso II

of Portugal from 1214. In these, there is just one form that offers a possible site

for I-prosthesis to occur, namely sten < STENT ‘may they be’, which occurs in the

royal will in post-pausal position. The absence of a prosthetic vowel here may be

attributed to Latin influence, since a preliminary draft in Latin was very probably

composed prior to the writing of the vernacular version.104 In contrast, the

growing body of vernacular non-literary texts that appear from the middle of

the century do provide evidence of prosthesis although it is less systematically

attested than in the Castilian of the period. This may reflect a greater retentive-

ness of the conservative tradition of using latinizing spelling amongst scribes or it

could also be due to the relatively weak phonetic realization of the prosthetic

vowel in certain varieties. Examples of the inconsistent representation of pros-

thesis in non-literary writings from Galicia are este scrito ‘this text’, i stauel,105

firme i stauel (twice) in a text from Portomarın (1255) where no prosthetic vowels

are indicated, whilst in a 1283 document from Temes there is systematic represen-

tation, Santo Esteuao, a carta estando sempre and i escriuj. Many texts offer

evidence that lies between these extremes, prosthesis being represented in some

but not all possible contexts. Thus, we find en esta carta scriptas (‘written (f.pl.) in

this document’), pera aquesto specialmente but i escreui in a text of 1265 from

Betanzos, and in two texts from Sobrado a carta ste ‘let the (this) document be’

twice but i escriuj (1281), and para aquisto specialmente but ffize escriuir, Eu Johan

Paris escreuj (1300).106

Literary texts of the thirteenth century indicate prosthesis much more consis-

tently, in part because latinizing scribal traditions were less pervasive here than in

formal legalistic writings, and in part because these texts were often founded on

vernacular literary genres such as, notably, Occitan troubadour verse where

prosthetic vowels were regularly indicated. Thus, in the Cancioneiros prosthetic

vowels are usually represented except occasionally in post-vocalic contexts, and

prose works of creative literature similarly attest to generalized prosthesis.107

104 In fact, the use of vernacular in this text is curious since King Afonso subsequently

made other wills in 1218 and 1221, these being written not in vernacular but in Latin. He

died in 1223.105 The conjunction here and in the other Galician examples is written using a

conventional abbreviation which we have resolved.106 All the examples are taken from the collection of early Galician documents in Maia

(1986).107 For example, estou (verse-initial), mal estar and en un estrado in the Cancioneiro da

Ajuda, XCV 20, CXL 10, CLXX 17, respectively (Carter 1941); and vejo estar (post-vocalic),

as estrellas (post-consonantal), esperanca (post-pausal in a list) in the fourteenth-century

Vida de Sancto Amaro (Klob 1901).

108 I-prosthesis

In the adjacent Asturo-Leonese area, non-literary vernacular texts appear from

the later twelfth century and already in one of these, dated 1171 from Sahagun,

several prosthetic forms are found, namely the proper names Esteuan Rocha

(three times, once with Roca) and de Espinel twice (Staaff 1907: text 1).108 In the

thirteenth century, when many more vernacular texts become available, prosthet-

ic vowels commonly appear although orthographic practice can vary a good deal

from scribe to scribe, as happens elsewhere in Romania continua109 (cf. the

striking scribal variation in medieval Tuscan documents, see 4.3.3). The variation

is increased by the growing politico-cultural influence from Castilian in the

Asturo-Leonese area which leads to literary production in local varieties becom-

ing increasingly linguistically hybridized and unrepresentative of spoken usage.

In the period leading up to the present day, the fate of I-prosthesis differs

across these varieties of the Peninsula. It has usually continued to be productive in

the more conservative linguistic areas of Galician and north-western dialects of

Portuguese, whereas in other types of Portuguese and in some dialects of Asturo-

Leonese, progressive phonetic weakening has taken place in prosthetic vowels

which has even led to their deletion sometimes, thereby restoring surface word-

initial /s/þ consonant sequences. It is not clear whether this later difference in the

treatment of prosthetic vowels reflects in any way the earlier linguistic rift that has

been noted between Galician and NW Portuguese dialects on the one hand, and

the more innovating Asturo-Leonese and other Portuguese dialects on the other

hand (Lindley Cintra 1963a, 1963b).110

Looking more closely at the data, we find that in the more conservative

varieties the prosthetic vowel is widely found although individual high-frequency

forms may show aphaeresis. For instance, in the Galican dialect atlas (ALGa I, 2,

maps 245–253), inflexional forms of verb estar are recorded as being realized

without the original initial syllable in a number of peripheral varieties spoken in

NW La Coruna, the extreme NE of Lugo including NWAsturias, a few points in

far SW Pontevedra and one isolated point in the south of Ourense, whereas

108 The clear indication of prosthesis in this text is matched by prosthetic forms

appearing in earlier Latin texts, e.g. de sanctu Isteban in a document dated 996 also from

Sahagun (Menendez Pidal 1964a: }59,2).109 Thus, amongst the documents emanating from the Leonese monastery of San

Esteban de Nogales, there is a text dating from 1267 scribe where the scribe Aparicio

writes que studioron, Rodriguez scudero with no prosthesis indicated, while Goncalvo

Migueliz in a 1275 text freely uses prosthetic vowels, especial mientre, fiz escriuir, escriui,

escriuanos (Staaf 1907: texts 89, 90).110 Cf. ‘Cette difference entre le Portugal [du nord et surtout du nord-ouest] peuple de

longue date, essentiellement renferme et conservateur, et le Portugal reconquis et repeuple

pendant les XIIe et XIIIe siecles, essentiellement innovateur, a du point de vue linguistique

une importance sur laquelle je crois qu’on n’insistera jamais assez’ (1963b: 72).

I-prosthesis 109

in central Galician varieties the vowel usually remains present. However, it

is uncertain just how lexically generalized such aphaeresis is in these peripheral

varieties. Retention of the prosthetic vowel is also found widely in non-standard

Portuguese varieties spoken in the adjacent Minho area of north-western Portu-

gal111 and, as of the late nineteenth century, in Beira Alta (Leite de Vasconcellos

1970: 87).

Amongst the more innovating varieties, perhaps the most familiar example of

the loss of prosthetic vowels comes in standard Portuguese where forms such as

estar, espaco, escuta [ʃtaɾ], [’ʃpasu], [’ʃkutN] are found (standard Portuguese isbased on educated usage in the central part of Portugal including Lisbon andCoimbra). This development is evidently of fairly recent date as it is not found atall in Brazilian Portuguese (cf. Mateus and d'Andrade 2000: 45). The first stage inthe weakening of the prosthetic vowel appears to have been part of a more generalprocess affecting unstressed /e/ which led it to adopt a short, centralized, high-midvalue [i�] by the end of the eighteenth century (Teyssier 1980: 78). Subsequently, theprosthetic vowel and other types of unstressed [i�] continued to weaken further andsince the early twentieth century they have come to be deleted altogether in theusage of growing numbers of standard speakers. Phonetically, the result may becomplex word-initial onsets that include not only restored s impura sequences but

also new hypercomplex sequences which often override the sonority sequencing

generalization, e.g. telefone [tlfPn] ‘telephone’, merecer [mɾseɾ] ‘to deserve’,desprevenir [dʃpɾvniɾ] ‘to fail to provide’ (Mateus and d'Andrade 2000: 44). Thedevelopment here can be compared with the pre-stress vowel reduction and loss innorthern Italian and Rheto-Romance varieties which had direct relevance for adifferent type of prosthetic vowel usage there (see 6.1.1).

Amongst non-standard varieties in Portugal, the prosthetic vowel has also

undergone similar deletion in a number of areas. In the Algarve in the south,

loss is widely reported (Hammarstrom 1953: 140; Maia 1975-8),112 while in the

north-east frontier area between Portugal and Spain, there is systematic deletion

111 Cf. Santos Silva (1961: 315) who states that prosthetic e- ‘e geralmente pronunciado’

in Minhoto dialects. However, at the end of the nineteenth century, deletion was also

evidently found in these dialects especially with forms containing standard est- (Leite de

Vasconcellos 1970: 86). The preferential deletion here in initial est- sequences resembles the

circumstances reported for the dialect of the Verın valley, located in SE Galicia just north of

the Portuguese border, by Taboada (1979: 77), see below.112 Hammarstrom (loc. cit.) states that where deletion of unstressed /‰/ occurs, a

phonetically syllabic consonant results. His description of certain Algarve dialects, which

draws on earlier detailed investigations by Armando de Lacerda and himself, indicates a

possible syllabic value not only for the initial pre-palatal fricative of words like espina but

more generally for all types of consonant which precede (or sometimes follow) unstressed

[‰] irrespective of context.

110 I-prosthesis

in the essentially Leonese dialect of Miranda and the nearby dialects of Rio

d’Onor and Guadramil (Herculano de Carvalho 1958; Leite de Vasconcellos

1929a, 1929b).113 Delicate variability between major weakening and deletion is

also found in the transitional variety of the commune of Sabugal which lies on the

frontier adjacent to the province of Salamanca (Maia 1977). And in the Verın

valley, located in SE Galicia just north of the border, the prosthetic vowel is

reported to be realized as a very weak schwa, estrume [‰s’tɾume] ‘dung’ <STRĀMEN, estopa [‰s’topa] ‘tow’ < STUPPA, and especially before st it may be

imperceptible with the result that the sequence [st] forms a complex s impura

onset (Taboada 1979: 77). The similarity between this development and the

aphaeresis reported for some Minhoto and Galician varieties (see above and n.

111) is striking. Further to the north-east, deletion of the prosthetic vowel was

noted for Asturian varieties in the later nineteenth century, as in spinu, streitu,

scalera (Munthe 1887: 23, 72). In the unfortunately unidentified varieties

concerned,114 the loss of the prosthetic vowel had presumably occurred fairly

early on since spinu has developed like other two-syllable words such as vinu in

that it preserved its final [u], whereas trisyllabic words like camin(u), padrin(u)

regularly lost their final vowel. However, this of course presumes that when

apocope began to operate, the prosthetic vowel had already come to receive the

same degree of (secondary) stress as that of the etymological initial vowel in

words like camin(u). More recently, loss has been reported for the Asturian

varieties of Babia and Laciana, [sku’ðjeʃa] < SCUTELLA ‘bowl’, as part of a general

weakening process affecting unstressed pre-stress /e/, although it is also observed

that often prosthesis does now occur (Alvarez 1985: 210). This may in part reflect

the growing influence of Castilian on Asturian over the past century as a result of

powerful centralizing factors such as the introduction of obligatory education (in

Castilian), the rise of the media, and national conscription. One expected conse-

quence of this would be some phonological convergence favouring the retention

and even restoration of prosthesis. Significantly, the standard bable prescribed by

the Asturian Academy (founded in 1909) and now promoted as an official

regional language in the statute of autonomıa for Asturias in 1981 contains solely

prosthetic forms; for example, espeyu, esfollar, estraordinario, esquı, espontaneu

113 Forms cited include staka “stake”, spiga “ear of corn”, skila “cowbell”, striga “handful

of flax”, skrenca “parting of the hair”. Here, the initial consonant is apico-alveolar as in

Castilian and it can be weakly articulated, notably in parts of the verb star the opening

syllable of which Herculano de Carvalho phonetically represents as [sta].114 Some uncertainty reigns as to which varieties are affected. For instance, Zamora

Vicente (1967: 148) cites a form speillo < SPECULUM “mirror” for the dialect of El Bierzo in

NW Asturias. However, in his dictionary of this variety Garcıa Rey (1934) gives no

indication at all of the occurrence of non-prosthetic forms.

I-prosthesis 111

which appear in the official Normes ortografiques (third edition, 1990) promul-

gated by the Academy.

4.4.2.1 Summary

For most of its history, Ibero-Romance as a whole has maintained and

generalized the use of I-prosthesis. The only exceptions have been certain As-

turo-Leonese dialects and the more innovative types of Portuguese including the

standard variety. In standard Portuguese, the disappearance of prosthetic vowels

at a phonetic level is a recent phenomenon caused by the general weakening of

unstressed vowels. Phonologically, however, there may still be grounds for pos-

tulating a rule of prosthesis (cf. 1.4). In Asturo-Leonese, certain varieties evidently

did abandon the use of I-prosthesis but more recently these have been increas-

ingly subject to influence from Castilian leading to possible restoration of the

process.

4.4.3 GALLO-ROMANCE

The early history of I-prosthesis in Gallo-Romance closely resembles that of

Ibero-Romance. Prosthesis evidently began to operate in all varieties and it

went on to establish itself as an unconditioned process in most types of Gallo-

Romance during the period up to the twelfth century. In the period from the

twelfth century onward, however, there has been major change in its incidence.

For it has been wholly abandoned as a productive process in a large number of

varieties including standard French. This development occurred at different times

and for different reasons in the varieties affected. Today, I-prosthesis remains

productive but, it seems, in certain types of Occitan only.

In contrast, a number of Gallo-Romance varieties and especially those spoken

in the north-east followed a quite distinct path of change from early on. In these,

use of the prosthetic vowel was abandoned early on and the non-prosthetic

alternant was generalized. Subsequently, in Walloon dialects of the far north-

east, there was further change whereby a new alternation arose in s impura forms,

with /sC-/ in post-vocalic contexts and an epenthetic sequence /sVC-/ elsewhere

(where ‘V’ represents the epenthetic vowel). The epenthetic vowel typically has a

high front quality /i/ or /y/; for example, (epenthetic) one supene [Pnsyp¡n] ‘athorn’, on ote sutave [Pno:tsyta:v] ‘another shed’ vs (non-epenthetic) des spenes[d¡sp¡n] ‘thorns’, e stave [¡sta:v] ‘in the shed’ (Remacle 1948: 41). The circum-

stances of the exceptional developments in north-eastern Gallo-Romance are

explored below (4.4.3.3).

Lookingmore closely at the ongoing development of prosthesis, wemay begin by

recalling that Gallo-Romance inscriptions in the Imperial period show the same

112 I-prosthesis

relative lack of evidence for the process as was noted for Ibero-Romance

(4.1.2). However, early medieval Latin documentation from the Merovingian

period offers some signs that prosthesis was becoming established, although

direct representation occurs much less frequently in texts written by the

more educated. Amongst the few individuals at the upper end of the scale

of learning is Gregory of Tours (539–94) who became metropolitan bishop of

that city in 573. In his writings there are no direct examples of prosthetic

vowels, but there are indirect indications of their existence such as the

frequent interchange of prefixal and simplex verbal forms attributable to

hypercorrection, e.g. spoliarent � expoliarent, spectat (= EXSPECTAT) populus

‘the people await’ rather than ‘look at’, spiravit ¼ EXSPIRAVIT ‘he died’ rather

than ‘he breathed’ (Bonnet 1890: 148; cf. 4.1.1 above). However, legal docu-

ments written by scribes of a lower level of education often provide more

revealing evidence of contemporary speech habits. A significant number of

such texts emanating from the royal chancellery during the seventh and early

eighth centuries have survived and these contain various prosthetic forms,

some with initial <i> such as istabilis (657–673 AD) but much more

commonly with <e> , estipbulacione (682 AD), estudiant (709 AD), esperare

(716 AD). ‘Internal’ prosthesis is also attested in prefixal forms, conestructus

(695–711 AD), supraescripthis (709 AD), etc. These are complemented by numer-

ous examples of hypercorrect forms akin to those noted above for Gregory of

Tours, such as structus = INSTRUCTUS (693 AD), strumentum (691, 697 AD) and

extromento (716 AD) corresponding to INSTRUMENTUM (Vielliard 1927: 102–3). A

further source of information comes in inscriptions on Merovingian coins.

Coins could be struck not only by the royal mint but also by other authorized

institutions such as the palatine school and churches. Examples drawn from

Prou (1892) are ESCOLA RE[GIA] MONE[TA] item 704 from Paris (cf. SCOLA RE[GIA]

item 705 of same origin), ESPANIACO item 1980 from Correze (cf. SPANIACO item

1981 of same origin), where the vowel is represented as <E> , and there are

also cases using <I> which was commonly adopted in Merovingian script to

represent the mid front vowel /e/: ISCOLA RI[GIA] item 76 from Paris, ISPIRADUS

item 496 from Rennes, and ISTEPHANUS MUNI[TA] item 1330 from Geneva.

Though difficult to date precisely, these inscriptional forms go back mainly

to the seventh century. However, a couple of cases from Chalon-sur-Saone

(Saone-et-Loire) definitely date from the second half of the sixth century,

although they both involve abbreviations: EPISCOPUS ESTN (item 163) and EPIS-

COPUS ESTNU (item 164) where the name ESTEPHANUS is doubtless being indicated

(cf. Prou 1892: liv).

Substantial change occurred during the eighth century in the written repre-

sentation of prosthetic vowels. The Carolingian reforms, whose earliest stages

date from the middle of the century, led to the restoration of a more Classical-

style orthographical system and pronunciation for the Latin used in official state

I-prosthesis 113

and Church matters. The effect was that attested examples of prosthetic vowels

became ever rarer. The analysis carried out by Pei (1932) on forty-seven docu-

ments appearing in Tardif (1866) revealed the following:

Date of

document

Total

documents

Possible cases of

prosthesis

þ Prosthesis �Prosthesis

700–17 11 28 10 18115

750–70 11 19 4 15

And in Pei’s analysis of twenty-five texts dating from the following period up to

812, the scribal suppression of indications for prosthetic vowels was found to be

almost complete.116

However, when texts written in a vernacular-based rather than a Latin-based

orthography begin to appear, a clearer picture becomes available of the incidence of

I-prosthesis in spoken usage. The two earliest texts, both from northern Gallo-

Romance, date from the ninth century but these only offer one possible site, in une

spede (Eulalie, l. 22) where no prosthetic vowel is indicated (spede < SPATA ‘sword’).

The generally accepted explanation for the absence of a prosthetic vowel in this form

is that at that period there was still alternation between prosthetic and non-

prosthetic forms, the latter occurring post-vocalically (Fouche 1966: 695; cf. 4.2.1).

It is only from the eleventh and twelfth centuries when substantial numbers of

vernacular writings become available that prosthesis is systematically attested in all

phonological contexts. Textual evidence for this appears a little earlier in langue d’oc

than in langue d’oıl. In the subsequent development of I-prosthesis, there are

important differences between northern and southern Gallo-Romance. The two

linguistic blocks will therefore be treated separately.

4.4.3.1 Langue d’oıl

The evidence from vernacular texts indicates that I-prosthesis had probably been

generalized in most varieties by the end of the eleventh century.117 With few

115 Of this subgroup, one text (c. 700, or earlier) has ten potential sites for prosthesis,

only one of which directly attests the vowel. If this text is excluded, the statistics for this

subgroup would of course show a significantly higher proportion of attested prosthetic

forms.116 Just one apparent case appears: estrumenta (775 AD). However, the initial vowel here

may reflect the prefix of the Latin etymon INSTRUMENTA.117 The last text still showing any signs of alternation is the Vie de Saint Alexis, written

probably in the second half of the eleventh century. The earliest manuscript is L (first

found in the German monastery of Lamspring) which dates from the first quarter of the

twelfth century. However, only one originally s impura lexeme is found without a

prosthetic vowel, spuse, which always occurs in post-vocalic position, ma spuse, ta spuse,

114 I-prosthesis

exceptions, texts of the twelfth century consistently contain forms with the

prosthetic vowel indicated irrespective of phonological context, whether in

verse or prose works and creative or official writings. Thus, the mid twelfth-

century Anglo-Norman Oxford Psalter shows generalized prosthesis: post-conso-

nantal in tutes esteilles (< STELLAS), il establit (< STABIL-IVIT) in Psalm 148; post-

pausal in sentence-initial espeirent (< SPERANT), establis (< STABIL-ISCE) in Psalm 9;

and post-vocalic in tu establiras (< STABILIRE-HABES) in Psalm 17 and la meie

esperance (< SPERANTIA) in Psalm 83 (Michel 1860). Similarly, the earliest legal

charters in vernacular typically show just prosthetic forms; for example, a

charter dated 1191 from Maubeuge (dep. Nord) has soit estaule (< STABILE) and

et escrit (< SCRIPTU(M)).118 A rule of unconditioned I-prosthesis appears therefore

to have been established, just as in Ibero-Romance. The presence of this rule is

also confirmed by the fact that whenever loanwords originally containing s impura

were adopted during the medieval period up to the thirteenth century they

systematically underwent I-prosthesis:

Frankish (6th–8th cent.)

skum > escume (ecume) ‘foam’; sparanjan > esparnier (epargner) ‘to

spare’

speut > espiet (epieu) ‘spit’; streup- > estreu (with suffix change >

etrier) ‘stirrup’

Norse (10th–11th cent.)

skipa þ -er > equipe(r) ‘(to) crew’; stafnbord > estambor (etambot) ‘stern-

post’

stafn > estrave (etrave) ‘stem’; Sten-hus ‘stone house’ > Etainhus (place

name)

Middle Dutch (11th–13th cent.)

skope > escope (ecope) ‘bailer’ ; splissen > espisser (episser) ‘to splice’

stapel > estappe (etape) ‘stage’; staeye > estaie (etai) ‘prop’

As the bracketed forms from modern French indicate, these items were subject to

the same deletion of pre-consonantal /s/ that occurred in native words inherited

from Latin. Voiced [z] which appeared before voiced consonants was deleted in

most varieties of langue d’oıl by the beginning of the twelfth century, and voiceless

etc. Other relevant items in the text indicate that the prosthetic alternant has been

generalized, as in s’espethe rather than ** sa spethe ‘his sword’ (< SPATA).118 The full text of this charter appears in Woledge and Clive (1964: 54–5) and Sampson

(1980: 138–9).

I-prosthesis 115

[s] which occurred before voiceless plosives119 disappeared in the later twelfth or

thirteenth century (Pope 1952: }377, Fouche 1966: 861–2). Only in eastern dialects

was /s/ preserved pre-consonantally.

In the late medieval period a major change occurred. Prosthesis began to be

abandoned as a productive process. No clear signs of this development however are

to be found in many literary works of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Thus,

in the verse of Charles d’Orleans (1394–1465), just prosthetic forms such as l’estude,

mon esperit, on escript are found. Similarly, prosthetic vowels are consistently

indicated in the verse of Francois Villon (1431– d. after 1463); the only example of

a non-prosthetic form is le roy Scotiste ‘the Scottish king’ referring to James II

of Scotland (Testament l. 365), although later in the same poem there is d’Ecossoys

‘of Scots’ (l. 1216). In literary prose of popular type, a similar picture emerges with

little evidence of the loss of productivity for I-prosthesis. For instance in Les Cent

nouvelles nouvelles of the mid-fifteenth century, there are no examples of forms in

<st-> ; just one lexical item special(e)ment with <sp-> although especial and

especialement are also found; and only three items with initial <sc-> (= [sk-])

scabelle, scandale, scribe (Dubuis 1996). Otherwise, forms with a prosthetic vowel

such as esclandre, espirituel, estable (adjective and noun) consistently appear.

Indications of the change in the status of prosthesis come predominantly from

non-literary writings of a technical or professional type and to a lesser extent

from highly cultivated literary prose. This is because one of the factors triggering

the change120 lies in the phonological treatment of learned Latin borrowings and

these are to be found most commonly and with ever-increasing frequency in such

writings. The first serious moves towards the displacement of Latin in favour of

French in formal domains, such as the law and the royal chancellery, took

place during the course of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. But to

enable French to operate in these domains, significant elaboration of linguistic

resources was necessary which was achieved through the wholesale incorporation

of Latinisms.121 Further Latinisms came in the many works of translation that

were commissioned by the monarchs Jean II (Le Bon) 1350–64 and Charles V

(Le Sage) 1364–80 (Monfrin 2001). For instance, items such as scandaleux,

119 It appears that [s] may have weakened and been lost before [f] earlier than before

other voiceless obstruents. Evidence for this comes from English borrowings, feast, espouse,

descry (< OFr. feste, esposer, descrier) with [s] preserved but defeat, effort (OFr. desfaite,

esforz) with [s] deletion. The earlier weakening of [s] before [f] is perhaps due to a greater

assimilatory tendency operating in a sequence of two voiceless fricatives [sf].120 The causation of the abandonment of I-prosthesis is explored in the next subsection

below.121 On ‘elaboration’ see Haugen (1972) and, for French, Lodge (1993: 118–52). For the

importance of the fourteenth century for Latinisms, cf. ‘Le XIVe siecle est veritablement

l’epoque ou se constitue le vocabulaire savant’ (Brunot 1966: 566).

116 I-prosthesis

spherique, sterile, stoıcien are first found in the translations by Nicole Oresme

(Taylor 1965: 735).

As these examples indicate, the spelling adopted for such loanwords usually

respected the orthography of the Latin original except in their final part which

had to conform to French morphological structure. Hence, s impura words were

written with initial <s> þ consonant rather than reflecting the possible contem-

porary French pronunciation with a prosthetic [e-], unlike the situation in

Castilian where the spelling of cultismos normally reproduced vernacular pro-

nunciation. From the later thirteenth century, the etymologizing tradition in-

creasingly prevailed over the previously dominant phonemic type for writing the

vernacular, to a large extent because the band of praticiens or professional legal

clerks who wrote down the texts came from a Latin-writing tradition. In the

burgeoning bureaucracy of the French state, the number and linguistic influence

of these clerks grew significantly. Unfortunately, there is no clear indication of

how Latinisms like scandaleux, sterile were actually pronounced in the fourteenth

century. It has been claimed that all such words containing an initial <s>

þ consonant sequence were systematically articulated with a prosthetic vowel

until the sixteenth century.122 But this seems questionable since by the start of

that century the use of non-prosthetic forms was undoubtedly very well estab-

lished amongst educated speakers, as we shall see. Instead, it is likely that such

speakers had come to be increasingly influenced by the spelling of the many

prestigious Latinisms that entered higher-register French from the thirteenth

century onwards. As a result, whether for affectation123 or to achieve a greater

perceived authenticity, non-prosthetic pronunciations for words written with

initial <s> þ consonant were doubtless used by literate fifteenth-century speak-

ers and perhaps even some fourteenth-century speakers when pronouncing

words like scandaleux, sterile. The publication of the important work by Erasmus

on the pronunciation of Latin and Greek in 1528, which advocated a spelling-

based approach, served to give definitive endorsement to this practice.

122 Cf. ‘where an initial consonant cluster of this type whatever its source came to be

used in actual speech before the sixteenth century, it assumed an [e] on-glide’ (Hope 1971:

II, 585). The emphasis is in the original.123 A fine example of the affected use of Latinisms is cited by Rickard (1976: 112–13). It is

an anonymous letter dating from c. 1450 in which the writer apologizes for not being able

to attend a wedding. It begins Maistre magnifique et eminent en faculte de prospicue

eloquence, aourne de rethorique, tout preambule de recommendacion presuppose, vueilles

sagacement concepvoir que . . . and contains the non-prosthetic Latinism speculant. As

Rickard notes, the sort of overblown latinate style affected here was later to be the butt

of pastiche by Rabelais in the celebrated episode of the Limousin scholar in Pantagruel

published 1532 (ch. 6).

I-prosthesis 117

In the first half of the sixteenth century, therefore, it seems probable that

prosthesis was no longer operating as a truly productive process for many if

not most speakers of the nascent standard variety of French. Strong direct

evidence for this comes in the earliest detailed analysis of French published in

1530 by the Englishman John Palsgrave. His description, which reflects educated

usage of the first decade of the sixteenth century, contains three sections or

‘books.’ In the first of these, where he deals with pronunciation, Palsgrave focuses

attention on words that are well established in the lexicon of the emerging

standard language. The prosthetic vowel is present in all of them, but they fall

into two groups depending on the phonetic realization or non-realization of the

pre-consonantal <s> appearing in the orthographic form of the words. With

items such as escrıpre, estudier, escole, espee, estoılle, he indicates (Book I, ch. 25)

that the first consonant is not pronounced. The other group emerges in chapter

43, where words are identified whose orthographic pre-consonantal <s> is

pronounced. These include escabeau, esclave, espece, esperer, estimer in which

modern French has continued to preserve pre-consonantal [s].124 However, a

third group of words showing a quite different treatment of etymological initial

[s]þ consonant is also apparent in Palsgrave’s account although no direct men-

tion is made of it in the section on pronunciation. In this group, vowel prosthesis

does not occur. Occasional examples appear by chance in the first book; for

instance, sphere is reported to be pronounced ‘sfere’ (ch. 23) and scovlpture as

‘scouture’ (ch. 26). But it is in the substantial dictionary of French that occupies

more than 80 per cent of the overall text that the widespread existence of non-

prosthetic forms really emerges, e.g. scrupuleux, (je) specule, spectacle, station,

stıle. This third category consists overwhelmingly of learned words, many of

which were doubtless viewed as high-register forms that were not part of the

core lexical structure of French of the period. Nonetheless, their phonetic treat-

ment indicates that prosthesis can no longer have been a productive process

amongst users of the emerging standard variety. We may once again compare the

phonetic circumstances here with those in Castilian where learned forms have

continued to be subject to prosthesis, cf. the counterparts to the forms just cited:

escrupuloso, (yo) especulo, espectaculo, estacion, estilo.

In the following year 1531, the first grammar of French compiled by a French-

man for French readers (albeit written in Latin) was published. Its author Jacques

Dubois (1531: 57–8) formally distinguishes the same three categories of pronunci-

ation for words containing etymological initial sþ consonant as those identified

rather less clearly by Palsgrave:

124 The ambiguous phonetic value of orthographic pre-consonantal <s> is only

resolved in 1740 when the third edition of the Academie dictionary formally abolished

the letter in words such as esclat, feste where it does not represent [s].

118 I-prosthesis

(i) with prosthetic [e-] and with deletion of etymological [s]: epine, etude,

etc.

(ii) with prosthetic [e-] but with retention of etymological [s]: esperer, espoir,

etc.

(iii) without prosthetic [e-] and with retention of etymological [s]: scribe,

station, etc.

The distribution that is indicated here corresponds almost exactly to that found

in modern standard French. The only significant exceptions occur in the words

espace and espece where the sibilant <s> is reported to be silent, and in escabeau

for which the pronunciation scabeau is given and escabelle which is cited along

with the alternative form scabelle (modern French has escabeau, escabelle both

with initial [¡sk-]). In formally identifying the category (iii), Dubois is confirm-

ing Palsgrave’s observation that prosthesis no longer operates with learned loan-

words in the ‘best’ usage of French.

Thereafter, during the course of the sixteenth century the use of prosthesis was

evidently abandoned by all speakers who sought to conform to the norms of the

crystallizing standard variety of French. In established items of vocabulary, the

prosthetic vowel [e-] became lexicalized, but neologisms and especially Latinisms

that began with /s/þ consonant were no longer subject to prosthesis. Acceptance

of this model of pronunciation could however be obstructed for some standard

speakers as a result of interference from their own local Gallo-Romance variety.

This was particularly evident with speakers from southern France since I-pros-

thesis remained fully productive in almost all varieties of langue d’oc at that time.

Thus, in his Traite de la conformite du language francois auec le grec (1565), Henri

Estienne reports that in Dauphine and Languedoc many users of the standard

variety said estatuts, estatue, espectacle, espacieux (Thurot 1881 [1966]: I, 216).

Southern writers also sometimes carried over traces of their native use of pros-

thesis in their works, as with the memorialist Brantome (1540–1614) who was

from south-west France and used numerous non-standard prosthetic forms in his

writings such as escrupule, espectacle, espacieux, esterille ‘sterile’ and even hyper-

correct stase ‘ecstasy’ (Lalanne [1880] 1970).125

Against the background of the general abandonment of prosthesis, the treat-

ment of Italian borrowings in the sixteenth century appears anomalous at first

sight. For of the forty-three borrowings beginning with [s]þ consonant in

standard Italian which are first attested in French in this century, no fewer than

thirty-five emerge with a prosthetic vowel, e.g. escompte, escopette, espadon,

125 Huguet (1925-67) provides evidence of widespread polymorphism with forms in

(standard) /sC-/ � (regional) /esC-/ in sixteenth-century writers, for example (e)scorpion,

(e)scrupule, (e)specifier, (e)special, (e)sp(h)ere, (e)spirituel, (e)spacieux, (e)spectacle,

(e)splendeur, (e)spongieux, (e)statut, estable � stabile, (e)stile.

I-prosthesis 119

estafier, cf. It. sconto, scoppietto, spadone, staffiere (Hope 1971: I, 187–93). However,

the French forms do not reflect the continued productivity of prosthesis in the

sixteenth century. Rather, the presence of the prosthetic vowel can be attributed

to the action of two factors (Sampson 2004a). The first of these concerns the

mode of transmission of the loanwords. Before entering the standard language, it

appears that many Italianisms passed through a southern French linguistic filter.

Particularly affected were technical words connected with professional activities

and trade which were acquired, orally in most cases, by French people interacting

with Italians. Southern French speakers were particularly likely to be involved in

this linguistic interchange for obvious geographical and commercial reasons.126

Borrowings with initial s impura onsets were therefore liable to I-prosthesis since

this rule was still normally operating in most varieties of langue d’oc. The

resulting forms were then diffused northwards into the standard variety with a

lexicalized initial [e], alongside similarly prosthetic native Occitan forms like

escalier and escargot which also entered standard French in the sixteenth century.

The other factor explaining the anomalous appearance of prosthesis in Italian-

isms relates to the precise linguistic source of these words. It is customary for

linguists to cite standard Italian forms as the basis for the French loanwords but it

is likely that many items did not derive directly from standard Italian but instead

came from, or via, non-standard Italo-Romance varieties spoken in Piedmont

where not only was there a long-term French military presence but also vowel

prosthesis has enjoyed continuing currency in the local speech (cf. below,

4.4.5).127 A prosthetic vowel may therefore have been present in the original

form of certain Italianisms that passed into French.

By the beginning of the seventeenth century, the rule of I-prosthesis had

certainly ceased to be productive amongst standard French speakers. In a century

when French linguistic purism was taken to new heights, even writers such as

Chifflet and Hindret128 who are specifically concerned with identifying ‘correct’

pronunciation for speakers aspiring to master the standard variety make no direct

126 Reflecting the strong commercial and artisanal presence of Italians, Lyon for

example was known as the ‘French Florence’ at this time.127 A curious problem arises in the treatment of Italianisms in two celebrated dialogues

by Henri Estienne, both dating from 1578, which attacked the excessive Italianization of the

language found at the royal court. Pastiching the affected overuse of Italianisms, Estienne

has forms such as spurquesse ‘dirt’, spaceger ‘to stroll’, straque ‘tired’. Most, like these

examples, have no prosthetic vowel. The probable reason for this is that Estienne was

basing the Italianate forms he cites on words appearing in the literary standard form of

Italian where I-prosthesis was moribund by the 1570s (Sampson 2004a).128 In the introduction to his detailed 1687 work, the Breton Jean Hindret identifies

seventeen features of ‘bad’ pronunciation found ‘a la Cour aussi bien qu’a Paris’, a

further sixteen are attributed to ‘la petite Bourgeoisie de Paris’, and eleven others are

120 I-prosthesis

reference at all to prosthetic vowels—a fact which suggests that amongst such

speakers the inappropropriate use of prosthesis was not seen to be a problematic

issue. Instead, writers who do allude to the (unacceptable) use of prosthesis

usually direct their remarks to provincials especially those from the south of

France and, even more particularly, to Gascons whose pronunciation was evi-

dently often affected by local non-standard usage and was consequently held

up for censure. Thurot (1881 [1966]: I, 216) cites two cases, Menage (1675)

who criticizes Gascons for saying estomacal, estupide, and estatuts, and Dumas

(1733) who claims that Gascons ‘font entendre un e devant le s initial’ in words like

estile.

In non-standard varieties of the langue d’oıl (leaving aside the special case of

eastern dialects), there has also been a general retreat from the use of I-prosthesis

though it is not clear how rapidly it occurred across the different varieties.

Already by the end of the sixteenth century, prosthesis seems to be on the way

to abandonment amongst the less educated from Paris and its environs even

though there is only ex silentio evidence for this assumption. Thus, the journal of

Jean Heroard which provides a record of the speech of the young dauphin, later to

be Louis XIII, in the first decade of the seventeenth century contains many

examples of informal and substandard use. But in the few contexts where

prosthesis would be possible, there is no indication of its presence: une scabele

(August 1605), la sphaere and une sphaere (July 1606), bon sculteur (April 1608)

(Ernst 1985).129 Later in that century, literary pastiche of linguistic features

characteristic of substandard pronunciation came to enjoy great popularity, for

instance in Cyrano de Bergerac’s Le pedant joue (1654) and Moliere’s Don Juan

(1665), and in the anonymous mazarinade known as Agreables conferences of the

mid-seventeenth century (Deloffre 1999).130 However, amongst the thirty-four

features of substandard pronunciation and grammar identified by Lodge (1996)

as forming particular objects for condemnation or derision from writers of the

period, the inappropriate use of I-prosthesis does not figure at all.131 There seems

described as being characteristic of ‘gens de Provinces’. Nowhere, however, is mention

made of prosthesis.129 The only form showing prosthesis is escluseau ‘kind of mushroom’ (= ecluseau, now

archaic but included in the dictionary of Littre). This is clearly not a learned word but part

of the popular wordstock. The prosthetic vowel here has of course been lexicalized.130 Though generally viewed as anonymous, the work is tentatively attributed by

Deloffre to L. Richer, the author L’Ovide Bouffon.131 For example, Jean Gareau in Le pedant joue has usage with prosthesis that is identical

to that of the standard language, l’espoisseur, qui espousit, grande espee, l’escriture but du

scandale (not ** de l’escandale). The ten letters making up the Agreables conferences have

just three contexts involving words with etymological /sC-/: (i) . . . pour avoir de

Comedian, de Murissian, de Stature e de bilboquette pour boutre dans son Palai (letter 1);

I-prosthesis 121

good reason to believe therefore that by the end of the seventeenth century at the

latest the influence of the prestigious standard variety was steadily undermining

the use of I-prosthesis amongst the inhabitants of the capital and the area

immediately surrounding it, and also in other Paris-influenced urban centres of

the langue d’oıl except those of the north-east where prosthesis never fully

developed (see below). Speakers of non-standard varieties of langue d’oıl who

lived at some remove from Paris and other regional urban centres doubtless

preserved the use of I-prosthesis for rather longer.

However, moves towards the abandonment of I-prosthesis in regional varieties

gain ground particularly from the nineteenth century onward when various

centralizing forces began to exercise ever greater sociolinguistic influence pro-

moting standard French. These include the introduction of mass education,

military conscription, the establishment of an increasingly intrusive bureaucracy,

the development of speedy and effective means of transport, and the rise of mass

media. These influences were to have the same destructive effect on the produc-

tive use of I-prosthesis in growing numbers of langue d’oc varieties as well (see

below 4.4.3.4, and cf. Italian 4.3.3). Unfortunately, clear contemporary data on the

status of prosthesis in individual non-standard langue d’oıl varieties are not

available before the later nineteenth century. Until then, we only have rather

imprecise characterizations such as that found in the ‘dictionary’ by Desgranges

(1821) in which numerous forms are cited showing prosthesis with etymological

s impura words, e.g. escandale, escorpion, espatule, espectaque, estupide, estation.

Desgranges merely observes that this is how ‘les gens du peuple’ pronounce such

words, but no indication is given of where these speakers came from. However, it

is of interest that Nisard (1872: 271) calls attention to the practice amongst the less

educated of Paris and its environs of using the prosthetic vowel /e-/, ‘L’e est attire

par les consonnes combinees sc, sp, st: escrupule, escorie, escorbut, espectacle,

especial, estyle, estatue . . .Cette prothese est maintenue dans la prononciation

de nos compatriotes du midi. Mais partout le peuple a pour elle plus ou moins de

penchant.’ It seems likely that the massive immigration from the provinces to the

cities of France that occurred during the nineteenth century goes some way in

explaining the presence of the prosthetic vowels observed by Nisard. Nonetheless,

(ii) je visme de belles statuses toutes dosees (letter 10); (iii) avec des grands escritiau (letter 10).

Again, usage of the prosthetic vowel here is just as in standard French. In (iii), the vowel

has clearly been lexicalized as in standard French ecriteau, while cases (i) and (ii) show the

learned form stature (= statue). Item (ii) also has hypercorrect [z] for [r], the development

of intervocalic [r] > [z] being a stigmatized and widely pastiched substandard feature of

the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The use of the forms appearing in (i) and (ii),

rather than ** des Estature(s), ** belles estatuses, once more suggests clearly that there was

no longer any productive rule of prosthesis in the substandard variety or varieties of langue

d’oıl being pastiched in the text.

122 I-prosthesis

the observation suggests that the abandonment of the rule of I-prosthesis was a

prolonged process in northern France even amongst urban speakers. In more

rural areas, the abandonment was slower still and forms with a prosthetic vowel

are still reported for certain varieties in second half of the twentieth century. For

example, Schortz (1998: 69) cites [¡n ¡staty] ‘une statue’ for Senneville-sur-

Fecamp in Normandy. However, it is not clear whether I-prosthesis has remained

a genuinely productive process in this variety and others like it. It may be that it is

only in established lexical items that we find a prosthetic vowel which has now

become lexicalized, whereas new words containing word-initial s impura onsets

no longer undergo prosthesis.

4.4.3.2 Causation of the loss of I-prosthesis in French

It is curious that whereas the background to the rise of I-prosthesis has been

the subject of considerable investigation by linguists, far less attention has been

given to the circumstances leading to its subsequent abandonment in standard

French and other Gallo-Romance varieties. In fact, only two types of explanation

appear to have been proposed. In the more familiar one, the key factor under-

mining prosthesis is taken to lie in the prestigious spelling-based system

of pronunciation which Erasmus had proposed in 1528 for Latin and Greek

(e.g. Pope 1952: }653). It is assumed that by extension this spelling-based approach

to ‘good’ pronunciation was adopted by the educated classes when articula-

ting learned words in French, and from there it spread to the bourgeoisie before

finally reaching the mass of the population, especially in Paris and other urban

environments where there was a strong cultural presence. In this new system

of pronunciation, prosthetic vowels had no place since they were not orthograph-

ically represented. In the other explanation, it is suggested that French prosthesis

may have ceased to be productive as a result of the regular deletion of pre-

consonantal [s] in the langue d’oıl during the later medieval period as a result

of which O.Fr. espine, espee were transformed into [epin], [epe] (Posner

1996: 290–1). This change would have caused the resulting word-initial sequence

[e]þ consonant- to be in some sense ‘stranded’ from etymological [s]þ conso-

nant-, thereby destabilizing the previously more transparent productive rule

of prosthesis.

Neither explanation appears entirely acceptable, however. As we have seen,

there are clear indications that prosthesis had already been effectively abandoned

in the usage of ‘good’ speakers of French well before 1528 when the celebrated

work of Erasmus was published. The Erasmist reforms can therefore be viewed at

most as a powerful force confirming existing practice amongst the educated.

More generally, there are difficulties in interpreting the abandonment of

I-prosthesis 123

prosthesis in late medieval French as, in Labovian terms, a purely ‘top-down’

change.132 For it seems very doubtful whether a change initiated by a small if

prestigious minority of speakers could have been diffused so completely down

through the population of Paris and environs in the timescale envisaged such that it

left so little discernible trace by the end of the sixteenth century, particularly in view

of the sociolinguistic circumstances of the sixteenth century when perhaps as many

as 90 per cent of the population of France were illiterate (Glatigny 1989: 18).133

The other explanation, which interprets the loss of prosthesis as a ‘bottom-up’

development, also encounters problems. First, there is a significant time-lag between

the loss of pre-consonantal [s] which is generally recognized to have occurred by the

later twelfth or the thirteenth century (Pope 1952: }377; Fouche 1966: 861–2; Zink1986: 122–3) and the abandonment of vowel prosthesis which probably got under-

way from the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century. Second, when French

speakers were confronted with learned or other foreign words beginning with

s impura, we might have expected them in most cases to have incorporated them

by adapting the complex onset to a sequence compatible with existing patterns in

the language.134 It is therefore surprising that these speakers should instead have

relicensed a heterosyllabic onset sequence which had been prohibited for centuries.

In fact, it seems likely that no single factor brought about the abandonment of

I-prosthesis in northern France. Rather, this development was probably

prompted by the action of several quite separate factors operating in conjunction

with one another. First, a major ‘top-down’ factor was the adoption for prestige

reasons of a spelling-based pronunciation by literate speakers when they articu-

lated learned loanwords. As was noted above, this mode of pronunciation was

already current amongst the educated in the fifteenth century and received

powerful endorsement from Erasmus’s influential work published in 1528. Verna-

cularized pronunciations of Latinisms certainly continued to occur amongst less

educated speakers into the sixteenth century but they enjoyed no prestige and

even became the butt of humour.135 A modern parallel may be found in pastiche

pronunciations of recent Anglicisms in French such as meeting [met~¡´].

132 For discussion of ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ change, see Labov (1994: 78 and 2001:

272–5).133 Unfortunately, it is not made clear whether this figure relates to individuals able just

to read or those able both to read and write, nor is there any indication of possible

geographical variation in literacy levels.134 Compare what happens amongst modern Andalusian speakers of Spanish where pre-

consonantal [s] has been deleted inmany if notmost varieties. Here, s impura loans are usually

adapted to [eC-], just like native words with etymological s impura (cf. Sampson 2005).135 Occasional present-day French words like quolibet [kolib¡] ‘jibe’ (< QUO LIBET), cancan

[kA~kA~] ‘(slanderous) gossip’ (< QUAMQUAM) recall vernacularized pronunciations of Latinisms.

The writer Etienne Tabourot (1547–90) from Dijon provides entertaining and sometimes

124 I-prosthesis

Second, various formal factors also appear to have played a role. Amongst

these, the deletion of pre-consonantal [s] may have been of significance but this is

uncertain, as we have seen. More important seem to be broader changes taking

place in syllable structure in the later medieval period. For, although a number of

changes occurred in popular speech which resulted in greater simplicity of

syllable structure, notably the progressive deletion of coda consonants [r], [k],

[t], and (word-final) [s] during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,136 various

other developments were taking place which led to greater complexity in syllable

structure. Amongst these was the ongoing incorporation of loanwords such as est,

ouest (first attested in twelfth century) from English, lest from Dutch (thirteenth

century) along with the many learned words such as gest (thirteenth century, later

geste), laps, pact (fourteenth century, later pacte) which increased the complexity

in codas especially. But more significant was the gradual abandonment of schwa.

Fouche (1969: 509–27) describes in some detail the stages of this long-running

process which, depending on phonetic context, operated from preliterary times

up to the late seventeenth century when word-final schwa ceased to be used in

ordinary speech, as in la port(e). Schwa deletion was unlikely to have been at first

a characteristic of educated usage, however. It probably represented a feature

originating in popular speech so that there is every chance that in informal usage

amongst the less educated it already enjoyed some currency before the sixteenth

century when a number of grammarians call attention to the phenomenon

(Thurot 1881–3: I, 162–4). As a result of schwa deletion, not only would more

complex codas have developed, as in words like arme, triste, farce, porche, more

complex onsets would also have arisen. Numerous observations by grammarians

of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries indicate that word-initial sequences

of fricativeþ [‰]þ consonant were particularly susceptible to deletion of schwa

(cf. Fouche 1969: 526). This is confirmed by the appearance of attested forms

such as stier ‘a measure of grain’ < SEXTARIU(M), squenie ‘a smock’ < Middle High

German sukenıe, and the demonstratives c’t, c’tte, c’tui (also spelt st, ste, stui)

in sixteenth-century writings (= modern French setier, souquenille, cet, cette,

and archaic cestui). The deletion of schwa in such items doubtless played a

role in re-establishing /sC-/ sequences as possible onsets in the usage of less

obscene pastiches of such pronunciations, e.g. DUCUM EST AMOR RUS COELI AQUILAE VITAM

represented as Du con est amoureux celui a qui le vit tend. The representation of SI CUM STIPE

TU ES as Si constipe tu es is of special interest as there is no sign of a prosthetic vowel. The reason

for this appears to be that such vernacular pronunciations only reflected letters that were

actually present in the Latin form; examples from Tabourot 1970 [1588]: 45, 47.136 Such changes clearly tie in with a general Romance tendency to unblock syllables

through the weakening of coda consonants, as has long been recognized by Romanists, e.g.

Granda (1966) and Sala (1976: 21–50).

I-prosthesis 125

educated speakers. The presence of a /sC-/ initial sequence in demonstrative

forms was particularly important since these occurred with high frequency and

would have familiarized the new onset type for these speakers. Indeed, although

spellings like st, ste for cet, cette and (presumably) the corresponding pronuncia-

tion were condemned by some sixteenth-century grammarians such as Jacques

Peletier (1550: 200), st and ste went on to establish themselves as acceptable

variants of the demonstrative adjective for use in informal conversation by

educated speakers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as is noted by

many grammarians (Thurot 1881–3: I, 210).137

In this way, both ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ factors conspired to re-establish

complex onset sequences of the form /sC-/ across the different social subgroup-

ings in Paris and its environs and also, doubtless, in other langue d’oıl varieties

that were subject to the same factors. Thereafter, any remaining varieties (exclud-

ing those of the east and north-east) which preserved I-prosthesis came progres-

sively to abandon the process as a result of growing influence from the prestigious

standard French language.

4.4.3.3 An exceptional case: eastern and north-eastern dialects

In Wallonia, eastern Lorraine and Romance-speaking Alsace, I-prosthesis failed

to become established as it did in varieties spoken elsewhere in the langue d’oıl

area.138 During the early medieval period, prosthetic vowels appear to have

developed but at some stage in the later pre-literary period (i.e. prior to the

twelfth century) prosthesis was abandoned as a process. Subsequently, a further

development came to affect words beginning with initial /sC-/ sequences in the

varieties of central and eastern Wallonia but not those found in western Wallonia

or in Lorraine and Alsace. This was the appearance of a rule of epenthesis whose

effect was to create a new type of sandhi-conditioned alternation that still

operates today, as in spene � sipene, supene ‘thorn’ (< SPINA). The non-epenthetic

alternant appears after a vowel-final word and the other alternant elsewhere, e.g.

des spenes [d¡sp¡n] ‘some thorns’ but avou’n sipene [avunsip¡n] ‘with a thorn’ or

post-pausal sipenes [sip¡n] ‘thorns’ in Liegeois.

137 For instance, Thomas Corneille (1625–1709) writes, ‘Dans le discours familier on

prononce st homme, ste femme, et ce seroit une affectation vicieuse de dire cet homme, cette

femme, quoy que dans la chaire on doive prononcer ainsi ces mots’ (1687: II, 164), and

Pierre Restaut (1696–1764) similarly observes, ‘Cet se prononce st, & cette comme ste. Ainsi,

quoiqu’on ecrive cet oiseau, cet honneur, cette femme, il faut prononcer stoiseau, sthonneur,

ste femme’ ([1730]1773: 449).138 To the west, prosthesis regularly operated in Picard, except in Rouchi which is

spoken around Valenciennes in French Hainaut (Gossen 1970: }47).

126 I-prosthesis

The epenthetic vowel usually has a high front quality. It appears as [i] in the

majority of central varieties including that of Liege as we have seen, but [y] is

found in dialects of the extreme east (e.g. Herve and Verviers) and also in a

narrow belt in the extreme south of the epenthetic area. More unusually, a

lowered front unrounded value [e] or [¡] occurs in parts of the north-west and

far south-west of the epenthetic area, and a short front schwa-like rounded vowel

[�] is reported in a few varieties in the extreme north-west and south (cf. Map 2).

The predominant choice of a high front quality accords with the principle of

minimal saliency (1.6). The expected quality for an epenthetic vowel, namely [‰],was not possible in these dialects since existing instances of schwa were them-

selves in the process of being systematically deleted, as we shall see. The quality

adopted by the epenthetic vowel was based on that of a more stable existing vowel

type. High front vowels are the least salient; the selection of [i] or, less expectedly,

[y] is therefore understandable. The mid front quality found in a small minority

of varieties would seem to represent a localized development of earlier [i], for

reasons which are not immediately obvious.

The historical background to the abandonment of prosthesis and to the

later appearance of epenthesis in eastern and, particularly, north-eastern

varieties is not fully understood. There are significant numbers of texts from

the areas concerned dating from the second half of the twelfth century onward

which might be expected to shed useful light. However, it is generally accepted

that they fail to give a faithful picture of local usage, as they are very often

marked by linguistic influence from other varieties of northern French that

enjoyed cultural prestige and, in particular, the variety used in the area

centred on Paris.139 One consequence of this outside linguistic influence has

been the frequent scribal use of prosthetic vowels at a time when they were

doubtless not in general use in local speech. Thus, in one of the first literary

prose writings, the Psalter Commentary composed between the 1160s and 1180s

for Laurette of Alsace, we find many forms contining an initial <e> ; for

instance, l’estoile, la veraie esperance, saint Estevene, des espeies, et estroites

occur in just one psalm (Gregory 1990: psalm 36). In other texts of this

century ostensibly prosthetic forms appear with similar frequency.140 More

139 This has been established for Walloon as a result of the close textual analyses carried

out by Remacle (1948) and others.140 For instance, the translation of the sermons of St Bernard dating from the end of the

twelfth century has numerous cases although a minority of non-prosthetic forms do occur,

especially involving learned words. Thus, sermon 26 has li espouse, des estoiles, ki espirs,

ceste estroite, ki escrite est but est stoile, plus splendianz, parmanable splendor, bele spirituel, si

studioet, la celeste sperance, etc. (Gregory 1994). In the verse Poeme moral of c.1200,

‘normalement, il y a prothese de e devant sþ cons.’ according to Bayot (1929: lxx), as in

bone esperance (l. 410), n’i espargniez (l. 1287). As regards the dozen non-prosthetic forms

I-prosthesis 127

revealing of local usage in Walloon are non-literary vernacular documents.

These first appear in 1236 and they become available in significant numbers

from the second half of the century (Boutier 1995: 291), although often they

too betray linguistic influence from central forms of langue d’oıl.

In view of the limited usefulness of much textual evidence, use must also be

made of internal linguistic evidence to clarify likely patterns of pronunciation. In

particular, the treatment of forms originally containing prefixal [es-] < EX- is

suggestive. These forms have systematically undergone aphaeresis and their

onsets have become formally indistinguishable from those of s impura words,

e.g. (dialect of Neuweiler, Lorraine) SCANDULA > [åadr], EX-CALDARE > [åad¡](Horning 1887: 66) and (dialect of Liege) STELLA > steule (siteule), EX-TENDERE>

stinde (sitinde) (Haust 1933). The aphaeresis here is part of a more general

deletion process affecting word-initial unstressed etymological [e-] in these

dialects (cf. similar changes in Old Occitan, 4.4.3.4). Evidence of this develop-

ment is present in the 1236 charter where we find two forms <glise> ‘church’ and

<le veke> ‘the bishop’ which correspond to later medieval Walloon glehe and

veke.141 The implication is that forms in prefixal EX- > es- became identified with

etymological s impura words which had developed a prosthetic vowel, and when

aphaeresis operated both the prefixal and prosthetic vowel were lost, in a parallel

way to what happened widely in eastern Romance (cf. 4.3). It seems not unlikely

that at the stage when this development got under way, prosthesis was still

conditioned in etymological s impura forms. The change would therefore have

involved the generalization of the non-prosthetic alternant in these forms, ac-

companied by parallel aphaeresis in words containing prefixal EX-.

The [s]þ consonant word-initial onsets which had been re-established have

subsequently undergone various phonetic changes. In the late nineteenth century,

dialects in Lorraine showed word-initial [s]C-, [ʃ]C-, [x]C- and, very rarely, evenC- with deletion of any trace of the earlier sibilant (Horning 1887: 66–9), and

almost a century later various dialects of western Haut-Rhin (Alsace) and SE

Vosges (Lorraine) continue to have comparable onsets.142 However, in varieties

that are found, there is almost always a vowel-final word preceding, as in sa speie (ll. 127,

452) or de strain ‘of straw’ (l. 199).141 The text of the charter is in Remacle (1948: 110–11). The apheretic form glise ‘church’

also appears frequently in the twelfth-century Psalter Commentary and the translation of

the sermons of St Bernard (Gregory 1990, 1994). Cf. also the names of the communes

Gleixhe and La Gleize, prov. of Liege (Remacle 1948: 129). The form veke survives in the

place-name Plerveke < pre l’ veke ‘bishop’s meadow’ in present-day Jupille.142 Cf. ALA especially pts. 111, 112, 113, 114, 128 (maps 97, 210, 744, 914). Point 113 is

Ranrupt for which a detailed monograph is also available (Aub-Buscher 1962). Both

sources report the reflex [x]C- for etymological s impura onsets in this locality, as in

[xpıNk] ‘thorn’, [xk�v] ‘broom’, [xtop] ‘tow, oakum’ < SPINA, SCOPA, STUPPA.

128 I-prosthesis

where the original fricative of word-initial [s]C- sequences underwent phonetic

change of some sort, the previously operative rule of change may not apply to

lexical items containing [s]C- which have been borrowed more recently. Thus, in

the Alsatian dialect of Ranrupt, original [s]C- > [x]C- but in later lexical loans

containing [s]C- this sequence remains unchanged, [sk‰l¡t] ‘skeleton’, [skr¡]‘secret’ (Aub-Buscher 1962). In Wallonia, comparable phonetic adaption of

etymological SC- sequences has also occurred, giving [h-] or [ʃ-] (cf. ALW I:

map 32 ecume). However, [sk-] onsets have later re-appeared through borrowing.

The reasons for the abandonment of I-prosthesis in these north-eastern

varieties of Gallo-Romance remain uncertain. However, they were geograph-

ically peripheral dialects spoken in transition areas between Romance and

Germanic where a substantial proportion of the population has long been

bilingual to varying degrees. As Germanic languages have always readily permit-

ted word-initial s impura onsets, the abandonment of the prosthetic alternant

may well have been partly promoted as a result of interference between the two

language systems. This view finds some support from other cases where pros-

thetic vowels have been lost in Romance areas exposed to linguistic interference

from Germanic or other languages (cf. 4.3.1 Balkan Romance, 4.4.4 Rheto-

Romance).

In eastern and central Walloon, following the abandonment of I-prosthesis and

the re-establishment of [s]þ consonant sequences as licensed onsets (including

[sk-] in borrowings), these underwent further change through epenthesis.

The earliest reported attestation of this development is the place-name Sitiers

(< ST�IRPUS) which appears in a document dated 1211 (Boutier 1995: 295). Further

examples are found in the following century in the Registre des Echevins de Revin

(Revin lies in the north of departement of Ardenne), sepale = French epaule

c. 1350 ‘shoulder’ (< SPAT(U)LA) and sekevins = French echevins from 1363 ‘deputy

mayor’ (< Frankish *skapin ‘judge’; cf. Old High German scaffin, mod. German

Schoffe ‘juror’); Bruneau (1913a: 389), Remacle (1948: 40–2). Epenthesis appears to

have arisen as a means of resolving the problem of syllabifying the heterosyllabic

s impuraword-initial sequences which had been re-established. A crucial factor in

the use of epenthesis rather than some other repair strategy, however, lies in a

broader development that occurred in medieval Walloon. This was the weakening

which regularly affected vowels in unstressed syllables and led first to vowels

taking on a schwa-like quality. Subsequently, further weakening caused wide-

spread deletion, but in contexts where an unsyllabifiable consonant sequence

would arise, the schwa vowel was strengthened and assigned a more salient

quality (see Map 2 for the various qualities found). The result has been the

appearance of alternation between forms where deletion was able to occur and

forms where deletion of the vowel has been blocked and strengthening has taken

I-prosthesis 129

place.143 This alternating pattern is still to be found across central and eastern

Walloon varieties to the present day, as in:

with strengthening without strengthening

pol tchuvo ‘for the horse’ lu tch’fo ‘the horse’

por lu vinde ‘in order to sell it’ i l’mindje ‘he is eating it’

These appear in the south-eastern dialect of Bastogne (about 70 km south of

Liege) where [y] is used as the realization of the strengthened vowel (Francard

1981). As the examples indicate, proclitic forms as well as lexical words could be

affected. And since weakening to schwa never occurred in absolute word-initial

position, the alternating vowel is only found after the initial consonant of the

word concerned: l’! lu, tch’fo (with regressive assimilation of [v] > [f] following

voiceless tch)! tchuvo, c’nuche! cunuche ‘to know’, etc. It seems likely that the

same pattern of alternation was applied to s impura forms like scole ‘school’. As a

result, in contexts where a consonant-final word preceded in the same phonolog-

ical phrase or where there was a preceding pause, a new alternant was created

through the insertion of the same high vowel [i] or [y] that had developed in

forms which had experienced regular schwa strengthening. And, just as the new

high vowel was located after the word-initial consonant with forms like tchuvo, so

too epenthesis was adopted for s impura forms like scole ! sucole rather than

using prosthesis (** uscole).

Alternations of the type illustrated above are certainly still in evidence in

present-day Walloon, but the genuine productivity of the rule of epenthesis

with s impura forms is equivocal. Francard (1980: 197, n. 49), who bases his

observations specifically on the dialect of Bastogne, states that ‘cette regle est

toujours productive’ and cites alternations such as scole � sucole. But it is also

noted (loc. cit.) that ‘les mots francais d’introduction recente (scarole, scapulere,

scarlatine) ne sont plus regis par cette regle,’ i.e. they have no epenthetic alter-

nants. This would appear to indicate that the rule operates only with a closed set

of established lexical items and hence is no longer truly productive.

4.4.3.4 Langue d’oc

In southern Gallo-Romance, the development of I-prosthesis appears to

have followed the same path during the Middle Ages as it did in all langue

143 There is a clear affinity between the Walloon situation described here and one type

of prosthesis found in the nearby Picard speech area. In the latter case, regular deletion of

schwa has occurred in many proclitic forms and in unstressed initial syllables of lexical

items, e.g. those beginning in prefixal re-. To enable syllabification a prosthetic vowel, [a]

or some type of mid front vowel [e], has been introduced (cf. sections 6.1.4 and 6.1.5).

130 I-prosthesis

d’oıl varieties except those of the east and north-east. During the course of the

pre-literary period (i.e. pre-eleventh century), the great majority of Occitan

varieties evidently acquired a generalized rule of prosthesis for s impura words

and by the end of the medieval period the rule seems to have become established

throughout the langue d’oc area with the exception of three zones: a compact

central area lying SE of Clermont-Ferrand and two bands of peripheral dialects,

one located in the far east of Provence and the other adjacent to the central

Pyrenees. Outside these zones, the rule continued to be productive and

has remained so in many varieties up to the present day. However, in recent

times with the ever more invasive presence of standard French, the integrity of the

rule has been increasingly undermined in the varieties where it had continued to

operate.

Looking more closely at historical developments, we find that at the beginning

of the literary period the earliest extant texts indicate that there may still have

been residual alternation between prosthetic and non-prosthetic forms in some

varieties. Alternation certainly seems to be indicated in the two oldest extant

literary works although both of these are in verse and hence would be subject to

metrical constraints likely to influence the inclusion, or omission, of unstressed

vowels at word edges. Even so, it is notable that non-prosthetic forms are found

solely after a word ending in unstressed /-a/.144 Thus, in the Chanson de Sainte Foi

d’Agen (c. 1060) there are five non-prosthetic forms attested, e.g. la spina (l. 56),

umbra streins (l. 62), and all occur after a preceding word-final /-a/; these contrast

with sixteen prosthetic forms which appear in other phonological contexts.

Similarly, in the Boeci of c. 1100 (Schwarze 1963: 11–15) a preceding unstressed

/-a/ provides the only context which fails to trigger a prosthetic form, riqueza star

(83), a ferma schala (l. 149), etc., with just one anomaly auia escript (l. 205). The

many charters and official documents of the twelfth century from Quercy and

Albi show a comparable situation, with non-prosthetic forms regularly being

used after the article la but not elsewhere (Grafstrom 1958: }21). Thus, in an

Albigeois text dated 1120 (Brunel 1926–52: text 20), ella strada appears (96)

although prosthetic forms are also found, post-vocalically in so escriot (66) and

post-pausally in Esteves (93).145 The question therefore arises whether I-

144 If a preceding [a] is stressed, prosthesis is found as in fa estar (l. 162).145 The same document also has a non-prosthetic form in II.as. stairadas (56–7).

Grafstrom (loc. cit.) suggests that stairadas ‘measures of grain’ may owe its lack of a

prosthetic vowel to haplology in syntagmas like tres s(es)tairadas (< SEXTARI-ATAS).

However, reflexes of non-derived SEXTARIUS frequently appear in early texts without a

prosthetic vowel; cf. Brunel (1926-52: text 34) from Quercy where forms such as II. steirs,

I. steir (11), IIII. sters (21) although VI. sesteirs (9) is also found.

I-prosthesis 131

prosthesis at this period was still becoming generalized in all post-vocalic con-

texts, or whether generalization of prosthesis had already occurred but subse-

quently aphaeresis had operated on prosthetic forms preceded by words ending

in unstressed /-a/. The aphaeretic treatment of la gleisa < EC(C)LESIA (8, 34) in this

text (and many others) together with other attested cases of aphaeresis like la

spleita, sa spleita ‘farmstead’ (< EXPL�ICITA) in a text of c. 1140 from Quercy (Brunel

1926-52: text 34, 10, 13, 14) suggest that the latter interpretation may be more

appropriate. However, it remains unclear why specifically unstressed final /-a/,

and not other final unstressed vowels, should provoke aphaeresis. If a tendency

for aphaeresis to operate was starting to get under way, the impression is that it

was soon abandoned in most (though not all) varieties and, crucially, in the

developing Occitan literary koine (cf. Wunderli 1969: 54).

In the later Middle Ages and into the early modern period, two major tendencies

affecting prosthesis appear to have operated in the langue d’oc. On the one hand, in

the greatmajority of varieties I-prosthesis remained (or became established) as a fully

productive rule operating in all linguistic contexts including post-vocalically, just as

in Castilian and many other varieties of Ibero-Romance, cf. 4.4.2). Thus, Mushacke

(1884: }10) reports that prosthesis is regularly attested in medieval non-literary texts

from Montpellier and that it was still operative in the nineteenth century. Similarly,

the mainly fifteenth-century Thesaur del hospital de Sant Sperit from Marseille

shows widespread use of prosthetic forms, notwithstanding the final word of its

title. But occasionally prosthesis is not represented in forms following a word ending

in [s] and also sometimes post-pausally. Otherwise, items lacking a prosthetic vowel

represent either latinisms or graphies influenced by the traditional non-prosthetic

scribal usage of Provence (see next paragraph); cf. Glessgen (1989: 272).

On the other hand, a minority of Occitan varieties experienced aphaeresis

leading to the loss of the rule of prosthesis. Cases of aphaeresis of prosthetic and

etymological [e-] can be found in medieval documents. Texts from the far eastern

area of Provence are notable in this respect,146 and in the medieval Occitan variety

146 Wunderli (1969: 52–4) notes widespread aphaeresis in Occitan Bible translations

dating from the twelfth to sixteenth century most of which are of Provencal origin.

Zufferey (1987: 210) also reports aphaeresis in the fourteenth-century Guiraud

chansonnier (MS f) which was probably composed in the Arles area (e.g. speransa, star,

stage, spauen), and also in medieval documents from the arrondissement of Digne (Alpes-

Maritimes), in two epic poems preserved in a compilation made by a notary from Apt

(Alpes-Maritimes), and in some manuscripts of the Vie de Saint Honorat. Ronjat (II: }451)notes that aphaeresis can be found in modern varieties of parts of the Pyrenean area and

eastern Aquitaine. Here, interestingly, aphaeresis occurs in prosthetic words when they are

preceded by a feminine singular definite article. No rationale is offered for this

phenomenon, however, and its possible link with the linguistic conditions found in the

earliest Occitan texts, noted above, remains unclear.

132 I-prosthesis

used by the Waldensians in south-eastern France, a similar loss of the vowel has

been reported.147 The present-day dialects of this area continue to provide

evidence of aphaeresis. Thus, the ALF pts 889 (Menton) and 890 (Fontan,

Breil) show non-prosthetic reflexes for SCALA, SPINA, STELLA, STR�ICTA (maps 436

echelle, 476 epine, 494 etoile, 524 (trop) etroite, and this is confirmed in the more

recent detailed dialectological study of Alpes-Maritimes by Dalbera (1994) which

found aphaeresis to be regular in the varieties of the Roya valley down to

Menton.148 The close proximity of this region to Liguria in north-western Italy

is highly significant, as the varieties spoken in the latter area likewise show

evidence of early aphaeresis (4.4.5). As a result, delicate interplay has occurred

in these transitional dialects between the conflicting patterns of prosthetic vowel

use that developed in medieval Occitan (where use of the vowel was generally

productive) and Ligurian. The fluid political history of the region heightened the

interplay. Nice and the territory which it controlled passed to the County of Savoy

in 1388 but this reverted to France in 1860, while Tende in the upper Roya valley

passed to Savoy in 1626 and became part of France once more in 1947.

Some equally peripheral varieties of Gallo-Romance lying further to the north

in the valleys of Vaud also continue to have aphaeretic forms (Wuest 1995: 439),

although in the adjacent area of Piedmont prosthetic forms were reported to be

usual in certain varieties at the end of the nineteenth century.149 Nauton (1974: 53,

223) reports a zone in southern Puy-de-Dome and north-western Haute-Loire

where words beginning with unstressed a- and e- have been systematically

affected, as in [tsatar~¡] ‘we will buy (= French acheterons)’. As a consequence of

this change, previously occurring prosthetic vowels have been deleted, as in skola‘school’. Other varieties also undergoing aphaeresis are reported in parts of the

147 ‘Sembra assente la protesi dinanzi a Sþ consonante, anche in situazione

etimologica’ (Cornagliotti 1995: 470). The examples cited indicate that the absence of

prosthetic vowels is due to the action of aphaeresis: EXTRANEU(M)> strang, EXPRESSA-

MENTE> spresament, Germ. skirn-þ -TORE(M)> scarnidor.148 However, SC�OLA, *SCURIU(M) emerge with a prosthetic vowel, [�skola], [eskiro‰] in

Fontan, although Menton has non-prosthetic forms reported for these items (ALF 441

ecole, 450 ecureuil). Ronjat (II, }321) provides a detailed overview of localities showing

aphaeresis and generalization of the non-prosthetic alternant.149 Morosi (1888) records forms such as [ej’ka:lo], [ej’piNo] [ejly’Ja] < SCALA, SPINA, EX-

LUNGIARE ‘ladder, thorn, to move to a distance’ for the dialect of Prali (Germanasca Valley).

However, a little to the south, the dialect of Bobbio and Villar-Pellice (Pellice Valley) had

undergone aphaeresis to give [’ste:la] etc. and further down the same valley at Torre Pellice

aphaeresis was also general, although lexicalized prosthetic forms remain in the more

isolated mountain areas, such as [es’te:la], [es’pina]. The motivation for the drift towards

aphaeretic forms in these Piedmontese dialects is not clear.

I-prosthesis 133

Pyrenean area and eastern Aquitaine (Ronjat II: }451). The reasons for the

occurrence of aphaeresis in all these varieties, however, remain uncertain.

While the two opposing tendencies affecting the occurrence of I-prosthesis

were operating across different varieties of the langue d’oc, a further force for

change began to make itself felt from the late medieval period onward, namely the

influence of standard French. The increasing pressures of centralization in the

crystallizing French state led to ever greater use of standard French in the south.

Socially more advantaged speakers from urban areas were generally the first to be

affected by this new linguistic presence while speakers from rural areas, less

exposed to standardizing influences, have maintained the integrity of their

Occitan speech longer. An obvious source of tension for speakers of the many

Occitan varieties where prosthesis functioned as a fully productive rule was the

absence of prosthetic vowels in standard French pronunciation. Such was the

sociolinguistic pressure to conform with standard usage that sixteenth-century

southern speakers were already adapting to the new norm when using standard

French, at least in their writings. Nonetheless, traces of prosthetic usage still

appear not infrequently in the works of southerners such as Monluc and espe-

cially Brantome (cf. 4.4.3.1). Less clear is how standard French was actually spoken

by southerners whose native Occitan variety had a productive rule of prosthesis.

Occasional comments, usually censorious, are made by sixteenth- and seven-

teenth-century grammarians on this question but these shed little clear light on

contemporary patterns of usage. Thus, Henri Estienne writes of the ‘vice’ of

saying estatuts, espectacle, espacieux, etc. and of hypercorrecting estomach (sic) to

stomach, and he attributes this pronunciation to speakers from Dauphine, Lan-

guedoc, and ‘ces quartiers la.’ Also, as noted earlier, the grammarians Menage and

Dumas single out Gascons for their ‘inappropriate’ use of a prosthetic e- as in

estupide, estile (Thurot I: 216).

In more recent times, the increasing exposure of southern speakers to the

standard language has tended progressively to undermine the use of I-prosthesis

in the langue d’oc area. In the regional French found there, the incidence of

prosthetic vowels has been reduced although indications of their continued presence

are given in twentieth-century studies. For instance, Brun (1931: 38) noted their

occurrence in words like esculpture, especial, escrupule as ‘bien connu et toujours

persistant’ in Marseille, and a little later Seguy ([1950] 1978: 18) reported that

speakers of the francais regional of Toulouse were still commonly saying estatue,

estylo. Standard French influence has also served to undermine the rule of prosthesis

in Occitan varieties where it had previously been productive. Thus, in the Gascon

dialect of Donzac there has been recent loss of productivity in prosthesis: ‘The Fr.

clustersmade up of /s/ plus consonant were avoided in the past whenword-initial by

a prosthetic [e-]; hence Donzacais /espektatyr/ ‘spectateur’ (15th cent. Fr. word),

/eskeleto/ ‘squelette’ (16th cent.). In more recent loans like /spesjalısto/ ‘specialiste’

134 I-prosthesis

(19th cent.), /standardiza/ ‘standardizer’ (20th cent.), such initial consonant clusters

have become permissible sequences’ (Kelly 1973: 74).

A complex pattern with prosthesis seems to exist in the dialect of Notre-Dame-

de-Sanilhac in the Dordogne (Marshall 1984). Long-established s impura words

have undergone unconditioned prosthesis and subsequently pre-consonantal [s]

>[j], as in [ei’salP] [ei’pinP] [ei’kolP] < SCALA, SPINA, SCHOLA. Speakers evidently

view the initial vowel of these words now as part of their underlying form. More

recent loans beginning with /sC-/, however, are subject to conditioned prosthesis

with partial palatalization of the sibilant, as in [¡ʃtP’ty] ‘statue’, [¡ʃk¡’l¡tP]‘skeleton’ (post-pausal citation forms) vs [ynPʃtPty] ‘a statue’, [ynPʃk¡’l¡tP] ‘askeleton (f.sg.)’ (post-vocalic) where [ynP] is the feminine singular definite

article. Speakers are reportedly conscious of the alternation in such words.

In other varieties, however, I-prosthesis may remain a fully productive process

irrespective of context. This is the case in the modern standardized forms of both

Provencal and Languedocian (based on usage in Toulouse). For the former,

Coupier (1995) cites examples such as escrupule, esculta ‘to sculpt’, escri ‘script’,

escrable ‘scrabble’; espountanieu, espoutnik, espirau ‘spiral’, esfero; estati ‘static’,

estatut, estatuo, estendardisto ‘switchboard operator’. For the latter, contemporary

newspapers in Languedocian offer cases such as Escandinaus, estagi (= Fr. stage),

estatisticament, especialista, estructura, estereotip alongside the forms belonging to

the inherited lexicon such as escala, espatla, escriure, estrech, estat.

4.4.4 RHETO-ROMANCE

Although individual varieties of Rheto-Romance may show considerable differ-

ences in their phonetic history, there is a high degree of similarity in their

treatment of I-prosthesis. The facts suggest that prosthesis did occur in the Late

Latin of the Rheto-Romance speech area, though it is unclear whether it ever

came to operate unconditionally. In the course of the medieval period, however,

aphaeresis evidently operated and unstressed word-initial [e-] in prosthetic and

other forms was deleted. As a result, no modern variety of Rheto-Romance

contains forms showing I-prosthesis nor are there attestations of such forms in

surviving texts. We can therefore only infer their possible existence in pre-literary

times from two types of persuasive internal linguistic evidence. On the one hand,

the common treatment of s impura forms and prefixal words beginning with EX-,

e.g. STELLA, EXTENDERE > (Upper Engadinish) staila [’ʃtajla], stender [’ʃtender](Walberg 1907), is consistent with an interpretation that s impura forms under-

went vowel prosthesis in Late Latin before losing the vowel again later on. On the

other hand, the relatively high level of preservation of word-final consonants in

Rheto-Romance suggests that in the early Middle Ages I-prosthesis would prob-

ably have remained a productive process just as in other types of Romance where

I-prosthesis 135

final consonants were equally retentive, such as Ibero-Romance and Gallo-Ro-

mance. As we have seen, these showed a strong tendency to make systematic use

of I-prosthesis (4.4.2, 4.4.3).

The lack of any attestation for prosthetic vowels indicates that they were

deleted well before the end of the medieval period. In Friulian, where vernacular

texts become available from the fourteenth century, the earliest documents

contain only non-prosthetic forms. Thus, a private letter dated c. 1300 contains

(post-vocalic) ti scriv, ti scrif and (post-consonantal) par scriviti ‘to write to you’,

and the fourteenth-century ballad Piruc myo doc inculurit contains a strit ‘in

dispute’ and the phrase dut stoy ardit ‘I am all full of life’ five times in the refrain

(Sampson 1980: texts 67, 68). Substantial texts in the vernacular of the Grisons

only date from the sixteenth century (and, for Ladin, the eighteenth century;

Kuen 1995: 62), and by then no direct trace of earlier prosthetic vowels remains.

For example, in Jakob Bifrun’s translation of the New Testament into Engadinish

published in 1560, we consistently find non-prosthetic forms being used in all

phonological contexts: (post-consonantal) schi fus sto pussibel dalg scriver ‘if it

had been possible to write it’, (post-vocalic) la sanchia scritura ‘the holy scripture’

(post-consonantal and post-vocalic) chi saien stos stampos ne scrits ‘that may have

been printed or written (m.pl.)’ all of which appear in the Prologue, and (post-

pausal) Sted dime cun vos flaungs schintos ‘Stand therefore (having) your loins girt

about’ in Ephesians 6. 14.

Given the relative lack of medieval vernacular documentation in Rheto-

Romance, it is difficult to identify the reasons for the early abandonment of I-

prosthesis. Certainly, in a Romance perspective the general preservation of Latin

word-final consonants in the Grisons and the Ladin area might be expected to

have encouraged the maintenance of prosthesis there, at least as a sandhi process

operating when original s impura forms occurred post-consonantally or post-

pausally. Nonetheless, this has not happened. A possible factor to account for this

might be sought in the linguistic interference that resulted from the increasingly

widespread bilingualism with Germanic during the Middle Ages in the Grisons

and the Ladin area, particularly as Germanic has always permitted word-initial

/sC-/ sequences. Indeed, it has been observed that where one language commu-

nity exerts strong cultural pressure on another, ‘moderate structural borrowing’

including the introduction of new syllable structure constraints can and does

occur (Thomason and Kaufman 1988: 75).150 In view of the cultural and linguistic

150 The interference between Germanic and Grisons Rheto-Romance has been much

studied, notably in the classic study of Weinreich (1953). In this work, some aspects of

phonological interference are addressed but unfortunately these relate exclusively to

phonemic systems. Nothing is said on areas such as syllable structure or sandhi

phenomena.

136 I-prosthesis

pressure long exerted on Rheto-Romance varieties by northern Italian and

especially Germanic in both of which word-initial s impura onsets were licensed,

appeal to linguistic interference from these outside sources would seem to offer at

least a partial explanation for the abandonment of prosthesis. A parallel may be

found in the retreat from I-prosthesis in other more peripheral Romance areas

similarly exposed to intense outside linguistic interference, Balkan-Romance

(4.3.1) and north-eastern Gallo-Romance (4.4.3.3).

4.4.5 NORTHERN ITALO-ROMANCE

The history of I-prosthesis in northern Italo-Romance is problematic. As north-

ern Italy is a non-peripheral area in western Romance, we might expect that the

use of prosthetic vowels with s impura forms generally extended during the

Middle Ages and commonly led to the establishment of an unconditioned rule

of I-prosthesis, as was the case in Ibero-Romance and most of Gallo-Romance.

However, this evidently did not happen. The earliest vernacular texts, which

appeared in the later medieval period, already suggest that in general I-prosthesis

had failed fully to take root as a phonological rule, although some cases of

(typically contextually conditioned) prosthetic vowels do continue to occur in

certain medieval texts, especially from the north-west of Italy. Complicating our

understanding of the use of I-prosthesis in this area has been the gulf that has

often existed since the medieval period between actual spoken usage and written

conventions which have generally ignored prosthetic vowels even when it seems

highly probable that in reality they were present. Even in more recent times,

although brief mention is occasionally made by linguists of the existence of

prosthetic vowels in certain northern Italian varieties, no formal account seems

to have been attempted of their incidence. Against this background, it is particu-

larly difficult to obtain a faithful picture of the history of I-prosthesis in northern

Italo-Romance.

The philological evidence relating to the use of prosthesis in the Imperial

period in northern Italian varieties is equivocal. Inscriptions from CIL V, which

covers Cisalpine Gaul, contain just seven cases (three pagan and four Christian)

showing vowel prosthesis according to Prinz (1938: 106). However, although the

total of seven is modest, it is the same as, for example, the Iberian Peninsula where

subsequent generalization in the use of I-prosthesis has occurred. Evidence of a

more revealing nature comes from early medieval texts, for here we find markedly

fewer indications of prosthesis than in comparable texts from early medieval

Spain or France (cf. 4.4.2, 4.4.3 above). For instance, in the set of official papyri

written between 445 and 700 and edited by Tjader (1955), there are very few

instances of prosthetic vowels or of aphaeresis in texts composed in northern

Italy. All the relevant examples of prosthesis occur in the signatures (i.e. formal

I-prosthesis 137

depositions) of witnesses and are matched elsewhere by corresponding forms

where prosthesis or aphaeresis has not been indicated. Prosthetic forms appear in

two northern texts from Ravenna both of which date from about 600: expathario

and �Ø��Æ�Ææ[ . . . ] (= ispatar[ . . . ]) < SPATARIU(M) ‘weapon bearer’ in papyrus 16

(both are post-pausal), and sipraiscripta < SUPRA-SCRIPTA twice in papyrus 20. The

latter, which seems to show internal prosthesis, occurs in the signature of the sixth

and final witness where interestingly other signs of less Classical-style usage are

also found, such as donacionis as against the spelling donationis appearing in

other signatures. There is just one example of aphaeresis, in non amplius spectata

(papyrus 8, Ravenna 564 AD), where the final word derives from EXSPECTATA

(cf. 4.1.1).151

Prosthesis is even more poorly attested in the corpus of thirty-two legal

charters dating from 568–774 which come from Lombard northern Italy.152

They contain only one example of a prosthetic vowel, and cases of aphaeresis

are equally rare with just two examples occurring (Politzer and Politzer 1953: 2,

11). The circumstances in this northern subset of Lombard legal documents are

thus in marked contrast to those apparent in the corresponding subset composed

in Tuscany where prosthetic vowels are widely indicated, as we have seen (4.3.3).

The relatively low level of attestation for prosthetic vowels in early medieval

northern Italian texts is striking and difficult to explain. It may reflect superior

and more widespread knowledge of Classical Latin-style spelling conventions

amongst local scribes. Alternatively, it could indicate that already the use of

prosthesis in speech was already becoming more limited in the geographical

areas or social circles that the scribes came from, though the reasons for this

are not clear. Perhaps a combination of these two explanations comes closest to

the truth.

Significant numbers of vernacular texts start to appear in northern Italy

from the thirteenth century onward and these reveal significant variation in

the incidence of I-prosthesis. Regional differences are evident, particularly be-

tween Piedmont in the north-west where a productive rule of (contextually

conditioned) prosthesis has become established and varieties of the centre and

east where the incidence of prosthetic vowels appears more restricted and indeed in

some varieties I-prosthesis may already have been abandoned altogether. Complex

sociolinguistic factors were to lead to further differences. In particular, the

development of prestigious latinizing written linguistic models, much influenced

151 In a detailed linguistic study based on the documents in Tjader (1955), Carlton (1973:

203–6) reports eight examples of prosthetic vowels. However, five of these are found in a

text composed in Rome in the early seventh century (papyri 18–19), the relevant form being

ab Istefano five times. Such data are clearly not helpful in determining linguistic patterns in

northern Italy.152 The documents appear in Schiaparelli (1929-33).

138 I-prosthesis

by literary Tuscan, and their increasing top-down diffusion acted against the use of

I-prosthesis since this linguistic phenomenon enjoys at best a marginal status in any

of the models.

Looking at the different outcomes of I-prosthesis in northern Italy, wemay begin

with the north-west. Here, there seems to have been a rapid abandonment of

prosthesis in Liguria, but in Piedmont the process has continued to be productive.

The earliest substantial vernacular text from the latter area is the Sermoni subalpini

dating from about 1200 and containing in all twenty-two sermons.153 These have

seventy-seven direct examples of prosthetic vowels such as en escrit (19, 46), la

sainta Escritura (19, 17), avem esperanza (11, 59), tote le especie (16, 67), sore le espine

(17, 23), dis l’espos (8, 120), qui estan (9, 266 and 277), where the references are to the

edition of Clivio and Danesi (1974). If sections of text written in Latin are excluded,

there are only three cases where prosthesis was possible but is not indicated;

all involve learned latinizing forms, speciosa (8, 54), spiritali (12, 73), spiritalment

(6, 11). In the prosthetic examples, the vowel is indicated as being of a mid quality,

either [e] or perhaps centralized [‰].154 As might be expected, the prefixal vowel

[e-] is consistently represented, esforcer (16, 83), esgarder (4, 4), esteigner (5, 129),

esveiller (3, 43), < EX-FORTIARE, EX-ward-ARE, EXT�INGUERE, EX-VIGILARE.

Thereafter, prosthetic vowels are only directly indicated on rare occasions in

Piedmontese texts. Isolated examples are found in fourteenth- and fifteenth-

century writings (Clivio 1971: 338 n. 11) but the practice of representing the

vowel orthographically generally disappears, perhaps as a result of a combination

of factors: the preferential use of a Latinizing spelling, the phonologically

conditioned nature of the prosthesis (post-consonantal only), and later on the

influence exerted by standard literary Italian. However, even if the vowel ceased to

be represented in writing, it evidently remained in productive use in spoken usage

although it was never extended in distribution to include more than just post-

consonantal contexts. The evidence of the Sermoni subalpini is therefore curious

since prosthetic vowels appear in post-vocalic contexts too. This exceptional

characteristic of the Sermoni may reflect influence from adjacent Gallo-Romance

varieties where, as we have seen, I-prosthesis had come to operate in all phono-

logical contexts by the end of the twelfth century.

Despite the near-total absence of indications of I-prosthesis in later medieval

and early modern texts, linguistic studies of modern Piedmontese show that I-

prosthesis remains a productive process not only in the koine based on Turinese

but also across almost all local varieties in Piedmont. The phonetic value of the

prosthetic vowel varies a good deal, appearing as [‰] in the koine and [a], [A], [N]

153 On the basis of internal phonological and lexical evidence, Danesi (1976: 99)

identifies the south-west of Piedmont as the place of composition of the sermons.154 In the sermons, there is just one example of the graphy <i->, ista (10, 52).

I-prosthesis 139

etc. in other varieties. However, it is represented uniformly in spelling as <e>

following its somewhat belated (re)introduction to written Piedmontese thanks

to spelling reforms dating from around 1930. In modern usage, I-prosthesis with

s impura forms continues to be contextually determined, operating only when the

preceding word is consonant-final. Thus, in the koine we find la steila ‘a star’ but

set esteile ‘seven stars’, mi i scrivo ‘I write’ but ti it escrive ‘you (sg.) write’ and per

escrit ‘in writing’ (Brero 1971: 23). However, in contexts where the preceding

consonant is a rhotic or a glide, i.e. a maximally sonorous and vowel-like

segment, the appearance of the prosthetic vowel is reported to be optional

‘without any ascertainable conditioning factor, other than perhaps the speed at

which one is talking,’ as in [‰n ’f¡r (‰)s’pPrk] ‘a dirty iron, knitting-needle’

(Clivio 1971: 338). No prosthetic vowel appears in post-pausal contexts; for

instance, [le ’trPp ‰str¡jta] ‘it’s too tight (f.sg.)’ but [le ’trPp # str¡jta] l’e trop . . .streitawhere an intervening pause blocks the use of a prosthetic vowel (Clivio loc.

cit.). Citation forms are therefore always non-prosthetic. This distributional

limitation, if it directly descends from original patterns of usage in Late Latin,

would offer support to the three-stage view of actualisation in I-prosthesis (4.1.4).

The same distributional pattern found with s impura forms is adopted in the

Piedmontese koine by words containing complex heterosyllabic onsets created by

later syncope of an initial unstressed vowel, e.g. [doi ’pnas] ‘two tails’ but [ses

‰p’nas] ‘six tails’ < *DUI / SEX P(I)NN-ACIOS (Clivio 2002: 161; cf. also 6.1.4).155 And

predictably, in the Piedmontese koine as elsewhere in Romania continua, the

evolution of the prosthetic vowel has been directly related to that of prefixal

[e-]. Thus, the same pattern of alternation is found in forms such as zbarue ‘to

frighten’ as against gat ezbarua ‘frightened cat’ (< EX-PAVORARE), with an initial

vowel in post-consonantal contexts (Aly-Belfadel 1933: } 45).In other Piedmontese varieties, differences exist in the details of the application

of I-prosthesis. For instance, in the transitional Piedmontese-Ligurian dialect of

Cairo Montenotte the prosthetic vowel may sometimes be omitted following a

word ending in a sonorant as in [a suN ’ʃtPja ’li] ‘I (fem.) have been there’ where

[’ʃtPja] < STATA (Parry 2005: 95). In the northern Piedmontese dialect of Viver-

one spoken NE of Turin, phonetically the difference between prosthetic and

155 This is not true for all Piedmontese varieties. For example, in the variety spoken in

Cairo Montenotte, I-prosthesis remains a productive process typically involving a front

vowel [i], [e], or [¡], as in ra sc-pala ‘the shoulder’ but in isc-pala ‘on one’s shoulder’ where

sc- indicates [ʃ] (Parry 2005: 95–8). The prosthesis arising from the later creation of

complex word-initial onsets involves [a-] which has now been lexicalized in the forms

concerned, e.g. amsuria [am’surja] ‘scythe’, avge [av’ Ðq¡] ‘to watch over’ (< MESSORIA,

VIGILARE).

140 I-prosthesis

non-prosthetic forms is reported to be more evident when the preceding

conditioning word is a grammatical particle (article or clitic pronoun) as in

l’eskule ‘the schoolboy’, kwatt eskule ‘four schoolboys’ but elsewhere skule.156 In

the Valsesia in NE Piedmont, the occurrence of the prosthetic vowel has been

limited to just contexts where a proclitic article precedes, as in l’aspos ‘the

husband’, n’asku ‘a shield’ < SPONSU(M), SCUTU(M) (Spoerri 1918: } 119).Elsewhere in northern Italo-Romance, I-prosthesis has tended to be less reten-

tive than in Piedmontese. It has widely lost ground in more formal registers and

amongst more educated speakers, but nonetheless it appears to have remained in

productive use in many areas as a low-level sandhi feature in more informal

registers. In the north-east of Italy, the earliest surviving Venetian texts from the

late thirteenth and fourteenth century provide evidence of the retreat of prosthe-

sis. Notarial documents, which form the majority of non-literary writings, show

generalized loss. For example, in a deposition dating from 1299 there are no

examples of the vowel even post-consonantally, e stado, per spensarie, ai scrito, da

Meo speciale (Stussi 1965: text 19). A rare instance of a prosthetic vowel being

represented in writing comes in a private text, a mercantile record of accounts

from 1307, where per Istefanotto occurs (Stussi, text 42). Yet, in the same text we

also find per Stefanoto. Various explanations are possible for the scribal variation

here: (i) that the prosthetic vowel was a current feature in speech but not

normally indicated in writing except through inattention, (ii) that its occurrence

was unusual in speech and occurred only (variably) in post-consonantal contexts,

(iii) that the individual concerned may have come from another part of Italy

where vowel prosthesis was normal at this time, e.g. Florence, and would have

called himself Istefanotto, so that a writer might sporadically choose to represent

this pronunciation.157 The last two possibilities are perhaps more likely than the

first. At all events, moves towards the general abandonment of I-prosthesis in

Venetian appear to be well under way by the later Middle Ages. The reasons for

this remain unclear. Here, as in other northern cities, we may suppose that an

important factor in helping to hasten the abandonment, at least in written usage

and presumably in more formal spoken registers too, in later medieval centuries

was the growing influence of the emerging standard written Italian language

where prosthetic vowels (and prefixal [e-]) had only a very marginal status.

156 Data from Nigra ([1901]1973: 253). The relative salience of the prosthetic vowel

depends on the degree of syntactic cohesion between the s impura form and the

preceding word. When the s impura form follows a semi-lexical rather than proclitic

consonant-final word, the prosthetic vowel (“vocale copulativa” or link vowel, as Nigra

terms it) is reported to be scarcely perceptible. This explains the superscript representation.157 A counterpart can be found in the practice followed in the correspondence of the

Datinis when they refer to Francesco Datini’s assistant Stoldo di Lorenzo di ser Berizo. His

name appears variably as Istoldo or Stoldo depending on context (see also 4.3.3).

I-prosthesis 141

However, there may already have been internal forces in Venetian that were

undermining the process of I-prosthesis. We can only speculate on what these

might have been.158

Beyond the city of Venice and ‘good’ usage there, however, I-prosthesis seems

to have survived as a productive process in at least some local forms of speech of

the Veneto. Thus, in the transitional area between western Veneto and eastern

Lombardy the form [nel es’p¡tʃ] ‘in the mirror’ is reported for pt. 248 (Limone)

in AIS 4, map 675, where a prosthetic vowel appears characteristically in post-

consonantal position.159

In Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna, a similar picture emerges. In the former

area, latinizing practice and (from the thirteenth century) influence from the

emerging Tuscan-based literary language coloured written vernacular usage

amongst the cultivated elites of major cities like Milan and this doubtless affected

educated spoken usage too.160 Already in the earliest surviving vernacular texts

from Lombardy there are no direct indications of prosthetic vowels. Thus, in the

2440 line poem known as the Sermone composed in 1274 by the Milanese poet

Pietro da Barsegape (< Basilica Petri), no prosthetic vowels are directly indicated

and there is widespread aphaeresis. For example, we find in scoso ‘in the bosom’

(l. 1200), con spade (l. 1372), per scampare ‘to escape’ (l. 1997), se lagaven scortegare

‘they let themselves be flayed’ (l. 2080), where the relevant etyma are (Langob.)

skauz (REW 7986), SPATHAS, EX-CAMPARE, EX-CORTICARE, respectively. The only graphy

that suggests the possible presence of prosthesis is the form inestabile ‘unstable,

variable’ (l. 386). There is a clear resemblance between this item and graphies found

in other regions dating from Late Imperial and early medieval times where

‘internal’ prosthesis appears as in INISTANTE for INSTANTE (cf. 4.1.1). It may therefore

be that we have here a rare residual example of the early tendency to restructure

sequences of consonantþ s impura by vowel insertion. If so, the implication is that

the tendency was abandoned in Lombardy more rapidly across word boundaries

158 For instance, it may be that the greater levels of preservation of word-final vowels in

the Veneto area was significant as this would statistically have favoured the use of non-

prosthetic alternants. However, the contemporary circumstances in popular medieval

Tuscan usage (cf. 4.3.3) would prove problematic for such a hypothesis.159 Pt. 248 stands out in bold relief, since nearby locations all have forms with no trace

of a prosthetic vowel; [alʃp¡tʃ] for pts. 427 (Baura, Ferrara) and 443 (Tizzano), and

[intalsp¡tʃ] for pt. 423 (Parma).160 Cf. Lurati (1988: 499), ‘Almeno dal Duecento il milanese non ha cessato di

avvicinarsi al modello fonetico italiano, abbandonando progressivamente tratti locali.’ In

turn, the enormous linguistic influence of Milan on usage elsewhere in western Lombardy

over many centuries doubtless played some part in the disappearance of the rule of I-

prosthesis in varieties of this area (1988: 489–91).

142 I-prosthesis

than word-medially.161 A similar situation is found in the works of the poet

Bonvesin da la Riva (d. c. 1315), also from Milan. For example, his De Sathana

cum Virgine contains no examples of prosthesis and many instances of aphaeresis,

no’m lassa in stao ‘does not let me be’ (l.14), strabello e in grand splendor ‘very fine

and in great splendour’ (l. 115), e trop stragrand desnor ‘and very great dishonour’

(l.199).162 The fifteenth-century prose text Elucidario, although of less certain

geographical background but certainly from the Milan region (Gasca Queirazza

1995: 103), likewise has forms such asmete in scrigo ‘put in writing’ (Prologue), caze

del prumer stao ‘he fell from the first state’ (I, 36), per scampare (II, 13), illi in

scampay ‘they have escaped’ (II, 29), con spagurose contegne ‘with fearsome appear-

ances’ (III, 12), but cases of non-aphaeresis are found which may reflect learned

influence, e.g. per esperienza (I, 87), cotale ustruminti (II, 9).163

In eastern Lombardy, there are comparable indications of the abandonment of

I-prosthesis in written usage. A fourteenth-century verse composition from

Bergamo on the Ten Commandments contains graphies such as in sperzur ‘in

perjury’ (l. 21), se trova scripto (l. 31), no posemo stare (l. 83), in scifi ‘in vileness’

(l. 91), s’ol strasinava ‘he dragged him’ (l. 92) (Lorck 1893), and a fifteenth-century

document on notarial practice includes per stipulatio, lasara star, del spectabel

miser lo zudes ‘of the respectful lord judge’ (Tomasoni 1985). And the two earliest

known vernacular prose texts from Brescia which date from 1393 and 1412 contain

forms such as gom scomes ‘we began’, tu fos stath ‘you had been (subj.)’, de queli

plagi spander el to sanc ‘from those wounds to shed your blood’, in special (Bonelli

and Contini 1935).

To the south, the situation in the peripheral usage of Cremona and Mantua is

broadly comparable. Cremonese is not well attested until the later Middle Ages, and

when texts do become available from themid fifteenth century, the representation of

their phonology and morphology is already ‘fatalmente condizionata dal modello

toscaneggiante’ (Grignani 1980: 55). Thus, in surviving financial accounts of build-

ing works, there is no sign of prosthesis and numerous instances of aphaeresis: per

spaltar el stadiol ‘to floor the wooden loggia’ (IV, 27), per stange ‘for bars’ (IV, 21), per

spazadurra ‘for sweeping’ (V, 12). Mantua, in contrast, has texts in volgare from the

thirteenth century. Five letters written between merchants survive, the earliest

dating from about 1282. These provide evidence of the abandonment of prosthesis,

in stanfortin ‘in stamford (type of prized woollen fabric originating in Stamford)’

(I, 21), per sbriga (II, 10), in quator stanforti (I, 23). A little later, in the first decade of

161 Keller (1934: 86), it may be noted, suggests a possible etymon inþ instabile rather

than IN-STABILE for this word. This seems less plausible.162 Examples from the edition of Contini (1941). All the readings cited concur with the

reading of Gokcen (1996).163 Examples drawn from the edition by Degli Innocenti (1984).

I-prosthesis 143

the fourteenth century, a vernacular version of amedieval Latin encyclopaedic work

was composed by the notary Vivaldo Belcalzer. Here too, prosthesis is absent and

aphaeresis normal, as in the section on thunder where forms are found such as col so

sforzoso impet squarza e fend le nuvolie ‘with its violent blast it shreds and splits the

clouds’, el splendor, and adus sonor, strepit e fragor ‘it brings din, uproar and

shattering’ (Schizzerotto 1985: 13–18, 37–8).

However, at an informal spoken level there is evidence to suggest that I-

prosthesis remained productive, albeit contextually determined. For instance, in

a compact group of varieties spoken around Trento a prosthetic and prefixal

vowel [e-] has continued in use, occurring exclusively in post-consonantal con-

texts, as in per escriver ‘to write’, per estrada ‘on the way’, per escomesa ‘as a wager’,

son estrac ‘I am tired’, l’aven espaventa ‘we frightened him’, piat espars ‘spilled dish’

(Tomasini 1951). The distribution here is therefore directly comparable to that

found widely in Piedmont.

In Emilia-Romagna, a similar picture to that of Lombardy emerges. Textual

evidence suggests a relatively early retreat from I-prosthesis in more formal usage,

as in a Bolognese proclamation dated 1294 which contains the forms d’onne

condizione e stato and en scripto twice (Frati 1900: 249). In this text, there are

other unmistakable signs of Tuscanizing influence, as in forms like trovato,

cuocho.164 Bolognese texts from the following century offer further apparent

evidence of the abandonment of I-prosthesis and are also marked by Tuscan

influence. There are three business letters dating from 1320–50which each contain

the formulaic phrase averme per scluxa (= per scusato) ‘to excuse me’ (Stella

1969),165 while a mid fourteenth-century medicinal work contains e schiva ‘and

avoids’, grogo scropollo ‘one twenty-fourth of an ounce of saffron’, toi stercho ‘take

(imper.) droppings’, and post-pausal scorce de mele granate ‘pomegranate peel’

(Longobardi 1994). There are no instances of I-prosthesis in either text. The

available evidence therefore appears to suggest that the rule was steadily losing

productivity in more educated, formal usage during the Middle Ages in this area

of northern Italy too. Though the original motivating force leading to the

elimination of I-prosthesis in the formal registers used by the more favoured

literate classes of society are unclear, the later influence of the Tuscan-based

literary standard language doubtless contributed to the non-prosthetizing ten-

dency.

164 The evident influence of Tuscan has been noted in an even earlier document dated

1260 which survives from Imola (Bertoni 1908–11).165 Cf. the Tuscan counterpart appearing in the slightly later Datini letters, e.g.

Francesco (17.4.1397) tera’mi per ischusatto ‘you will excuse me’, Margherita (23.11.1398)

che voi l’abiate per ischusato ‘that you excuse it’.

144 I-prosthesis

However, amongst the less uneducated majority of Emilia-Romagna, there is

some evidence to suggest that the use of I-prosthesis with s impura forms

continued in post-consonantal contexts. Particularly significant are more recent

reports by linguists of varieties in which the continued occurrence of

conditioned prosthesis is noted (usually rather perfunctorily, unfortunately).

For example, in the late nineteenth century, Gorra (1890: 153) mentions that in

the variety of Piacenza the prosthetic vowel [a-] still appeared with s impura

forms in post-consonantal contexts. In the variety of Travo, spoken some 27 km

south of Piacenza, [a-] continues to operate as a prosthetic vowel before

s impura forms occurring post-consonantally, as in [ern astrak] ‘they (m.pl.)

were tired’ (Zorner 1989: 64). And in the variety of Grizzano Morandi (located

40 km south of Bologna), the structure of clitic verb phrases such as [al

ti’stofen] ‘they (f.) are boring you’ vs [at’v¡den] ‘they (f.) see you’ indicates

the operation of prosthesis, this process occurring when a consonant-final clitic

precedes an s impura form (Loporcaro 1998). However, here as in other north-

ern Italian varieties, the action of I-prosthesis has overlapped with U-prosthesis

which applied later in the Middle Ages to words containing new heterosyllabic

word-initial sequences that had developed in various parts of northern Italy,

especially Piedmont and Emilia-Romagna (see Chapter 6). The result was that

normally a common vowel type was generalized for both categories of prosthe-

sis; for instance, in Grizzanese, the prosthetic vowel [i] in forms such as [al

ti’vde:ven] ‘they (f.) saw you’ which was triggered by U-prosthesis is identical to

that of [al ti’stofen]. As a consequence, this later prosthetizing process has

served to mask to some extent the operation of the change specifically brought

about earlier on by I-prosthesis.

In sum, it seems that I-prosthesis has operated in an unbroken way from Late

Latin times across a range of varieties of northern Italo-Romance, and especially

those of Piedmont and Emilia-Romagna. However, there is no solid evidence to

indicate that it ever came to apply systematically in other than post-consonantal

contexts. The factors which limited its generalization to other contexts remain

unclear. From the later Middle Ages onward, a pattern not unlike that in later

medieval Tuscan appears to have developed, whereby the use of I-prosthesis was

progressively abandoned in more formal written registers while in informal

spoken registers and in the usage of the less educated majority it continued to

operate widely as a conditioned process. This pattern has continued until recent

times, but it remains to be seen how far the prosthetizing lects will be affected in

the future by the various sociolinguistic forces which have been increasingly

promoting familiarity with the standard variety in Italy where of course I-pros-

thesis is effectively absent.

I-prosthesis 145

5

A-prosthesis

5.1 Introduction

A-prosthesis appears to have arisen somewhat later chronologically than I-pros-

thesis, which was discussed in the preceding chapter. Nevertheless, there is evi-

dence to show that it had become an active phonological process in some varieties

of Romance before the end of the first millennium AD. Its typical effect has been to

introduce a low vowel [a-] (hence our term ‘A-prosthesis’), although occasionally

a different vowel quality may develop. Illustrative examples appear in Figure 5.1.

Gasc. Sardinian

e

Arom.

RĪDERE ar'riðe ar'ri:ði a'rîdire1 ‘to laugh’RĪVU(M) ar'riu ar'ri:u a'rîu 2 ‘river’RĀMU(M) ar'ram ar'ra:mu a'raru< RĀRU(M)3 ‘branch’ ‘rare’RŎTA ar'roðo a'roat ‘wheel’RŬBEU(M) ar'rui or'ruβiu a'roıbu ‘red’

or'r :ðac

FIGURE 5.1. Romance examples of A-prosthesis

Sources: Gascon: ALG pt. 697NE (Bareges); Sardinian: AIS pt. 959 (Baunei) and Bohne

(2003); Aromanian: Papahagi (1974)

At first sight, A-prosthesis differs significantly from both the other major

categories of prosthesis found in Romance. For whereas I-prosthesis and

1 Papahagi (1974) also reports a variant infinitival form [ari’deare] which presumably

derives from paroxytonic RIDERE. It will be recalled that the Classical Latin infinitive form

was also paroxytonic (RIDERE) but that this form underwent widespread restructuring in

Late Latin to proparoxytonic RIDERE, hence Fr. rire, Ital. ridere, etc. Whether the modern

paroxytonic Aromanian form shows faithful preservation of the Classical infinitive stress

pattern or whether it represents a later restructuring back from the Late Latin

proparoxytonic form is uncertain.2 Here, as in subsequent transcriptions of Aromanian, [u] serves to indicate a short

non-syllabic vocalic off-glide. In all Aromanian varieties except Farserotic, which is spoken

in northern Greece, word-final unstressed –u is non-syllabic after simplex consonants but

syllabic after consonant groups, e.g. aspargu [as’pargu] ‘I sprinkle’; cf. Daco-Romanian

sparg (Caragiu Marioteanu 1977: 176–7).3 There appears to be no reflex of Latin RAMU(M) in Aromanian.

U-prosthesis (to be discussed in Chapter 6) can be seen to represent transparent

restructuring processes which serve to simplify complex heterosyllabic word-

initial syllable onsets, no such interpretation seems possible for A-prosthesis

since it operates on words whose initial syllable originally contained a simple

onset composed of a single consonant. Indeed, the development here might even

be seen as destroying simplicity since it led to the replacement of a word-initial

syllable containing an optimal CV structure by a new onset-less syllable contain-

ing a coda: CiV->VCi-CiV- (where ‘Ci’ indicates a given type of consonant),4

although the coda consonant has subsequently been eliminated in some, but not

all, of the Romance varieties concerned. However, as we shall see, the structural

basis to A-prosthesis probably has more similarities to that of the other two

categories of Romance prosthesis than appears to be the case.

5.1.1 IDENTIFICATION

Before examining the nature and historical development of A-prosthesis in more

detail, we may address the problem of how genuine cases of this phenomenon in

Romance can be safely identified. In many instances, the presence of A-prosthesis

appears clear and uncontroversial. Thus, in Gascon, the historical derivation of

items like RIVU(M) > [ar’riu] ‘river’ cited above would seem to provide an

indisputable instance, since not only is there addition of a word-initial [a-] to

the etymological form but precisely the same modification is found occurring

systematically in other words similarly beginning with etymological R-. Since the

process has operated irrespective of grammatical properties of the words

concerned, e.g. their syntactic word-class, (cf. REM > [ar’reN] ‘nothing’, R�OTA >

[ar’roðo] ‘wheel’, RUBEU(M) > [ar’rui] ‘red’, RIDERE > [ar’riðe] ‘to laugh’, etc.), it

may be assumed to have a phonological basis just like the two other major

categories of Romance prosthesis.

However, as has been noted (1.7), it is not uncommon for a new word-initial

[a-] to arise in Romance as a result of non-phonological factors. These include (i)

prefixation; (ii) morpheme-boundary reinterpretation where the final vowel [-a]

of determiners, especially reflexes of UNA, ILLA, or IPSA in noun phrases, is inter-

preted by speakers as belonging to the start of a following (feminine) noun; (iii)

analogical remodelling, as in Sp. avispa ‘wasp’ (< VESPA) which was re-formed on

4 In Optimality Theory terms, A-prosthesis would thus cause a violation of two

constraints: ONSET and, in medieval varieties at least, NOCODA.

A-prosthesis 147

the model of abeja ‘bee’ (< AP�ICULA); and (iv) lexical borrowing from another

variety where words with initial [a-] were widespread. A well-known example of

(iv) is to be found in the numerous loans from Arabic into Ibero-Romance, the

great majority of which were nominals borrowed with the Arabic definite article

a(l)- that was subsequently interpreted as part of the stem.5 However, undoubt-

edly the most statistically significant of these non-phonological sources of new

words containing an unstressed initial [a-] has been type (i) involving the prefix

AD-. Prefixal forms of this sort (typically verbs) have continuously been created

across Romania continua from Roman times, as in AD-RIPARE ‘to reach the shore’

) ‘to arrive’>(Fr.) arriver, (Port., Sp., Cat.) arribar, (Gasc.) arriba, and right up

to the present day as in (It.) ap-prezzare ‘to value’, (Fr.) ap-parenter ‘to ally, link’,

(Rom.) a-lapta ‘to suckle’, etc., where the prefix has increasingly come to serve as

a marker of transitivity. Although prefixal forms can often be identified on

morphosyntactic, semantic, or philological grounds, there can sometimes be

difficulty even so in distinguishing between cases where a word-initial [a-] has

arisen through prefixation and those where it can be attributed to the phonologi-

cal process of A-prosthesis. This is particularly true for Romance varieties such as

Gascon where not only are there forms containing a non-etymological initial [a-]

which can be plausibly attributed to prosthesis (i.e. purely phonologically

conditioned), but there has also been widespread use of prefixation with [a-]

< AD-. Thus, the appropriate interpretation of verbs such as arrauba ‘to steal’ and

arroustı ‘to roast’ poses problems, as their initial [a-] could be taken to be the

result of either A-prosthesis or prefixation. For this reason, evidence provided by

verbal forms or by transparently deverbal derivatives containing [a-] needs to be

evaluated with special care before safe conclusions can be drawn over whether

they have undergone true A-prosthesis.

A rather different type of problem is posed by, for instance, northern

Italian forms such as R(E)C�IPERE ‘to receive’ > (Bolognese) arzaver [ar’tsavv‰r],R(E)-C�ORDO ‘I remember’ > (Romagnolo, dialect of Forlı) arcord [Nr’koNrt],6 wherethere has been insertion of a new word-initial vowel in forms containing etymo-

logical R-. There is an evident similarity between these examples and the cases of

A-prosthesis noted above, but in reality the circumstances here are quite different.

Crucial for the introduction of the new initial vowel in the Italian forms has been

the action of syncope affecting the original pre-tonic vowel, this being the

hallmark of what we shall term U-prosthesis (cf. Chapter 6). In contrast, vowel

5 The lateral of the definite article was regularly assimilated to a coronal stem-initial

consonant in Arabic (e.g. ar-ruzz ‘(the) rice’, an-nafır ‘(the) trumpet’, az-za’uq ‘(the)

mercury’ > Cast. arroz, anafil, azogue). This may have played some modest role in

obscuring the identity of the article to non-native speakers.6 Data here and elsewhere in this paragraph are drawn from Coco (1970) for Bolognese

and Schurr (1919) for the dialect of Forlı.

148 A-prosthesis

prosthesis is not found in these Romance varieties in words which contain

etymological initial R- if there has been no syncope of the vowel immediately

following this consonant; for example, RETE(M) ‘net’, R�OTA ‘wheel’ > (Bolognese)

raid [rajd], roda [’ro:da], (Forlisano) reda [’rejdN], [’roNdN]. If it is assumed that

true A-prosthesis is a process that is phonologically conditioned by the presence

of a given type of word-initial simplex consonantal onset, typically /r-/, then the

restricted type of prosthesis which is found solely before complex word-initial

consonantal onsets arising from syncopated forms like R(E)C�IPERE in Bolognese

and other Romance varieties would not be interpreted as a case of A-prosthesis.

These are best treated under a separate heading, U-prosthesis.

Finally, further difficulties remain with certain types of Romance such as

Gascon where a new word-initial vowel [a-] may appear both in words which

have undergone syncope of the original pre-tonic vowel and in words where there

has been no syncope, as in (Gasc.) arceber ‘to receive’ and arriu ‘river’, respective-

ly. Two interpretations for such forms are possible:

(i) they reflect the action of two distinct (though sometimes overlapping)

categories of prosthesis, which need to be treated separately;

(ii) despite appearances to the contrary, the prosthetic vowel in words such as

arceber is due to the same process of A-prosthesis that gave rise to arriu,

the assumption being that the development of unstressed initial RE- in

Gascon was RE- > arre- > arr(e)- > ar-, i.e. A-prosthesis occurred first and

then syncope of the medial vowel operated.

The latter interpretation has generally been accepted.7 The main justification

advanced for this is that the syncope of pre-tonic vowels in the opening syllable of

words is unusual in the history of Gascon, cf. nebout [ne’ut] < NEPOTE(M)

‘nephew’, bezi [be’zi] < VICINU(M) ‘neighbour’ (ALG 855, 993). It is therefore

argued that a syncopated transitional stage REC�IPERE > **r(e)ceber would seem

unlikely. In contrast, word-medial unstressed vowels in pre-tonic position are

often susceptible to deletion, as in VASS(E)LL-�ITTU(M)>bajlet ‘valet’, VESP(E)R-

ATA > brespado ‘afternoon’, VER(I)TATE(M) > bertat ‘truth’ (Schonthaler 1937; Palay

1971). As this development would of course also affect forms like *ARR(E)C�IPERE,

interpretation (ii) might appear the more plausible of the two. However, as we

shall see (6.1.4), there is a good deal of evidence from other varieties of Romance,

notably in northern Gallo-Romance and Rheto-Romance dialects, to suggest that

syncope in initial unstressed syllables operated earliest and most forcefully in

words beginning specifically with RE-. It is not impossible therefore that the same

syncopating development affected Gascon too but failed to be generalized to

other types of word-initial syllable, hence VICINU(M) > bezı and not **bzı. If this

7 For example, by Sarrieu (1902: 429), Millardet (1910: 121), and Bec (1968: 177).

A-prosthesis 149

were so, interpretation (i) would appear more plausible. With the data currently

available, however, it is not possible to determine which of the two interpretations

is correct.

5.2 A-prosthesis: early developments

5.2.1 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

A-prosthesis has occurred, either systematically or sporadically, in a wide range of

Romance varieties. In the western area of Romania continua, all forms of Ibero-

Romance appear to have been influenced but not in a systematic way.8 North of

the Pyrenees, however, prosthesis has operated widely and systematically in

Gascon (see Map 3) and the process has remained productive in some varieties

until modern times, but there is little evidence of it operating to any significant

degree elsewhere in the langue d’oc area. Further to the east, A-prosthesis has

occurred in certain types of Rheto-Romance, especially in varieties of the En-

gadine in eastern Switzerland and in Friulian. Elsewhere in Rheto-Romance, its

presence appears to be at best limited to a small subset of forms. In contrast,

prosthesis has operated in a wide-ranging way in many types of Sardinian,

notably those of the south (see Map 7). The circumstances in Sicilian and

southern Italian varieties of the mainland, however, are less clear. Although

significant numbers of forms with initial [a-] have appeared, the evidence

suggests that phonologically based prosthesis may not have developed as a genuine

native process. We explore this question more fully in a special subsection directly

below. As one goes further northward on the Italian mainland, indications of

A-prosthesis become ever more sporadic, so that central and particularly north-

ern varieties of Italo-Romance show scant evidence of the phenomenon. There is,

however, one notable exception which presents itself in some northern Tuscan

dialects. Finally, varieties of Balkan Romance have also experienced A-prosthesis,

especially those spoken south of the Danube.

Although there is evidence therefore of A-prosthesis having operated across a

wide range of Romance, in almost all cases the process has been carried through

in an incomplete way only. Full implementation leading to an unconditional rule

8 Meyer-Lubke (1890: }383) indicates that A-prosthesis before words in /r-/ is regular in

Catalan. However, this view has found little support in subsequent diachronic studies of

Catalan. Moll (1952: }105) and Badia (1981: }66), for example, give no indication that

prosthesis affected words containing etymological R-. In synchronic studies such as the

optimality-based presentation by Wheeler (2005), Catalan reflexes of etymologically

rhotic-initial words are consistently assigned rhotic-initial underlying forms and no

constraint is invoked to yield a preferred prosthetic output.

150 A-prosthesis

of A-prosthesis (either still fully productive or fully productive at earlier stages

leading to subsequent lexicalization of initial /a-/ in the words affected) appears

to have occurred in the history of just two types of Romance. These are, on the

one hand, southern and central Sardinian and, on the other, Gascon or more

accurately the varieties spoken in the Landes in the west and in the Pyrenean area

in the south.9 However, in each of the Sardinian and Gascon areas concerned the

systematic operation of A-prosthesis has widely been undermined in more recent

times, so that only in very few varieties has the process been able to establish itself

in a permanent way comparable with that found, for example, with I-prosthesis

in Ibero-Romance.

5.2.1.1 A-prosthesis in southern Italy?

It is difficult to determine to what extent A-prosthesis ever really became estab-

lished as a phonological process operating on native lexical forms in the varieties

of southern Italy. In his monumental study of Italo-Romance, Rohlfs (1966: }164)notes that the word-initial rhotic R- is pronounced with a strengthened articula-

tion in a wide sweep of southern dialects10 and he goes on to report that this

strengthened rhotic is often pronounced with a prosthetic vowel, suggesting that

a variable process of prosthesis has developed. Examples cited include: (Sicilian)

arresta ‘onion peelings’, arraggiu ‘ray’ (though in }278, Rohlfs states that this is aclear northern borrowing), arrigordu ‘memory’ (deverbal), arriposu ‘rest’ (de-

verbal), arrısicu ‘risk’ (deverbal from RESECARE (?)), arrugna ‘mange’, arrenniri ‘to

give up’, arririri ‘to laugh’; and (Calabrian, especially southern varieties) arramu

‘branch’, arre ‘king’, arrejari ‘to support’, arrisi ‘laughing stock’, arruina ‘ruin’,

arrumbu ‘roar’, arruffianu ‘pimp’.

However, other accounts of southern Italian dialects fail to confirm the pres-

ence of the phonologically conditioned rule of A-prosthesis as indicated by

Rohlfs. For instance, the classic study of Sicilian by Schneegans (1888: 61–3)

suggests that forms with initial [a-] like those cited by Rohlfs do occur but that

9 On the basis of just the isogloss for ALF 1158 rien (< REM) ‘nothing’, Rohlfs (1970: map

1, isogloss 3) indicates that almost all the dialects to the south of the Bassin d’Arcachon and

to the west of the Garonne are affected by prosthesis, with forms like arre appearing. One

locality just to the east of the Garonne and also the Val d’Aran in the Pyrenees likewise

reportedly have prosthetic forms. However, Bec (1968: 175) points out that prosthetic forms

deriving from REM are also found in many varieties where prosthesis does not otherwise

occur, so that evidence based just on this one item may not be too revelatory. Isogloss 16 of

Bec’s first general phonetic map for the more limited Pyrenean zone that he examines in

detail defines the incidence of A-prosthesis for the reflexes of RIVU(M) ‘river’.10 ‘In vaste zone del Mezzogiorno la r iniziale viene pronunciata con un forte appoggio

della voce (come rr-),’ loc. cit.

A-prosthesis 151

they actually show just morphological conditioning. It is claimed that these forms

represent, on the one hand, verbs or deverbal forms with the familiar Italo-

Romance prefixal compounding of ADþ RE-, or, on the other hand, feminine

nouns where the new initial [a-] arose through the recutting of morphological

boundaries; for example, (l)a rrugna ‘the mange’ (with regular initial rhotic

strengthening) > (l’)arrugna. No evidence of purely phonologically conditioned

prosthesis is reported. A similar finding appears in the account of De Gregorio

([1890] 1993: 131–2). Pirandello (1891)11 in a detailed description of his native

dialect of Agrigento adds further support to the contention that prosthesis in

Sicilian is not a regular phonological process. He states that general word-initial

consonant strengthening is certainly to be found in this south Sicilian dialect,

particularly of [r-, b- d- d´-] (p. 30), but, as in Schneegans’s account, it is noted

that the many cases of forms which have acquired a new initial [a-] developed

either from verbs which almost always go back to etymological RE- (expanded by

prefixal AD-), or from feminine nouns with morphological recutting (p. 23). The

later derivative work of Ducibella (1934: 222–5) indicates widespread strengthen-

ing of initial [r-] in Sicilian dialects but makes no mention of the lexical items

affected undergoing prosthesis, although an isolated form arriju ‘I laugh’ is

reported from the central Sicilian variety of Caltanissetta (p. 375), this presumably

representing the result of analogy with the many verb forms beginning with

arr- < prefixal RE-.12

Studies of speech patterns in the mainland of southern Italy are equally

unsupportive on the question of phonologically conditioned prosthesis. For

example, Falcone (1976: 48) makes no mention of prosthesis when reporting on

the reflex of etymological R- in Calabrian, merely noting that there is strengthen-

ing of initial rhotics in forms like rrota, rrosa within a broad area of southern

Calabria reaching northward to a rough line from Brancaleone (prov. of Reggio

Calabria) on the east coast to Gioia Tauro (also prov. of Reggio Calabria) on the

west coast. Also, in his detailed study of the speech of the town of Altamura

situated in Puglia some 50 km SWof Bari, Loporcaro (1988: } 94) calls attention to

some significant data. First, strengthened initial etymological R- is found in just

two lexemes [rrPbb] ‘things’ (St.It. roba) and [rrei], (pl.) [rrIi] ‘king(s)’, the

strengthening of the rhotic in these cases representing either the last residue of

an earlier general strengthening across central and southern Italy or the result of

borrowing from the dialects spoken further south where strengthening was

regular. He intimates that the former is more probable. Second, for the many

11 This is the same Luigi Pirandello who was later to become one of the great twentieth-

century European playwrights.12 Ducibella merely remarks (loc. cit.), ‘though found in some popular songs, [arriju] is

no longer a common form.’

152 A-prosthesis

verbal forms in arr- (paralleled by many verbs in abb-, all-, etc.), such as

[arrUb’bw¡i] ‘to steal’, [arr‰kUrd¡i] ‘to recall’ (= St.It. rubare, ricordare), the

strengthening and the presence of the initial vowel [a-] is attributed to the

common use of prefixal AD- as well as to reinforcement by the extended syntactic

use of prepositional AD in pre-infinitive contexts.13

Finally, though they are an imperfect source of information for anything but

lexicalized forms, dictionaries provide little in the way of confirmation for the

existence of phonologically based prosthesis. Thus, Piccitto (1977–2002) records

forms such as rrana, rre, rriccu, rrota, rrussu for Sicilian, and the only forms cited

with initial arr- are verbs where prefixation rather than prosthesis seems to be the

principal process at work, e.g. arrifari ‘to re-do’, arrumpiri ‘to bankrupt’, with

arrıriri varying with rrıdiri ‘to laugh’. In his dictionary of Calabrian, Rohlfs (1977)

includes a certain number of entries with arr- but these are typically verbs and

feminine nouns, arraggia ‘rage’, arruina ‘ruin’. On the other hand, many items

such as rimu ‘oar’, rocca, rota, rini ‘back’ appear with no initial vowel. For

Abruzzo and Molise, entries which begin with arr- in Giammarco (1968–79) are

overwhelmingly verbs, arraffa ‘to snatch’, arrenn‰ ‘to give back’, arrubba ‘to rob’

with occasional feminine nouns, arraggıon‰ ‘reason’, whereas many forms ety-

mologically beginning with R- are cited with no initial vowel: rre, rrobb‰, rot‰,rin‰ ‘back’, etc. For Neapolitan, Rohlfs (1966: }164) cites some ostensibly pros-

thetic forms from the 1873 dictionary of D’Ambra such as arrissa ‘fight’, arrobba,

arrequia ‘peace’, arrecietto ‘shelter’, arraggia ‘rabbia’, as well as the verbs arrejere ‘to

support’, arresponnere ‘to reply’, but these too are typically (prefixal) verb forms

or feminine nouns. On the other hand, D’Ambra also records numerous forms

which lack a prosthetic [a-] such as russo ‘red’, rota ‘wheel’, rine ‘back’, rajo ‘sun

ray’, rimmo ‘oar’ (< RUSSU(M), R�OTA, RENES, RADIU(M), REMU(M)), but it is indicated

(p. 305) that word-initial [r-] (< R-) is typically strongly articulated and preceded

by [a] in popular speech, with only rre ‘king’ and rrobba ‘possessions, object’ not

showing a preceding [a].14

There is therefore rather mixed evidence as to whether true phonologically

based A-prosthesis ever operated on native rhotic-initial words in southern

Italian varieties in a comparable way to what we find in Gascon or southern

Sardinian. An interpretation in conformity with the available facts might be that,

following the general strengthening of word-initial rhotics, morphological factors

may at first have acted as the main driver for the insertion of initial [a-] but that,

13 Loporcaro (1988: n. 35) notes the widespread use of a < AD when speakers of that area

cite an infinitive form in isolation and also when an infinitive is used as a subject in a

phrase, e.g. [je bbrytt a pperd] ‘it is unpleasant to lose’ (= St. It. e brutto perdere).14 The special phonological status of these two lexical items here may be compared with

the data from Altamuran discussed above.

A-prosthesis 153

by analogy with the many rhotic-initial forms affected by the change, other words

also containing an initial rhotic sporadically came to undergo the same develop-

ment. Verbs such as RIDERE ‘to laugh’ would probably have been affected in this

later incomplete generalization of initial [a-]. A subsequent important factor

which further promoted the insertion of initial [a-] appears to have been, again

sporadically, later lexical borrowing. Insertion of [a-] occurred whether the

borrowings into these southern dialects were learned words, or whether they

came from other types of Italo-Romance, especially the literary standard lan-

guage, or from other Romance varieties altogether (cf. learned arrequia < REQUI-

EM, arraggiu < St.It. raggio, arruffiano < French ruffian). Borrowings containing a

different word-initial voiced consonant show similar strengthening of the conso-

nant and may likewise undergo the insertion of an initial [a-]. Echoing the

remarks of Pirandello noted above, Rohlfs (1966: }}150, 153, 156) identifies thislatter development especially with the forms beginning with [b-], [d-], and

[d´-].15In sum, although native lexicon shows apparent signs of A-prosthesis in a

number of southern Italian and Sicilian varieties, this may well have been

morphologically conditioned at first. Phonologically conditioned A-prosthesis

represents a rather later (though never systematic) development which seems to

have been brought about in large part by the arrival of lexical borrowings which

created new phonological conditions word-initially.

5.2.2 CHRONOLOGY

There appears to be no evidence of A-prosthesis in the Imperial period. Roman

grammarians, whose reference point is the standard variety of Latin pronuncia-

tion, make no mention at all of it. However, as was noted in the previous chapter,

no metalinguistic observation is made on the earlier novelty of I-prosthesis either

until the seventh century, long after it had gained widespread usage. More

significant therefore is the total absence of any indication of A-prosthesis in

Roman inscriptions, even in proper names where scribal orthographic conserva-

tism would be less likely to operate. We may therefore assume that if A-prosthesis

was present in the speech of certain people during the Imperial period, it

represented at most a phenomenon of restricted incidence, geographically and

15 Significantly, etymological initial B-, D-, and (palatalized) G- had evolved to [v-],

[ð-] > (weak) [r-], and [j-] in native forms so that the borrowings would have had

unfamiliar initial consonants. Southern speakers evidently realized them as geminates,

perhaps partly as a result of hypercharacterization and partly because these consonant

qualities usually appeared only in geminates in word-medial position.

154 A-prosthesis

socially. In fact, it is only late in the first millennium that the earliest positive

indications of the development appear.

In Ibero-Romance, the evidence provided by slate inscriptions from Visigothic

times (i.e. sixth to early eighth centuries) is unrevealing. Thus, in contrast to

forms such as iscrip[si], isperabi, ispe (= spe ‘hope’) and istare which clearly

indicate the action of I-prosthesis, words with etymological initial r- show no

signs of A-prosthesis. No examples are forthcoming even from words of German-

ic origin, which would be more likely to betray prosthesis since their latinized

forms would probably have been rather less subject to conservative Latin spelling

practices; cf. the proper names Ranulf[us], Recaredo, Reccesuindi (Velazquez

2000). The first examples of A-prosthesis from northern Spain come only in

documents of the tenth to twelfth century, e.g. the name Aramirus rex ‘King

Ramiro’ from a Riojan manuscript of 976, aretundo (< ROTUNDU(M)) ‘round’ from

a 1055 Riojan manuscript, and arroturas (< RUPTURAS) ‘ploughings’ dated 1137 from

Ona in northern Castile (Menendez Pidal 1964a: 193–4).16 For Aragonese, early

instances include arripera < RIPARIA ‘river bank’ from 1042, arretundo ‘round’

(eleventh cent.), Arramon ‘Ramon’ from 1119 (Alvar 1953: 53), while early Navarr-

ese documents offer eleventh-century toponymic evidence, notably with the

present-day location of Riezu which appears as Arriezu (1054), Arriecu (1055),

Arriezo (1060), Ariecu (1060) in texts from the monastery of Irache (Saralegui

1977: 65).

From varieties spoken north of the Pyrenees, various personal names appear

with prosthetic <a> in Gascon texts: personal names such as Aregemundo in a text

from the Gironde dated 990, Arreinaldo from 1026–30 (also Gironde), Arremon

from an Armagnac document of the late eleventh century (Luchaire 1879: 209;

1881: texts 40, 52), and place names Arramos dated 1010 (= Ramons, a commune in

the canton of Orthez) and Arribaute dated 1105 (= Rivehaute, in the canton of

Navarrenx), cited by Bec (1968: 176). However, there appear to be few if any safe

cases of A-prosthesis in the body of early Languedocian texts from Toulouse and

Albi appearing in the edition of Brunel (1926-52).17 In the examples occurring in

16 Menendez Pidal (1964a: 193) also cites the item aredoma ‘flask’ dated 996 from

Sahagun in east Leon (cf. modern Castilian redoma). For the same item, the DCECH

reports a form arrotoma dated 942. However, in neither source is an attempt made to offer

an etymon for the word, which is evidently seen as being of uncertain origin. In his

etymological dictionary of Portuguese, Machado (1977) likewise leaves open the etymology

of the cognate Portuguese form redoma. It is therefore unclear whether the alternation in

the forms arredoma (arrotoma) / redoma reflects the action of prosthesis or aphaeresis.17 On the basis of a close study of the texts from Toulouse and Albi which date from the

eleventh to the early thirteenth centuries, Grafstrom (1958: }22) concludes that they offer‘aucun exemple irrefutable de a prothetique’.

A-prosthesis 155

the different texts and sometimes in individual texts, there is variable use of the

graphies <r> and <rr> for original word-initial R-, as in the Navarrese forms

Arriecu, Ariecu cited above. This probably reflects scribal inconsistency rather

than any phonetic distinction. There is no obvious reason to doubt that the rhotic

that followed prosthetic [a-] in the Romance varieties concerned was consistently

realized strongly trilled in the medieval period just as it is now.

The philological record thus suggests that A-prosthesis in Ibero-Romance and

the Gallo-Romance of the adjacent Pyrenean area dates from no earlier than

the tenth century. However, on the basis of relative chronology it has been

claimed that in Gascon the development may go back as far as the fifth century.18

Central to this assumption is the pattern of evolution seen in words such as arnelh

[ar’neL] ‘kidney’ < REN�ICULU(M), diminutive of RENE(M), where there was an

intervocalic simplex -N-. This consonant was regularly deleted in Gascon during

the medieval period, as in LUNA > [’lyo] ‘moon’, GENUCULU(M) > [´O’UL] ‘knee’ inthe dialect of Bethmale (ALG 790S). The preservation of intervocalic -N- in arnelh

suggests therefore that syncope occurred in this form before -N- deletion took

place, the general assumption being that the path of evolution was: REN�ICULU(M) >

*[arre’neLu] > [ar’neL]. However, the chronology of both these developments is

far from certain. The loss of -N- is believed by Bec (1968: 40) and Dinguirard

(1979: 39) to have occurred in or around the seventh century and by Wuest (1979:

259) around the eighth or ninth centuries, although it is useful to recall that the

change is only attested from the eleventh century. It is also unclear when the loss

of the medial unstressed prenasal [e] in hypothetical forms such as *[arre’neLu]took place, since Bec (1968: 176) is careful to distinguish this syncope, which just

affected medial unstressed /e/, from the earlier and more general syncope of

medial unstressed non-low vowels which has been dated to the fifth century or

possibly later for northern French (Bourciez 1958: 19). Further complicating

matters is the possibility that the vowel of word-initial unstressed RE- was

particularly susceptible to early weakening and subsequent deletion in Gascon

as has been the case in other Romance varieties (cf. our comments on identifica-

tion in the opening section above, and 6.1.4). If this is so, it would be difficult to

provide anything but a relative chronology for this special syncope, namely that it

18 Echoing the view of Millardet (1910: 121), Ronjat (1932: }252) dates A-prosthesis inGascon to ‘probablement’ between the fifth and eighth centuries. (This clear statement

mysteriously eludes Chambon and Greub 2002: 479). Bec (1968: 176–7) sees the

development as occurring in the fifth to sixth centuries, and Chambon and Greub (2002:

482) propose ‘avant ca 600,’ adding (p. 489) that it may perhaps even go back to earlier

than 511. Dinguirard (1979: 38–9) too hints that the early stages may date back into Imperial

times.

156 A-prosthesis

preceded the loss of -N-. In view of these considerations, it is perhaps safer to leave

chronological questions open.

In southern Italy, the appearance of a prosthetic (or, more precisely, a quasi-

prosthetic) vowel [a-] goes back less far into the medieval period and there are

also frequent examples of generalization to contexts other than initial [r-] (see

also 5.2.1 above and 5.2.4 below). As expected, almost exclusively verbs or deverbal

forms are affected, confirming the predominantly morphological basis to the

process there. Thus, La regola salernitana or De regimine sanitatis liber (c.1300)

from Campania has the probable prosthetic dıgiate arrecordare ‘you must re-

member’ (l. 561) alongside clearly prefixal forms like t’assicuri ‘you take care’ (l.

608) (Altamura 1977) and the Neapolitan Libro de la destructione de Troya

(thirteenth century) contains numerous examples, con grande arrecuordo ‘with

a great sense of duty’ (ch. 16), et arrobare ‘and to plunder’ (ch. 30), and with non-

rhotic base forms, ammacare chisto barbaro ‘would that this barbarian . . . ’ (ch. 2),perzo abesognava ‘therefore it was necessary’ (ch. 30) (De Blasi 1986). Similarly,

the later Cronaca di Partenope (fourteenth century) also written in Neapolitan

shows generalized occurrence of [a-] accoro (= coro), arreposare, abruciare (Alta-

mura 1974: 51), as does the Libro di Sidrac (mid-fifteenth century) from Salento

where there appear forms such as (si nde) arrecorda ‘remembers (it)’, arrobare ‘to

rob’, ammanca ‘diminishes (3rd sg.pres.)’, allapidato ‘stoned (p.pt.)’, abisogno

‘need’ (Sgrilli 1983: 100).

Further north in Italy, phonologically based A-prosthesis occurred in northern

Tuscan dialects but the earliest evidence for it dates only from more recent times.

Nieri (1902: 95) cites an example from 1835, le su iragioni ‘their reasons’ but

nothing earlier. Internal evidence suggests that the prosthetic vowel must have

developed before the simplification of geminate rhotics in the dialects concerned

(cf. 5.2.4). As this change was certainly pre-nineteenth century, the implication is

that prosthesis took place sometime in or before the early modern period.

In other Romance varieties where A-prosthesis occurred, dating is equally

problematic for want of textual evidence. For Rheto-Romance, there is little

surviving documentation from the medieval period for the Grisons. However,

substantial texts survive from the sixteenth century, one of which is the transla-

tion of the New Testament into a form of upper Engadinish by Jakob Bifrun. This

contains numerous examples of prosthetic forms, such as araig ‘king’ < REGE(M),

arains ‘back’ < RENES, arait ‘net’ < RETE(M), aram ‘branch’ < RAMU(M), araschun

‘reason’ < RATIONE(M), aroba ‘property’ < (Germanic) rauba, arumper to

break’ < ROMPERE, arir ‘to laugh’ < RIDERE, arespuonder ‘to reply’ < RESPONDERE,

suggesting that the process did not represent a recent innovation (Gartner 1912;

Fermin 1954). For Friulian, there are vernacular texts going back to the

later medieval period and these suggest that A-prosthesis enjoyed some

currency at this time although the prosthetic vowel is by no means consistently

A-prosthesis 157

indicated.19 For instance, texts from the fourteenth century contain forms such as

arecivir ‘they received’ < *RECIP-IRUNT in a 1355 administrative charter from Civi-

dale, aronch ‘terrace’ < RUNCU(M) in a 1355 charter from Gemona, aribuelo ‘Ribolla

(kind of wine)’ in 1395 charter from Cividale, aresons ‘reasons, statements’ <

RATIONES in a legal charter dated 1387–94 from Udine (D’Aronco 1960). Further

medieval examples are cited in the etymological dictionary by Zamboni et al.

(1984–7) including: (fourteenth century) arovul ‘oak tree’ < ROBUR, arrogol ‘regis-

ter of canons’ < R�OTULU(M), and (fifteenth century) aras ‘turnips’ < RAPAS, arompi

‘to break’ < RUMPERE.

For the Balkans, there is almost no surviving material of any substance written

in Latin or early Romance during a period of almost a thousand years extending

up to the early sixteenth century, and in the variety where A-prosthesis has been

most fully exploited (Aromanian), substantial written evidence dates only from

the eighteenth century. All that is available is a handful of Daco-Romanian words

and phrases which appear transliterated in Slavic texts between the late tenth

century and the early sixteenth century. In the collection of these assembled by

Mihaila (1974), there are no forms showing prosthesis; instead, we find just items

such as: ripi ‘banks’ (< RIP-I) dated 1428 from Moldavia, Ratundul proper name

‘Round’ (< ROTUNDU(M)þ article) dated 1476 from Wallachia, and Valea Rrea

(with a doubled graphy for the rhotic) for the place name ‘the Bad Valley’ (< REA)

dated 1510 fromWalachia. These would suggest that prosthesis was not active as a

process in Daco-Romanian. However, they shed little light on the medieval

situation in Romance varieties spoken south of the Danube where prosthesis is

now particularly in evidence. It is not until the eighteenth century that Aroma-

nian writers, all of them from Albania, provide textual evidence of prosthetic

vowels, e.g. arradu ‘I laugh’, arramasatura ‘remainder’ (Capidan 1932: 351). Ac-

cordingly, whether A-prosthesis in Aromanian is of comparable antiquity to its

apparent counterparts elsewhere in Romania continua remains unclear.

Given the common basis to I-prosthesis across Romance, we may wonder

whether it is safe to assume that documented cases of A-prosthesis in Romania

continua also share a common origin in Late Latin. It is certainly true that

significant chronological differences exist across the varieties concerned in respect

of the earliest attestations of A-prosthesis. Even so, general resemblances can be

observed in the formal characteristics of this development, both in its origins and

its subsequent vicissitudes. It may therefore be that ultimately A-prosthesis has its

origins in a low-level and sporadic tendency that was already present locally in

19 Thus, in a private text dated to the end of the fourteenth century and probably

composed by Simone de Vittore from Cividale, we find io l’areprınt . . . yestri rinprindut ‘Irebuke him . . . to be rebuked’ with variant reflexes, prosthetic and non-prosthetic, to

inflexional parts of the same verb RE-PR(EH)ENDERE.

158 A-prosthesis

Late Latin, but we cannot exclude the possibility that in some Romance varieties

it arose as a later, independent linguistic process.

5.2.3 STRUCTURAL PRECONDITIONS TO PROSTHESIS

A series of special structural features are associated with A-prosthesis. First,

as we have seen, this phonological development appears most commonly to

have operated on words which begin with etymological R-, as in the exam-

ples given above in Figure 5.1. In fact, in all Romance varieties which have

experienced A-prosthesis, words with initial R- have always been affected.

Sometimes cases of A-prosthesis may also be found in words which begin

with other types of consonants, e.g. annuod‰ ‘knot’ < NODU(M) in certain

Calabrian varieties (Rohlfs 1966: }161), addaino ‘fallow deer’ in Neapolitan

(D’Ambra 1873: s.v. addaino).20 However, the occurrence of [a-] in such

forms is evidently far from systematic in southern Italian varieties and

probably owes itself to later and rather exceptional factors. In fact, it is

notable that in those Romance varieties figuring above in Figure 5.1, A-

prosthesis has not only been widespread but has seldom affected words

containing initial etymological consonants other than R-. For example, in

the dialect of Bareges (ALG pt. 697 NE) the following forms are found:

with prosthetic [a-] with no prosthetic [a-]RUBEU(M) > arrouy [ar’rui] ‘red’ (ALG 1593) LUNA > luo [l

hP] ‘moon’ (ALG 1010)

ROTUNDU(M) > arredoun [arre’ðuN] ‘round’(ALG 1087) N�OVU(M) > nau [’nau] ‘new’ (ALG 903)

ROS-ATA > arrousada [arru’zaða] ‘dew’ (ALG 1432) MUTU(M) > mut [myt] ‘silent’ (ALG 883)

The presence of an initial rhotic seems therefore to represent a crucial precondi-

tion for A-prosthesis to get under way.

A further important characteristic directly associated with A-prosthesis is

strengthening. This affected original word-initial R- independent of, and prior to,

the development of a prosthetic vowel and it was a necessary though not sufficient

20 Seemingly comparable cases of prosthesis involving initial nasals are also found in

Sardinian. For example, immoi ‘now’, innoi ‘here’, innui ‘where’ appear in the

Campidanese dialect of Sestu and, synchronically, the initial vowel may be interpreted as

the result of prosthesis operating on underlying /mmoi/, etc. in all but post-vocalic

contexts (Bolognesi 1998: 393). However, from a diachronic viewpoint these forms

clearly derive from prefixal etyma, IN-MODO, IN-HOC, IN-UBI (cf. also Logudorese inoke,

inoge ‘here’, inue ‘where’, REW 4159, 9028). They may therefore be excluded

from consideration here. The background to the word-initial vowel found in certain

Italian forms such as ignudo, ignocchi, Iddio is examined in 5.2.7.

A-prosthesis 159

condition for A-prosthesis to occur. In view of its significance for A-prosthesis, a

closer look at the nature and development of rhotic strengthening is appropriate.

The process of strengthening involved the initial rhotic taking on added

duration which led to its being identified with its geminate counterpart -RR-

which had previously appeared in intervocalic position only. Chronologically,

strengthening does not seem to be a development dating from Imperial times

since Roman grammarians make no reference at all to speakers giving word-

initial R- a special or anomalous articulation in relation to the pronunciation of

simplex R in other phonological environments. It is presented as a simplex

alveolar trill (cf. Kent 1945: 59; Allen 1978: 32–3). But there is evidence to indicate

that strengthening of initial R- and its resultant identification with medial gemi-

nate -RR- occurred across most though perhaps not all the Latin-speaking world

in the medieval period. Most persuasive is the fact that strong word-initial rhotics

continue to exist in many present-day Romance varieties, whether or not a

prosthetic vowel has subsequently come to establish itself in the words concerned.

Thus, in all Ibero-Romance varieties word-initial rhotics have evolved in a parallel

way to the medial geminate rhotic -RR-, as in Castilian ramo [’ramo] < RAMU(M)

‘branch’ and carro [’karo] < CARRU(M) ‘cart’ (both with a multiple-trilled alveolar

rhotic) but caro [’kaɾo] < CĀRU(M) ‘dear’ (with a single ballistic alveolar tap).21North of the Pyrenees, Gascon likewise has a strongly trilled realization for the

reflex of etymological word-initial R-. This pronunciation has a long ancestry and

continues to be widely found today (Millardet 1910: 128; Bec 1968: 173–5). Else-

where in southern France, strengthening of original initial R- and its identification

with the medial geminate -RR- are indicated for a number of modern varieties, e.g.

21 Catalan shares this pattern with Castilian (cf. Wheeler 2005: 24–34). However,

Portuguese (the standard European variety from the later nineteenth century) and some

varieties of Latin American Spanish, notably Puerto Rican Spanish (Alvarez Nazario 1991:

695–7), have more recently restructured the phonetic basis of the two-way rhotic system.

Instead of a ‘strong’ or trilled vs ‘weak’ or tapped contrast (both items being alveolar), there is

now a uvular [R] vs alveolar [ɾ] contrast, respectively. Throughout the literary period anddoubtless already in the pre-literary period too, the contrast was neutralized in word-initialposition in favour of just the ‘strong,’ and later the uvular, realization. Evidence for this comesin the frequent use of the graphies <R> or <rr> for initial r- by medieval Galician-Portuguese

scribes, e.g. o teu rrogo ‘your prayer’ and ssua Requeza ‘his wealth’ (respectively in the

fourteenth-century Vida de Santo Amaro and Vida de Santa Eufrosina). A detailed study of

graphies in 128 non-literary medieval charters from northern Galicia indicates that the use of

word-initial <rr-> rather than <r-> is the minority pattern in the thirteenth-century

documents but becomes clearly the majority pattern in the fourteenth century, while there

is rough parity in the fifteenth century (Borner 1976: 143–7). Comparably variable

orthographic practice is also widespread amongst Castilian scribes in the Middle Ages.

160 A-prosthesis

Agen and Toulouse (Seguy 1950: 20) and Arles, Toulon, Aix and Marseille

(Coustenoble 1945: 92–5), suggesting once again that the strengthening of the

word-initial rhotic represents an early development. Further north, in the langue

d’oıl, it seems that a comparable pattern operated widely in the medieval period.

The etymological word-initial R- was consistently identified with the strong

intervocalic rhotic -RR- and shared a common path of evolution which was

distinct from that of the weak rhotic -R-. This arrangement with the strong rhotic

appearing in word-initial position continued into the sixteenth century, as is

borne out by metalinguistic remarks of early contemporary observers of French

such as La Noue ([1596] 1623: 298) who writes in this connection: ‘L’r quand elle

est au commencement d’un mot se prononce rudement et avec toute la vigueur

qu’elle a.’ Thurot (1881: II, 269–70) and Reighard (1985: 315) assume from this

remark that a uvular articulation [R] had established itself as the realization of the

formerly strong rhotic whilst the reflex of the original simplex weak -R- was

probably still coronal. However, such a conclusion is rather unsafe as La Noue’s

observation only indicates that in the variety of French he is describing the

reflexes of original geminate -RR- and initial R- had merged as a strong rhotic

and that this continued to be phonetically distinct from the reflex of simplex -R-.

Both rhotics might still of course have been coronal.22 In fact, it is only later that

the strong rhotic is known for sure to have taken on a uvular realization which

was ultimately to be extended to all phonological contexts. The process of

uvularization first got under way amongst speakers of the standard variety, it

seems, in the course of the seventeenth century and the establishment of a single

type of (uvular) rhotic doubtless took some time to become generalized thereaf-

ter amongst such speakers.23 Residues of the two-way pattern remain to the

present day in some French varieties, e.g. that of Arles (Coustenoble 1945: 92–5).

In Italo-Romance, strengthening of R- has occurred widely in southern vari-

eties, and initial rhotics have usually remained strong here whether or not

prosthetic vowels have come to establish themselves. This is especially evident

in the most southern varieties spoken in Sicily, southern Calabria, and the Salento

22 As we have seen above, this is the case in Castilian Spanish and Catalan where there

are two contrasting types of rhotic, strong [r] < R-, -RR- and [ɾ] < -R-, both of which haveremained coronal to the present day.

23 An anecdotal indicator of the spread of the uvular pronunciation amongst the highest

social classes of the later seventeenth century comes in a letter written by Charlotte Elisabeth,

Princess Palatine (1652–1722) known as ‘Madame’, the wife of Philippe Duke of Orleans or

‘Monsieur’ who was Louis XIV’s brother. In one of her letters written in German dated 14th

July 1718, she recalls that in contrast to Louis XIVwho pronounced r ‘clearly’ (presumably as a

coronal), all his children made use of a different realization. By way of illustration, she

represents their pronunciation of Paris as ‘Pahi’, which suggests a uvular value (Goudeket

1964: 299).

A-prosthesis 161

peninsula (De Gregorio [1890] 1993: }152; Rohlfs 1956: II, 526, 1966: }164, and 1977:

565). Further north, strengthening is less in evidence, but in Tuscany various

northern dialects underwent this development although direct traces of it have

been lost more recently as a result of the general simplification of geminate

rhotics (cf. 5.2.4).24 Further evidence for Tuscan rhotic strengthening in earlier

times appears in Corsican which is itself Tuscan-based (see Map 6). Here, strong

initial rhotics are general in the centre and south of the island except for Bonifacio

in the extreme south.25 A similar picture appears in Sardinian, where a strongly

trilled rhotic continues to be regularly found in word-initial position.26

In Balkan-Romance, the situation less clear, due in large part to the lack of

written evidence for this type of Romance until comparatively recent times.

Adding further to the uncertainty has been the general neutralization of strong

vs weak consonantal contrasts in pre-literary times, e.g. in Daco-Romanian and

Aromanian TERRA > tara ‘land’, SERA > seara ‘evening’, R�OGO > rog(u) ‘I ask’ with an

identical rhotic. However, three types of evidence suggest that word-initial rhotics

were strengthened in early Balkan Romance too. First, occasional cases are

reported of a strong trill being used word-initially in modern varieties. Thus,

Rosetti (1978: 536) reports such a pronunciation in northern Ardeal (NW Roma-

nia) and in Maramures (N Romania), and Papahagi (1974: 1044) indicates such a

pronunciation in Farserotic Aromanian spoken in Albania, as well as in the Daco-

Romanian variety of Poiana Sibiului (central Romania). Second, in philological

data for Daco-Romanian from the sixteenth century and Aromanian data from

the eighteenth century, scribal practices indicate that initial rotics were strongly

articulated. Thus, in the sixteenth-century Psaltirea Hurmuzachi there are nu-

merous forms written with a double Cyrillic graphy <ææ> (= <rr>) in word-

initial position, e.g. rreu ‘evil’ rradica ‘it raises’, rruga ‘to pray’ (Densusianu 1975:

480), while eighteenth-century Aromanian texts composed by writers from

Albania using Greek lettering contain forms such as rrana ‘wound’, rramanescu

‘Romanian’, rrupaslu ‘(the) repose’ (Capidan 1932: }207). Third, internal dia-chronic evidence indicates that the contrast between strong geminate -RR- and

simplex -R- remained intact medially for much of the Middle Ages, and that

word-initial simplex R- was strengthened and patterned with -RR-. Thus, stressed

front vowels following a medial geminate or strong rhotic show regular centrali-

zation but not when they follow a weak rhotic, e.g. *(AD-)HORR-IRE > (Arom.)

24 Medieval Tuscan texts also sporadically show strengthened word-initial rhotics (cf.

Rohlfs 1966: }164).25 In the linguistic atlas ALEIC, maps 107 (un nasone rosso) and 158 (abbiamo riso) for

example yield forms such as (pt. 30, Ghisoni) [un ’na:zu r’rPssu], (pt. 37, Cavro) [un

’na’zP:ni r’rPssu] and (pt. 22, Evisa) [a’¡mu r’ri:zu], (pt. 32, Bocognani) [a’w¡mi r’ri:su].26 Cf. ‘Das anlautende r ist im Sardischen ein starkgerollter alveolarer Vibrant, wie im

Spanischen’ (Wagner 1941: }74).

162 A-prosthesis

aurıre, (Daco-Rom.) urı ‘to hate’, with stressed centralized [t_], as against *(AU)FER-IRE > afirire, (Daco-Rom.) feri ‘to guard’, with stressed front [i]. When a

stressed front vowel follows word-initial R-, we find the same centralization, e.g.

RIVU(M) > (Arom.) arıu, (Daco-Rom.) rıu ‘river’, and not ** (a)riu. It thus seems

reasonable to conclude that original word-initial rhotics did in fact undergo early

strengthening resulting in added duration.27

Rheto-Romance is problematic in this context since, unlike the other Romance

varieties which have experienced A-prosthesis, it offers no cases of strong word-

initial rhotics in modern varieties nor is there philological evidence for previous

strengthening in word-initial rhotics. However, the development of prosthetic

forms in certain varieties during the medieval period suggests the likelihood of

earlier strengthening, direct evidence for which has disappeared along with the

general simplification of geminates in Rheto-Romance in more recent times.

Finally, we may note that in certain varieties which had experienced strength-

ening of initial R- another word-initial rhotic may also arise as a result of later

independent change. Where this happens, a contrast usually develops between

primary etymological initial R-, which remained articulatorily strong, and the

new secondary word-initial [r-] which was realized at first as a simplex consonant

and often stayed so. This has occurred in many southern Italian varieties, where

etymological word-initial GR- and, less widely, D- have both developed to give [r]

which has remained weak: e.g. GR�OSSU(M) ‘big’ > (Sicil.) rossu, (Cal.) ruossu; DENT-I

‘teeth’ > (Sicil.) rendi, (Neapol.) riend‰ (Rohlfs 1966: }153, 185; AIS 107, 184). Suchforms with secondary [r-] normally do not undergo A-prosthesis.

In Gascon too, a secondary initial rhotic developed in a number of western and

southern dialects, when the group FR- passed to [hr-] (as part of the general

Gascon change F- > [h-]) before the group simplified to [r-] probably from

around the thirteenth century. There was later strengthening of the secondary

r- in some though not all dialects (cf. ALG 157 frene, 285 froment) but, even so,

A-prosthesis failed to operate in these words (cf. Millardet 1910: 123, Bec 1968:

175 n. 2). However, more recent loanwords from French containing word-initial

r- have sometimes been aligned with prosthetizing forms, as in arregret [arregr¡t]‘regret’ in certain Gascon varieties which have experienced regular A-prosthesis

(Bec 1968: 179; see also 5.2.5 below). This change may well reflect hypercharacter-

ization by Gascon speakers as they articulate prestigious loanwords from the

standard language. It thus resembles the word-initial consonant gemination

found in loanwords in southern Italian dialects (cf. 5.2.1).

27 This has been called into doubt by Jungemann (1955: 276) on the basis of the claim

made by a linguist of his acquaintance familiar with Aromanian that, in the modern

language, there is no strengthening. However, this of course does not rule out the

possibility that at earlier stages this variety had a rule strengthening word-initial /r-/.

A-prosthesis 163

5.2.4 QUALITY OF THE PROSTHETIC VOWEL

In the earliest attestations of A-prosthesis, the vowel was regularly represented as

<a>, and indeed many Romance varieties such as those spoken in Gascony have

preferentially retained this quality up to the present day. So, we may plausibly

assume that, usually, the new vowel at first adopted a low quality [a], although

subsequently regular phonetic change might modify this quality in individual

varieties of Romance.

However, more rarely there have been alternative outcomes. In Sardinian

dialects, vowel copying is found instead whereby the prosthetic vowel has taken

on a quality determined by that of the vowel present in the following syllable. In

medieval texts there is a discernible tendency for the prosthetic vowel to appear as

<e> before front vowels, <o> before back vowels, and <a> before a low vowel,

although <a> can be found in the other contexts too, notably before front vowels.

Examples of this pattern are to be found in the vernacular charters from the

archepiscopal archive in Cagliari which date from the eleventh to the thirteenth

centuries; for example, erriu (II, 2) beside arriu ‘river’ (XX, 5) and arregordarunt

‘they recalled’ (XVI, 4), orroglu de terra ‘parcel of land’ < R�OTULU(M) (XIII, 7),

orrubia ‘red (f.sg.)’ < RUBEA (XIV, 9), orrudundu ‘round (m.sg.)’ < ROTUNDU(M)

(XIV, 16) but arrobadia ‘feudal duty’28 < deriv. of ROGARE (XXI, 2), arrasoni

‘claim, right’ < RATIONE(M) (XIII, 9) (Solmi 1905; Guarnerio 1906). In modern

times, the pattern is preserved faithfully only in the northern periphery of the

Campidanese zone, i.e. in the dialects spoken in the southern and south-eastern

part of central Sardinia and down into the north of the Campidanese speech-area.

Thus, in the dialect of Busachi there are forms such as errıu ‘river’, arrana ‘frog’

and orro[a ‘wheel’, orrußiu ‘red’ (Wagner 1941: }75). Vowel copying creating

high prosthetic vowels may also be found, as in the nearby dialect of Fonni

(AIS pt. 947), where [ir’risu] ‘uncooked rice’29 and [ur’ru:ßiu] ‘red’ are reported(AIS maps 992, 1576). However, in modern varieties of central and southern

Campidanese, including the prestigious variety of Cagliari, the vowel [a] has

come to operate as the general prosthetic vowel, cf. arrıu, arrana, arro[a, arrußiu(Wagner 1941: }75; Virdis 1978: 59; Bolognesi 1998: 42). The evidence suggests

strongly that the systematic use of [a] represents a later development in Campi-

danese (cf. Wagner loc. cit. and Virdis 1978: 38). The data from Baunei on the east

coast of central Sardinia (data in Figure 5.1 above) show a transitional outcome,

28 For this word, Solmi provides the more detailed definition ‘prestazioni di lavoro

agrario, dovute dai sudditi al pubblico potere, e continuate poi lungamente appunto col

titolo di roadia.’29 The stressed vowel is recorded without indication to length and with a voiceless

sibiliant [s]. Both these phonetic outcomes are unexpected.

164 A-prosthesis

with the vowel [a-] occurring only when the following vowel is low or front whilst

[o-] is retained when a back vowel follows.

A further and quite different outcome presents itself in dialects of the Lucca

area in northern Tuscany and in a number of varieties spoken in central and

southern Corsica (Corsican being Tuscan-based). Here, a high front prosthetic

vowel [i-] has been reported. Pieri (1890–92: 124) cites forms such as ho irotto ‘I

have broken’, diventa irosso ‘it’s becoming red’, date iretta ‘pay attention’, while

Nieri (1902: 95) adds further information, noting that it is mainly, but not

exclusively, verbs in the ‘parlar volgar’ that take this prosthetic [i-]; cf. non irende

‘not to give back’ (= St.It. non rendere), le su iragion ‘its justifications’, Irifanni

‘Re-do some’ (= Rifanne). It seems impossible to interpret this development as

the result of vowel copying, nor can it be attributed to regular sound change

operating on an earlier initial [a-]. For Lucchese dialects do in fact show numer-

ous examples of forms where an initial [a-] has been inserted, almost exclusively

in verbs originally containing the prefix RE-, such as ariposare and aritornare. (We

may note that geminate rhotics were systematically simplified at some more

recent period in the history of Lucchese.30) However, the initial vowel [a-] in

these forms has been lexicalized and preserved unchanged. They can therefore be

of no relevance in the present connection. Furthermore, the examples containing

initial [i-] indicate that this type of prosthesis has occurred irrespective of

phonological context, i.e. when post-pausal, post-vocalic, or post-consonantal,

although it has not operated in a consistent way across all potential lexical items.

Comparable data to those occurring in Lucchese are also found in central and

southern Corsica (see Map 6). In the rich array of materials presented in the

linguistic atlas of Corsica (ALEIC), a number of forms with a prosthetic vowel

appear, e.g. (1370) unn irremi 31 ‘you (sg.) are not rowing’ and (1371) un irremu ‘an

oar’ (cf. Latin REMARE ‘to row’, REMU(M) ‘oar’). Likewise, there are (153) irridi ‘he

laughs (post-pausal)’ (just at Conca in SE Corsica) and (155) unn irriðeraju ‘I

will not laugh’, although at two localities (Evisa, Bocognani in central Corsica)

there are rare instances of prosthetic [a-] (respectively, unn arriðeraju, unn

arriðaraju ‘I will not laugh’), all of these forms deriving from parts of (Late

30 Cf. Nieri (1902: 95) who states: ‘il doppio erre non si sa pronunziare’, hence tera ‘land’,

etc. This constraint against geminate rr applies also to contexts where rafforzamento

fonosintattico regularly applies. Nieri cites: ‘Se restate e non se rrestate, Piu robba e non

Piu rrobba’ (italics are ours).31 In cases where the ALEIC reports a number of slightly different forms for a given

lexical item from one locality to another, for convenience we cite just one of the forms

provided that the phonetic variation is not of immediate significance for our purposes.

Thus, as well as unn irremi (from Piana and Evisa in the west centre down to Coti and

Conca in the south), we find at other southern localities unn irrammi (Petreto), un irremi

(Propiano), unn irremmi (La Monacıa), as well as un iremi for Lucca.

A-prosthesis 165

Latin) RIDERE ‘to laugh’. In the light of the prosthetic Lucchese form irotto cited

above, the responses for reflexes of parts of the Latin verb RUMPERE ‘to break’ are of

special interest. However, in map 160 (Mi son rotti gl’incisivi ‘my front teeth have

been broken’), no prosthetic form is indicated for any Corsican variety. But the

ALEIC also includes a few localities on mainland Italy including Lucca (pt. 54)

and the form cited here is [mi s¡n i’rotti i d’d¡nti da’vanti] with a prosthetic [i-].

Similarly, a prosthetic form [i’rompe l’kardo] with [i-] is reported for Lucca but

not for any Corsican variety in map 993 Rompi il riccio ‘Break the chestnut husk’.

5.2.4.1 Selection of vowel quality

No serious attempt appears to have been made so far in order to provide a

systematic account of the factors guiding the varying selection of vowel quality

for this category of prosthesis. To arrive at such an account, a useful point of

reference lies in the more recent cross-linguistic findings of general phonologists

investigating vowel epenthesis, which were considered above in section 1.6. It was

noted there that five factors can play a role in assigning a quality to an incipient

epenthetic vowel, this vowel at first being brief and of indeterminate quality

(typically schwa-like) in accordance with the principle of minimal saliency. Since

word-initial schwa was not found in any of the early Romance varieties affected

by this category of prosthesis, a permissible quality needed to be established. In

central Sardinian dialects, we have seen that strategy (v) was adopted whereby the

new prosthetic vowel was shaped by vowel harmony, resulting in the vowel taking

on a quality determined by the vowel in the following syllable.

In the great majority of cases, however, a low-quality [a] has been selected and

a combination of factors appear to have played a determining role in this.

Articulatory and perceptual factors alone would suggest that the prosthetic

vowel might adopt a coronal (i.e. front) quality, since the original word-initial

consonant which the vowel came to precede, the rhotic [r], is coronal. A front

vowel of minimal saliency would then be expected, typically [i] (strategy (iv); cf.

also 4.1.3). However, we can understand the preferential adoption of a low value

[a] if phonological considerations are also invoked in the way proposed by Rose

and Demuth (2006) in their analysis of vowel epenthesis. Their suggestion is that

the place feature of a consonant is only copied by a prosthetic or more generally

an epenthetic vowel when that place feature is phonologically distinctive in the

language concerned. Now, the coronality of the rhotic /r/ is not a distinctive

feature in Latin or early Romance, as there was no other non-coronal rhotic or

non-coronal liquid in Latin. This being so, there was no copying of place feature

in the prosthetic vowel which preceded the rhotic. Instead, a vowel was adopted

whose quality is likewise not specified for place, namely [a], as in the representa-

tion given below. The circumstances here thus differ from those with I-prosthesis,

since the coronality of the voiceless fricative /s/ was distinctive in Latin and

166 A-prosthesis

continued to be so into Romance since it contrasts with the labiality of the other

voiceless fricative /f/. Its coronality was therefore copied for I-prosthesis, as

we saw.

a

Root

C Place

V Place

r

Root

C Place

no specification for Place

σ

FIGURE 5.2. Agreement of the prosthetic vowel in respect of non-specified Place feature

Further guiding the selection of a low-quality [a] was doubtless the expansion

of verb forms originally containing the prefix RE- but subsequently augmented

with AD-, which yielded a rich array of forms in [ar-] in many forms of Romance,

as in AD-RESTARE > arrestare, arreter, etc. However, given that this morphological

factor would have typically operated on specific words only, namely verbs and

deverbal derivatives whose first original syllable was unstressed, it would seem to

be of secondary importance. Thus, the adoption of the quality [a] for the

prosthetic vowel appears to have been determined by a combination of strategies

(ii), (iii), and (iv), as identified in 1.6.

This leaves the problem of accounting for the outcome [i] in certain northern

Tuscan and central-southern Corsican varieties. As there is no independent

evidence of a regular sound change in these varieties whereby word-initial [ar]

> [ir-], nor is there any possibility of interpreting the place feature of coronality

in the initial rhotic /r/ as being distinctive, the selection of a high front quality [i]

is curious. However, certain data suggest a possible rationale for the development

here. In particular, it is significant that in the Lucchese dialects affected, the

prosthetic vowel [i] is found not only in rhotic-initial words but also in words

beginning with complex word-initial onsets (excluding consonantþ liquid).

Thus, Nieri (1902: 95) states that prosthetic [i] occurs with s impura words

‘quasi costantemente’ in the speech of the less educated, and especially peasants,

irrespective of phonological context. In addition, words with initial [ �ts] such as

zio ‘uncle’, zappa (= St.It. zappare ‘to hoe’) also tend to have a prosthetic [i] in the

A-prosthesis 167

speech of the less educated, giving [it’ �tsio] for zio, etc. But Nieri adds that

amongst the very least educated of speakers (‘l’infimo volgo’) the affricate [ �ts]

may often be simpified to [s] and that, where this happens, no prosthetic vowel

appears as the onset is no longer complex. The implication of the data here is that

the high vowel [i] has come to be generalized as the prosthetic vowel used for

resolving problematic complex word-initial onsets. To account for this, a chro-

nologically based interpretation suggests itself as perhaps the most likely. Word-

initial rhotics may be assumed to have undergone the same strengthening in

Lucchese that affected all southern Italo-Romance varieties but only at a later

stage, as a result of the change diffusing northwards as a sporadic and localized

development. But by the time that strengthened rhotic onsets [rr-] became

generalized in popular usage, I-prosthesis affecting s impura forms would already

have been long established, just as it had become with ordinary speakers else-

where in Tuscany (cf. 4.3.3). The principal function of I-prosthesis, it will be

recalled, was to resolve the problem of complex heterosyllabic word-initial onsets,

but over time its scope may have been extended in Lucchese to handle not just

s impura sequences but other complex word-initial onsets that developed, such as

[rr-] and [ �ts]. Thus, for forms like rrende(re) < RENDERE, it was the prosthetic

vowel [i] which was already in regular and productive use that was inserted.32

Such a chronologically based interpretation is also compatible with the facts of

Gascon where both A-prosthesis and I-prosthesis have similarly occurred but

with differing outcomes, giving [a-] and [e-], respectively. Here, the evidence

suggests that A-prosthesis arose as a process at a time when I-prosthesis itself was

still in an early stage of its generalization, i.e. at the end of the Empire and in the

early Middle Ages. The absence of an established default prosthetic vowel may

have led to each of the two concurrent processes being less readily identified so

that the quality assigned to each type of prosthetic vowel was determined

independently. Finally, the facts of Campidanese in southern Sardinia also need

explaining since here too both categories of prosthesis operated, giving [a-] and

[i-]. However, it is striking that I-prosthesis never really became fully established

in Campidanese as it did in the northern half of Sardinia. The implication is

therefore that as A-prosthesis began to take root in medieval Campidanese, I-

prosthesis was ceasing to enjoy any significant measure of productivity. The

selection of vowel quality [a] for the prosthetic vowel in rhotic-initial words

was therefore unconstrained by existing patterns of prosthesis and was deter-

mined instead according to strategies (ii), (iii), and (iv), as discussed above.

32 Subsequently, Lucchese has undergone regular simplification of geminate [rr]; cf. n.

25. This development, however, must postdate prosthesis in rhotic-initial words.

168 A-prosthesis

5.2.5 ACTUALIZATION

In the Romance varieties where A-prosthesis occurred, the evidence indicates that

at the outset it was triggered by the presence of a word-initial rhotic (cf. 5.2.3).

The special status of the rhotic as a triggering context is shown by the fact that (a)

in all Romance varieties experiencing A-prosthesis words in etymological R- have

always been affected, and (b) words originally beginning with a segment other

than R- are more sporadically affected. The data from Romance suggest that the

relative susceptibility of words to the implementation of A-prosthesis operated

along the following parameter:

more susceptible, chronologically earlier less susceptible, chronologically later

#C [+ son]-# r- #C [+ vcd]- #C- # V-

FIGURE 5.3. Parameter showing the actualization of A-prosthesis in Romance

This parameter reflects prosthetic outcomes which may not have arisen solely

as a result of phonological conditioning native to the variety in question. Thus,

southern Italian data are included although the circumstances of A-prosthesis

there are special (cf. 5.2.1).

rhotic- anysonorant-

voicedconsonant-

anyconsonant-

anysegment-

GASCON þ � � � �C. SARDINIAN þ � � � �ENGADINISH þ � � � �S. ITALIAN þ þ þ /� � �AROMANIAN þ þ þ þ þ

FIGURE 5.4. Implementation of A-prosthesis across Romance varieties

At the phrasal level, it is difficult to demonstrate whether A-prosthesis regularly

came to operate in a staged way or whether the development occurred as a single

across-the-board development irrespective of context. With a staged actualiza-

tion, there would at first have been alternation between prosthetic and non-

prosthetic forms depending on phonological context—non-prosthetic forms

would be more likely in post-vocalic contexts whereas prosthetic forms would

be expected elsewhere. Alternation would then give way to the subsequent

generalization of the prosthetic alternant, as appears to have happened with I-

prosthesis in most varieties of western Romance (cf. 4.1.4). For A-prosthesis,

however, the early available textual data are inconclusive. Although some modern

A-prosthesis 169

Gascon varieties now show contextually conditioned alternation, this may reflect

the result of deletion of a prosthetic vowel in post-vocalic contexts rather than a

continuation of original alternation. This is the view of Sarrieu (1904: 509–10)

who reports that in the Gascon variety of Bagneres-de-Luchon there is a regular

absence of [a] in words beginning with arr- when a vowel-final word precedes in

close-knit syntactic phrases. Thus, for arrozo ‘rose’ (< R�OSA) there are alternating

realizations such as:

(post-pausal) arrozo ‘rose’

(post-consonantal) dues arrozes ‘two roses’ where u = [

h

]

but (post-vocalic) yo (or yu) rrozo ‘a rose’

um buked de ’rrozes

(or d’arrozes)

‘a bunch of flowers’

Similarly, for the modern Gascon varieties of the Comminges in the central Pyr-

enean zone, Bec (1968: 175) states that the prosthetic vowel /a-/ only appears in post-

pausal and post-consonantal contexts. This leads him to characterize the vowel as

‘un simple adjuvant articulatoire,’33 although no comment is made on its historical

development. While it is ultimately unprovable whether the distribution here

represents the result of more recent change or the preservation unchanged of an

earlier alternating pattern that existedmore generally, there is suggestive evidence in

favour of the latter view which comes from the pattern of alternation reported by

Sarrieu (1903: 319) for historically s impura forms, which was presented in 4.1.4

above. Here, a directly comparable pattern of synchronic alternation is found:

(post-pausal) espyo ‘thorn’

(post-consonantal) dues espyes ‘two thorns’ where u = [

h

]

but (post-vocalic) era spyo ‘the thorn’; yo/yu spyo ‘a thorn’

Given that alternations of this type only appear consistently with forms that

underwent prosthesis and that aphaeresis is rare,34 we may suspect that the two

Gascon varieties concerned may well have remained at the first stage of prosthetic

actualization and never gone on to generalize use of the prosthetic vowel in all

contexts. It therefore seems not unlikely that A-prosthesis developed originally as

a staged process, with post-vocalic contexts being the last to be incorporated. And

33 The interpretation of the prosthetic vowel here is reminiscent of Martinet’s proposal

to view schwa in modern French as a ‘lubrifiant’ (1969: 216).34 Sarrieu (loc. cit.) notes one other context where aphaeresis can occur, namely in

words beginning with vowelþNasalþConsonant, e.g. (a)nnado in buno ’nnado ‘good

year’. The deletion here is evidently less normal than in the two historically prosthetizing

contexts and appears typically in allegro speech styles only (‘ne s’accomplit guere que dans

la parole assez rapide’).

170 A-prosthesis

in view of the similarity with the likely actualization of I-prosthesis (cf. 4.1.4), the

possibility also exists that A-prosthesis may have developed preferentially in post-

consonantal contexts first of all before spreading to post-pausal contexts. How-

ever, some limited counter-evidence to this view comes from recent experimental

work on the articulation of consonants at the beginning of units at different levels

of the phonological hierarchy. The studies of Fougeron (2001) and Keating et al.

(2003) on modern French and certain non-Romance languages have revealed that

in general terms the articulation of a consonant is more forceful and of greater

duration at the beginning of higher-level prosodic units than at lower-level units,

i.e. more forceful in post-pausal, intonational phrase-initial position than word-

initial or syllable-initial.35 This would suggest that R- in post-pausal position

might have been the first to experience the strengthening that was evidently

indispensable for vowel prosthesis to occur. If so, the order of actualization of

A-prosthesis might have been post-pausal > post-consonantal > post-vocalic.

However, in the present limited state of our knowledge of pronunciation in early

Romance, this interpretation must remain speculative.

5.2.6 CAUSATION

If, as appears to be the case, A-prosthesis typically arose in Romance as a process

preferentially affecting forms with etymological initial R- which had undergone

preliminary strengthening, attempts to explain the etiology of this category of

prosthesis must address two problems. First, the factors leading to word-initial

rhotic strengthening need to be accounted for; second, there is the question of

why the presence of a strengthened word-initial rhotic in particular should have

triggered prosthesis in certain varieties of Romance.

The causation of initial rhotic strengthening has attracted relatively little direct

attention. Indeed, only one proposal seems to be of relevance here and even this is

of uncertain appropriateness. The proposal was developed by various structural-

ist linguists, notably Martinet (1952/1955), Weinrich (1969), and Hall (1964), and

more recently it has been taken up again by Cravens (2002). Since the structuralist

view is presented in slightly different ways by its various proponents, we will just

outline a broadly consensus account of it. The crucial assumption made is that, in

early Romance, phrase-medial word boundaries had no direct phonetic signifi-

cance such that when word-initial consonants appeared within phonological

phrases they varied allophonically in respect of strength in the same way as

35 Fougeron (2001: 123), for example, found that in the speech of her four French

informants the duration of the lingual occlusion of the test consonants was ‘usually very

long in IPi position’, where ‘IPi’ stands for Intonational Phrase-initial.

A-prosthesis 171

their word-medial counterparts. Thus, a post-vocalic allophone such as the rhotic

in UNA RANA ‘one frog’ had a relatively weak realization identical to that found

when the consonant was intervocalic within a word, e.g. in CARA ‘dear (f.sg.)’.

However, a relatively strong realization appeared when the consonant was not

post-vocalic, that is, when it occurred either post-pausally or post-consonantally

within a phonological phrase (irrespective of word boundaries); for example,

a strong rhotic would appear in TRES RANAS ‘three frogs’ and SUBRIDERE ‘to

smile’ (post-consonantal), and also in RANA EST ‘It’s a frog’ (post-pausal). It

should be noted that ‘post-consonantal’ here includes only those cases where

the rhotic is syllable-initial; in forms like TRES where the rhotic was post-conso-

nantal but the second member of a complex onset, the rhotic evidently had a

weak articulation. Latin also has geminate consonants including a geminate

rhotic RR as in TERRA ‘land’ which only appeared in intervocalic position. This at

first remained distinct from the strong variant of the simplex consonant, but, as

we have seen, little by little the latter became increasingly identified with the

original geminate in many forms of Romance. Thus, schematically, we may

represent the pattern as follows, using ‘R’ as the strong allophone and ‘r’ as the

weak allophone of simplex /r/.

usage in earlyRomance

after later, regionalgeneralization of strongvariant word-initally

post-vocalic word-medial r r

post-vocalic word-initial r R

post-consonantal word-initial R R

post-consonantal word-medial R R

post-pausal R R

geminate R(R) R

From this hypothesized starting-point, the assumption is that in western

Romance varieties and in some, but not all, eastern Romance varieties the strong

variant was later generalized to all word-initial contexts. Different explanations

for this later development have been proposed. Hall and Cravens note that, in a

substantial number of phrase-medial contexts, word-initial consonants which

appear to be post-vocalic in later Romance probably underwent strengthening

through rafforzamento fonosintattico (RF) in earlier stages.36 For instance, in a

phrase such as Spanish y piedras ‘and stones’ which derives from ET PETRAS, the

36 See Loporcaro (1997a) for a detailed review of the historical development of RF. In

broad terms, RF has occurred either (i) through the assimilation of an original word-final

consonant to the initial consonant of a following word provided the words are closely

syntactically linked, e.g. ET ME > Italian e me [em’me] ‘and me’; or (ii) in certain

172 A-prosthesis

word-initial consonant would be strengthened as a result of the preceding word-

final consonant becoming assimilated to it, [et p-] > [e pp-]. Clearly, the effect of

RF would be to increase the frequency of the strong variant at the beginning of

many apparently post-vocalic words in early medieval Romance. Hall (1964: 555)

offers some statistical evidence that points to the predominance of the strength-

ened allophone of word-initial consonants in western Romance. Using an Old

Occitan text as a basis, he calculates that out of the total of word tokens beginning

with a consonant, 64 per cent would have been in contexts where strengthening

would be expected (post-pausal, post-consonantal, and post-vocalic in RF con-

texts). The suggestion therefore is that it was the statistical predominance of the

strong variant in word-initial position within phonological phrases that led to its

subsequent generalization.

Attractive though the argumentation may at first sight seem to be, the struc-

tural account encounters some difficulties. As Pensado (2006) has noted, there is

little actual philological evidence for many of the developments postulated. Hall

(1965: 552) cites forms such as Cast. bravo ‘bad-tempered’ < PRAVU(M) or Old Sard.

gruke ‘cross’, gurtellu ‘knife’ (< CRUCE(M), CULTELLU(M)) as possible indicators, in

that they are claimed to represent lexicalized forms showing exceptional general-

ization of the weak word-initial allophone. However, given the supposed univer-

sality in earlier times of the word-initial alternation between weak and strong

consonants, we might perhaps expect to see rather more such cases where the

presence of the weak variant is indicated word-initially, especially in medieval

texts written by less educated scribes.

Furthermore, the structuralist account takes as basic that word boundaries had

no phonetic correlate within phonological phrases (cf. Weinrich 1969: }57). In the

light of recent phonetic studies, however, this assumption is shown to be ques-

tionable since evidence has been found that consonants do display phonetic

differences in French and other languages depending upon their location in

relation to the boundaries of prosodic domains. As we saw above (5.3.2), experi-

mental research has demonstrated that consonants appearing at the beginning of

prosodic units tend to be more strongly articulated the higher up the prosodic

hierarchy the unit in question is (syllable, word, accentual phrase, intonational

phrase). Hence, a given consonant is typically more weakly articulated syllable-

initial than when it is word-initial, and so on. The typical occurrence of phoneti-

cally stronger consonantal realizations word-initially serves to undermine to

some degree one of the key assumptions of the structuralist vision.

Italo-Romance varieties, when a short stressed word-final vowel appears before a

syntactically linked, consonant-initial word, e.g. Italian canto male [kan’tP m’ma:le]‘he

sang badly’.

A-prosthesis 173

Finally, although the interpretation advanced by the structuralists offers some

insights into the possible rationale for strengthening for obstruents, it is less

helpful in accounting for circumstances with sonorants. This is tacitly recognized

by Hall and Weinrich who focus on obstruent change.37 Certainly, some support-

ive evidence comes from Ibero-Romance where word-initial R- has generally been

strengthened and evolves like geminate -RR- (cf. 5.2.3 and n. 19). However, obvious

counterevidence comes, for instance, from Castilian where L-, N- do not palatalize

in the same way as geminate -ll-, -NN-, as in lago, nombre (< LACU(M), NOMINE) but

silla, cana (< SELLA, CANNA).38 Similarly, Gascon initial L- patterns like weak

simplex -L- rather than strong -LL-, e.g. LUNA > luo and M�OLA > mulo ‘millstone’

but SELLA > sero ‘saddle’ (Schonthaler 1937). In eastern Romance too, the dialects

of southern Italy offer problematic evidence. For, although the systematic

strengthening of word-initial sonorants presupposed by the structuralists widely

affects the rhotic R-, it seldom operates on the other types of sonorant.39 The

structuralist rationale therefore offers some potentially useful insights but it is

beset with various difficulties when used to account for the strengthening of

word-initial rhotics.

In trying to identify the factor(s) triggering rhotic strengthening in early Ro-

mance, the possibility needs to be considered that the development may not have

had a single common causation across all Romance varieties. Instead, certain factors

may be shared, but additional and more localized factors may also have operated

yielding comparable results. A few tentative observations may be advanced here. To

37 The title of Hall’s 1964 paper makes this clear. Weinrich (1968: 52, n. 14) does make a

brief remark on sonorant development when he states that the presence of ‘spontanous

initial doubling’ in the rhotic of Cast. la rana is unconnected with RF. Doubling is not due

to syntactic phonetics, i.e. sandhi, it is claimed. Indeed, it is viewed not as lengthening but

rather as an ‘intensification’ (Intensivierung) of the consonant’s articulation, but no

explanation is offered for the change.38 Martinet (1956: 283–4) considers the failure of initial L- to develop to palatal ll- just

like the medial geminate -LL- does, and he attributes it to the need to avoid homonym clash

with the palatal ll- which had arisen from initial PL-, CL-, FL-. Nothing is said about the

failure of N- to give palatal n- in Castilian just as -NN- did, although such an initial

palatalization is found in C. and E. Asturian and Leonese dialects, e.g. the Asturian

saying Quien non diga non, nabos, navaya, a mio tierra que non vaya ‘Whoever does not

say non “not”, nabos “turnips”, navaya “(clasp) knife”, let him not go to my land’ (Zamora

Vicente 1967: 130).39 Cf. Rohlfs (1966: }}159, 161) where the near absence of strengthening of initial L- and

N- is reported for southern dialects. Initial M- however undergoes widespread

strengthening (}160). Martinet (1964: 282, n. 58) briefly claims that the strong initial r-

widely found in southern Italy is the result of analogy with forms where the initial rhotic

was strengthened through RF. Why other initial sonorants were not similarly affected is not

discussed.

174 A-prosthesis

begin with, it seems appropriate to assume that consonant allophones at the

beginning of prosodic units tend to be stronger than ones occurring within such

units, as has been shown in recent experimental phonetic investigation to which

reference has already been made. Word-initial consonants might therefore be

expected to develop a stronger articulation than their simplex medial counterparts.

From this common basis, western Romance varieties may well be expected to have

been affected by the factors identified by structuralist linguists, particularly as word-

final consonants were much more retentive in the west of Romania continua and

their presence was important in promoting strengthening of a following word-

initial consonant. However, it remains unclear why rhotics should have shown

greater susceptibility to such strengthening in comparison with other types of

sonorant. Rhotic strengthening in eastern Romance varieties is no less problematic

to account for. Italo-Romance is especially curious since southern varieties regularly

show it but central varieties do not normally do so. Here, the possibility exists of

some localized influence from the long-standing adstratum language Greek. In

Ancient Greek, initial rhotics were always voiceless [3] and their medial allophonic

counterpart was geminated [33] (Allen 1987: 43). It seems not inconceivable there-

fore, that generations of bilingual Latin-Greek speakers may have carried the

allophonic patterning of rhotics occurring in Greek over to Latin, the result of

which could have been the identification of the initial Latin R- with the medial

geminate rhotic -RR-. As only rhotics show this patterning inGreek, we have at least a

possible contributory factor helping to explain the exceptional strengthening in this

consonant in southern Italian dialects. In the other major eastern Romance area,

Balkan Romance, the factors underlying the strengthening of the rhotic R- are

unfortunately even more problematic and they remain enigmatic. Much work is

still to be done therefore on clarifying the background of initial consonant strength-

ening in Romance.

A little more attention has been paid by romanists to explaining the origins of the

process of A-prosthesis. Various approaches have been used, some more plausibly

than others. We may identify three broad types which will be reviewed in turn:

phonetic, phonological, and contact influence from pre-Roman languages.

(a) Phonetic-based accounts of A-prosthesis have mainly addressed the circum-

stances of its occurrence in Gascon. The earliest example of this approach

was presented by Millardet (1910: 128–9) who claimed that prosthetic [a] had

arisen merely as an anticipatory vowel that foreshadowed the vowel following

initial R-.40 Ronjat (1932: 54) rejected this as ad hoc and claimed that word-initial

R- may have been relatively long when in post-pausal or post-consonantal

40 ‘La voyelle de la syllabe primitive initiale a penetre partiellement a travers l’[r-] . . .Cefragment de voyelle, s’infiltrant a travers l’[r], a transpire a l’initiale, et colore en [a] par

l’[r], il a dans la suite forme syllabe’ (Millardet 1910: 129).

A-prosthesis 175

contexts and that it was this longer variant that ‘split’ into a sequence of syllabic

and non-syllabic rhotic [r’r] before becoming arr-.41 Unfortunately, it is not made

entirely clear what might have caused the lengthening of the rhotic and its

subsequent ‘splitting.’ Nonetheless, the significance of the prior lengthening of

initial R- is clearly perceived, as is the likely creation of alternation between

prosthetic and non-prosthetic forms in the early development of A-prosthesis.

In his structuralist examination of A-prosthesis in Gascon and Ibero-Romance,

Jungemann (1956: 285–7) subscribes to Ronjat’s account, suggesting that the

creation of a prosthetic vowel before strengthened /rr-/ is comparable with

I-prosthesis before the ‘liquid s’ of word-initial s impura sequences where a

similar inherent vocalicness is attributed to an original consonant (cf. 4.1.5).

A rather more plausible phonetic basis to the development of a prosthetic

vowel can be found, however, if certain phonetic properties inherent to the rhotic

trill R- are considered more closely. Of particular significance appears to be the

very precise articulatory control required for the production of a trilled alveolar

/r/, as recent experimental investigation has revealed. Sole (2002a, 2002b) de-

scribes in some detail the physiological and aerodynamic demands made when

pronouncing this sound-type, noting that ‘the conditions for initiating tongue-

tip trilling involve muscle contraction of the tongue to assume the position, shape

and elasticity requirements, and a sufficient pressure difference across the lingual

constriction’ (2002a: 656). The complexities are such that the articulation of a

strongly trilled [r] can pose difficulties for some speakers.42 This is borne out by

the findings of Hammond (2000) for Latin American Spanish. In an acoustic and

perceptual analysis of the speech of ninety-five native speakers from nine different

countries, it was found that the informants frequently did not realize the strong-

ly-trilled rhotic normally found in word-initial position with multiple tongue-tip

vibrations. Instead, a wide range of articulations were reported which included

various pre-aspirated sequences such as the pre-aspirated trill [hr] and tap [hɾ].Comparison can be made between these findings and those reported in theinvestigation by Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 219) of the articulation ofword-initial /r/ by two Italian speakers. Here, it was discovered that when thesespeakers articulated the words rana and rosso, there was a short approximant or

41 ‘dans un mot tel que rei < rege, isole ou prononce apres un mot finissant par une

consonne, la cons. relativement longue se soit scindee en rr devenue ensuite arr-, ce qui ne se

produisait pas quand r etait entre voyelles dans un groupe etroitement lie tel que lo rei < (il)lu

rege; puis il y aura normalisation de l’une ou de l’autre des formes alternees’ (Ronjat 1932: 54).42 Cf. ‘Tongue-tip trills involve a complex production mechanism requiring finely

tuned neuromotor adjustment of various parameters—positioning of the articulators,

shape, articulator mass, stiffness and aerodynamic conditions—which accounts for the

difficulties lingual trills present to inexperienced (e.g. foreign learners) and immature (e.g.

children) speakers’ (Sole 2002b: 352).

176 A-prosthesis

vowel-like sound of about 50 ms in duration preceding the lingual contact with

the alveolar ridge. A similar transitional phase was noted for one speaker at the

end of the articulation of the initial rhotic.

The results from these studies are suggestive, for they indicate a tendency for

the realization of the articulatorily complex trilled rhotic [r] to be adapted by at

least some speakers when it is in word-initial position. And the adaptation

appears to involve the introduction of some sort of on-glide, either a voiceless

copy of the rhotic or an indeterminate vocalic element. That such an on-glide

might subsequently come to be interpreted as an independent vocalic segment

and assigned a quality permissible in the language concerned, i.e. become estab-

lished as a prosthetic vowel, does not seem impossible (cf. 1.6 above).

(b) Romanists have not often appealed to phonologically based rationales when

seeking to account for A-prosthesis. However, phonological theory can provide a

useful basis for understanding the development of this process. As a starting

point, we can note that after the word-initial rhotic R- underwent strengthening,

effectively it can be seen to have become a geminate. Now, geminates in syllable-

onset position are unusual in language, though they are found. In Romance, there

are certainly a number of examples. Thus, in northern Italian varieties cases have

arisen as a result of syncope in word-initial syllables such that two identical

consonants came together, e.g. SEXA(GI)NTA > [’ssa:Nta] ‘sixty’ in Bolognese, and

TITT-INOS > [’tti:N] ‘nipples’ in Valestra, prov. Reggio Emilia (Malagoli 1934: 84). In

varieties of standard French too, comparable syncopated forms such as [ppa],

[mm~A], [ttal�R] for papa, maman, tout a l’heure may be heard. A further source

of post-pausal geminates in French is provided by the clitic pronouns en and

elided l’, as in: [nn] avez-vous d’autres, [ll] avez-vous vu ?43 Beyond Romance,

they occur for example in Pattani Malay (Hajek and Goedemans 2003). When

they arise, such onsets are theoretically anomalous for most phonological models.

For instance, in moraic theory, geminates are viewed as mora-bearing but it has

often been assumed that syllable onsets (and hence word-initial onsets) are not

mora-bearing, so that the appropriate characterization of onset geminates con-

tinues to be controversial in this model of description.44 In government phonol-

ogy, geminates are not licensed as onsets. Accordingly, it might be expected that,

as with complex onsets containing any sequence except consonantþ liquid, an

43 I am indebted to Yves Charles Morin (p.c.) for the French data; cf. also Morin (1979).44 Already in the early days of moraic theory, certain phonologists reported linguistic

data suggesting that onsets may be mora-bearing rather than weightless, e.g. Davis (1988,

1990). Since then, a number of languages have been described where there are word-initial

geminates showing properties associated with the presence of moraicity, notably relevance

in determining stress assignment. This has led to the growing recognition that onsets can

be mora-bearing (cf. Davis 1999; Ham 2001; Topintzi 2006).

A-prosthesis 177

onset geminate would be interpreted as #vC|C- where the first part of the

geminate forms part of the rhyme of a syllable whose nucleus ‘v’ may be

phonetically unrealized. Such a representation recalls the circumstances discussed

earlier for I-prosthesis, where the appearance of a prosthetic vowel was viewed

phonologically as the filling of a nuclear slot motivated on general theoretical

grounds. The broad tendency from pre-Classical times into Late Latin whereby

syllable onsets were simplified to consist of just simplex consonants or obs-

truentþ liquid clusters would have actively promoted prosthesis in forms con-

taining a word-initial geminate. Accordingly, in Romance varieties where word-

initial rhotics had undergone sufficient strengthening to be identified with the

medial geminate -RR-, we might expect on theoretical grounds that prosthesis

would be a possible consequence.

(c) Although deep scepticism has reigned for some time amongst the great

majority of romanists as to the relevance of pre-Roman languages in locally

shaping Romance phonological patterns, it seems not too far fetched to suggest

that such languages may have exercised some background influence in promoting

the use of a prosthetic vowel before rhotics in the Latin speech of certain

communities that, for many generations, may have been bilingual or diglossic,

with Latin and a pre-Roman language in coexistence.45 In areas of Romania

continua where pre-Roman languages long continued to exist alongside Latin,

the confirmed presence in these languages of strengthened word-initial rhotics or

of prosthesis before initial rhotics may well have lent some support to any

internally motivated tendencies affecting initial rhotics.

Appeals to pre-Roman linguistic influence have typically been made by scho-

lars concerned with the origins of A-prosthesis in Gascon and Ibero-Romance. It

was noted that most, though not all, of the Romance varieties affected were

spoken originally in or near the Pyrenean area in close proximity to the Basque

country which in Roman and medieval times was a good deal larger than it is

today (it will be recalled that all the modern varieties of Ibero-Romance descend

from forms of Latin spoken in the north of the Peninsula). Now, in early times it

appears that Basque, a pre-Roman language of uncertain origins, had a prohibi-

tion not only on word-initial consonant clusters but also on word-initial rhotics.

Another pre-Roman language, Iberian, which was formerly spoken mainly in the

eastern coastal area of the Peninsula from Almerıa up to modern Languedoc in

SW France (Correa 2004: 38), evidently had a similar prohibition on word-initial

45 We use the term ‘pre-Roman’ in preference to ‘substratum’ since by convention the

latter term refers typically to chronologically earlier languages which have ceased to exist as

living languages, such as Iberian or Etruscan. In contrast, Basque and Greek have

continued to be used, albeit by fewer speakers over time, in the western Pyrenean area

and in southern Italy respectively.

178 A-prosthesis

rhotics. These constraints are apparent from the near-total absence of forms with

word-initial <r> in early inscriptional evidence of Basque and Iberian from north

and south of the Pyrenees.46 Loanwords into these languages containing word-

initial [r-] were always adapted and nativized through the insertion of a pros-

thetic vowel. Furthermore, the prohibition against word-initial [r-] has remained

largely productive in Basque up to the present day except in more peripheral

dialects like Roncales and Souletin. In the other dialects, the occasional excep-

tions involve just recent loanwords such as rezibi ‘to receive’ and reina ‘queen’

(Michelena 1990: 333; Trask 1997: 127, 146). The quality of the prosthetic vowel

shows some variation but a default quality of /e/ has been widely generalized.47

Given the approximate geographical correspondence between the likely area of

Basque speech in the late Empire and early medieval times and the location of the

embryonic Gascon, Castilian, and Aragonese speech-communities in the same

period, and given also the striking similarity in the limitation of prosthesis

specifically to words with word-initial [r-] in both areas, it is not surprising

that various scholars have seen Basque influence as a likely explanation for A-

prosthesis in these varieties of Romance; for example, Luchaire (1877: 23, 28–31),

Bourciez (1936) and more circumspectly in (1956: }269,c), Rohlfs (1970: 150) andEchenique Elizondo (2004: 73).48 It may also be noted that these Pyrenean

Romance communities were culturally and politically peripheral for centuries

so that ongoing Basque-Romance contact would have been all the more perva-

sive. The findings of more recent research on contact language influence are of

relevance here. According to the ‘borrowing scale’ appearing in Thomason and

Kaufman (1988: 74–5) and Thomason (2001: 70–1), a more intense contact such as

46 Cf. Correa Rodrıguez (2004: 40) who notes that in the extant inscriptions of Iberian

the two rhotics in the language only occur when preceded by a vowel so that they were

impermissible in absolute word-initial position. Similarly, Echenique Elizondo (2004: 73)

reports the typological coincidences between reconstructed ancient Basque and Iberian,

and she identifies amongst the phonological similarities the ‘ausencia de /r-/ inicial’.47 Rohlfs (1970: 150) only mentions the existence of [e-], citing derivations such as

REGEM, R�OTA, RIPA, ROMA > errege, errota, erripa, Erroma.However, Gavel (1920: 207) who was

describing Basque usage in France identifies varying outcomes determined partly by vowel

copying. Thus, [e-] appears when [e] or a rounded vowel followed the rhotic, [e-] or [a-]

when the low vowel [a] followed, and [e-] or [i-] when the high vowel [i] followed. Thus,

the vowel [e-] appears to operate as the default but with the possibility that it may be

modified through copying the height of a following unrounded vowel, raising before [i] or

lowering before [a]. The reasons behind the selection of [e] as the default quality are not

clear.48 Other scholars have simply left open the possibility of substratum influence. For

instance, Wuest (1979: 106) prudently suggests for Gascon that ‘une influence du substrat

basque n’est pas exclue’.

A-prosthesis 179

that between Basque and early Romance can lead to the borrowing of prosodic

features and the loss or addition of syllable-structure constraints. This certainly

appears to be consistent with the possibility that Basque may have reinforced any

internal tendencies within Latin to create a prosthetic vowel.

Elsewhere in Romania continua, the possibility that influence from pre-Roman

languages may have played a role in promoting the use of a prosthetic vowel in

rhotic-initial words does not appear to have received serious investigation. This is

understandable, since our knowledge of the pre-Roman languages of Sardinia,

the Alps, and the Balkans is limited and inconclusive.

In sum, although the causation for A-prosthesis remains poorly understood in

many respects, it is possible to recognize a number of factors which may have

contributed in varying degrees to the development—phonetic, phonological, and

contact-based. Unfortunately, due to the general lack of research by romanists into

the etiology of this category of prosthesis, the relative significance of the individual

factors that have been considered remains uncertain. It is to be hoped that future

investigation will help to clarify this question and also perhaps reveal further

relevant contributory factors.

5.2.7 A STRUCTURALLY RELATED DEVELOPMENT: THE ITALIAN FORMS

IGNUDO, IGNOCCHI, ETC.

A special instance of vowel prosthesis that appears akin to A-prosthesis is found in a

small set of words occurring in medieval Tuscan and, for some items, still in the

archaizing register of literary Italian as well as sporadically in other central and

northern varieties of Italo-Romance: e.g. ignudo ‘naked’, ignocchi ‘small dumplings’,

ignucca ‘knuckle’, ignuno ‘nobody’, ignommero ‘elbow’. The common characteristic is

the presence of a palatal nasal in word-initial position prior to the appearance of the

vowel [i-], although in most cases the source of the palatality of the nasal is unfortu-

nately not clear. Thus, for example, Rohlfs (1966: }161) derives the form ignudo from

ignudare a putative variant of isnudare < EX-NUDARE ‘to strip naked’, but elsewhere the

possibility of its coming from gnudo < niudo < *nludu < NUDULU is aired (}323).49A further case is provided by one isolated form involving etymologically initial [d-],

namely Iddio ‘God’ < DEU(M). Almost all of these are directly paralleled by outcomes

49 Ignocco (pl. ignocchi) may derive from Langobardic *nukka ‘knuckle’ through

metaphor; ignucca would represent the direct semantic continuator of the Germanic

etymon. Ignuno presumably goes back to NE(C)-UNU(M), cf. niente < NE(C)-ENTE (DELI s.

v. niente) or perhaps less plausibly NE-GENTE (Rohlfs 1968: }499). The source of the palatalnasal in ignommero < CUBITU(M), cf. standard Italian gomito, is uncertain.

180 A-prosthesis

lacking word-initial [i-], nudo, gnocchi, nucca, gomito50 andDiowhich now represent

the normal form for these items in standard Italian. The unexpectedness of the initial

vowel is shown by the evolution of words of similar structure such as NUBILU(M)

> nuvolo) nuvola ‘cloud’, NUCE(M) > noce ‘nut, and DECEM > dieci ‘ten’ in which no

such development has occurred.

To explain the appearance of the initial vowel in the ign- forms, it needs to be

recalled that intervocalic palatal sonorants in early Romance typically had a

geminate realization. This is still the case in central and southern varieties of

Italo-Romance, cf. standard Italian vigna ‘vineyard’ [’viJJa], figlia ‘daughter’

[’fiLLa]. Usually the palatal nasal was only found intervocalically but when,

unusually, it came to occur word-initially the normal geminate pronunciation

was maintained. In the forms developing an initial palatal nasal, vowel prosthesis

seems to have been adopted therefore as a strategy to enable syllabification to

occur. The selection of the vowel quality [i] was evidently determined by the

palatal nature of the following consonant, i.e. strategy (iv) as identified in 1.6.

Also relevant perhaps was the presence in medieval Tuscan of an existing and

frequently occurring prosthetic vowel [i] (cf. 4.3.3 and 5.2.4).

The appearance of the initial vowel [i-] in Iddio can likewise be attributed to

the prior development of a strengthened consonant [dd] word-initially. Indeed,

in standard Italian the plosive in the word Dio (as well as in its associated plural

and feminine forms dei, dea, dee) remains unique in systematically having a

geminate realization when preceded by a vowel, e.g. senza Dio [’s¡n �tsa d’di:o]as against senza dita ‘without fingers’ [’s¡n �tsa ’di:ta], although the reasons for thispronunciation are not certain.51 However, the presence of a geminate initial

consonant was doubtless of key importance in triggering the appearance of a

prosthetic vowel in order to enable syllabification to take place. The selection of

the vowel quality [i] owes itself to similar factors as those identified for forms

beginning with ign-, assimilation to the following coronal consonant [dd] and the

existing presence of [i] as a general prosthetic vowel type.52

50 Italian nessuno ‘nobody’ derives from a different etymon NE(C)-IPSU-UNU(M).51 For instance, Rohlfs (1966: }153) attributes the gemination to the effect of

rafforzamento fonosintattico in the phrase SOLUS DEUS, with the strengthened alternant

subsequently being generalized. However, Skytte (1975: 273, n. 46) views the gemination

as the result of assimilation in the phrase (ILLE DEUS >) il dio > iddio, with once again later

generalization of this alternant (cf. Maiden and Robustelli 2000: 12).52 If the origin of the prosthetic vowel lies in the phrase ILLE DEUS (cf. preceding

footnote), a further possibility is that the quality of the vowel merely continues that of

the initial syllable of ILLE. The outcome with initial [i] can be explained as a result of the

frequent raising of initial unstressed [e] > [i] in Tuscan, a development which is seen in

cipolla, virtu, signore, etc. and which also affected proclitics such as di and the clitic

pronouns mi, ti, si. The vowel of the article [il] evidently was also affected, although

A-prosthesis 181

The factors underlying the development of a prosthetic vowel in this idiosyn-

cratic subset of forms show obvious similarities to those motivating A-prosthesis

in rhotic-initial forms in early Romance. In both cases, the appearance of a

strengthened or geminate word-initial consonant has been the catalyst for

change. However in view of its wide-ranging nature across Romance, A-prosthe-

sis with rhotic-initial forms probably got under way chronologically rather earlier

than the much more localized development which we have just been considering.

5.3 A-prosthesis: later developments

From the later Middle Ages onward, there have been a number of notable changes

in the incidence of A-prosthesis across Romance. In some varieties where pros-

thesis had established itself as a process, the broad trend has been for progressive

reduction in its productivity. More rarely, other varieties have seen the incidence

of A-prosthesis maintained or even enhanced.

5.3.1 VARIETIES SHOWING SIGNIFICANT REGRESSION OF

A-PROSTHESIS

Regression has occurred notably in three Romance varieties, Rheto-Romance,

Gascon, and Catalan. In Rheto-Romance, there is evidence that certain varieties

may have developed a productive phonological process of A-prosthesis. These

include especially those spoken in the Upper Engadine and to a lesser extent in

Friulian. In both cases, the more recent decline in the productivity of the process

has evidently been extreme. In Gascon, it also appears that in the medieval period

A-prosthesis had established itself in most if not all varieties as a fully productive

process. However, from the sixteenth century onward, the use of prosthesis has

experienced a steady regression so that now it continues to operate as an active

process in just a relatively small subset of Gascon dialects. Finally, in Catalan,

although A-prosthesis does not appear to have ever become established as a

systematic phonological rule during the medieval period, it is striking that

most varieties have seen a considerable retreat from the use of prosthetic forms.

We outline below the main lines of development in each of these three areas of

Romance.

southern Tuscan varieties like those of Siena and (medieval) Arezzo preserved el, cf. Rohlfs

(1968: }130, 1967: }414).

182 A-prosthesis

5.3.1.1 Rheto-Romance

For Rheto-Romance, the available textual evidence indicates that it was Upper

Engadinish in the eastern Grisons that became most subject to A-prosthesis in the

Middle Ages. Unfortunately, our knowledge of medieval developments in this

variety is poor since no substantial documents have come down to us from earlier

than the sixteenth century when texts such as the Bible translation in Engadinish

by Jakob Bifrun appeared. However, these texts reveal a widespread use of A-

prosthesis suggesting that the process was well established by that time (cf. 5.2.2

above). In the earliest detailed scholarly review of all Rheto-Romance by Gartner

(1883: }92), allusion is certainly made to the appearance of prosthetic [a-] in

forms beginning with etymological R- in certain contemporary varieties, but

perhaps surprisingly the only data to be provided relate to Dolomitish. For

Upper Engadinish, Gartner (loc. cit.) simply states that ‘a pre-posed a . . . seems

to have been exceptionally common’. The retrospective nature of this

observation is borne out by the use of illustrative examples drawn solely from

sixteenth- to early eighteenth-century texts rather than forms found in contem-

porary usage. Further revealing data come from subsequent studies of Engadinish

varieties. Thus, Walberg (1907: }102) reports that A-prosthesis is frequent in the

Upper Engadinish dialect of Celerina-Cresta (aram ‘branch’, arænts ‘back’, arikr

‘to laugh’ < RAMU(M), RENES, RIDERE), although it is noted that, in the majority of

cases, non-prosthetic forms are also found in variation with the prosthetic ones.

No indication however is given of the factors governing the variation. More

recent descriptions of Engadinish suggest that A-prosthesis has at best a marginal

status. The grammar of (Lower) Engadinish by Arquint (1964) contains no

mention of prosthetic forms; only items such as rai ‘king’, roba ‘goods, posses-

sions’, ruina ‘ruin’, rumper ‘to break’ are cited. The Engadinish-German dic-

tionaries of Peer (1962) and Bezzola and Tonjachen (1976) offer fuller data and

there is some evidence of prosthetic forms still being in use, but they appear to

have limited currency. Forms cited include arains (f.pl.) ‘back’, arait ‘net’, ared

‘productivity, diligence’ (deverbal form from reder < RENDERE), arir ‘to laugh’,

arisch ‘root’, arov ‘entreaty, request’ (deverbal form from ROGARE), aruvi ‘dew’,

but non-prosthetic variants of these are also noted (rain, rait, red, rir� rıer, risch,

rov, ruvi) though with no indication of where one or other form appears. In

Lower Engadinish, the counterpart forms are regularly non-prosthetic. It is also

notable that, for a substantial number of lexical items beginning with etymologi-

cal R-, a non-prosthetic form alone has now apparently established itself as the

only acceptable realization in the semi-standardized form of modern Upper

Engadinish. Thus, words such as rai � raig ‘king’, ram ‘branch’, raz ‘ray’,

rouda ‘wheel’, rer ‘rare’, rumper ‘to break’. The move away from the use of A-

prosthesis in Upper Engadinish may reflect in part the result of dialect levelling in

the Engadine. Its general absence in Lower Engadinish and indeed other varieties

A-prosthesis 183

of the Grisons would give this process high salience which would be likely to

undergo elimination in any moves toward dialect levelling.

For Dolomitish, Gartner (1883: }92) cited as prosthetic forms arP:sk ‘frog’, arube‘to steal’ from the variety of Badia,53 and arık ‘rich’, arıde ‘to laugh’ from the

transitional Alpine dialect of Erto.54 In his more detailed study of usage in Erto,

however, prosthesis is stated to be generally ‘rare’ in Badia and Enneberg, but verb

forms in ar- were in evidence particularly in Erto, Fassa, and Gardena, and more

rarely in Vigo (Lower Fassa), Buchenstein, Ampezzo (Tyrol), and northern

Veneto (Gartner 1892: 201, n.1). More recent studies of Dolomitish indicate that

the scope of prosthesis has been much reduced. Thus, Elwert (1972: 118) states that

it is rare in Fassa and that the only surviving traces are in forms containing

etymological prefixal RE- where the prosthetic vowel has been lexicalized, e.g.

[arne’¡r] ‘to drown’ < RE-NECARE. These forms, however, do not represent true

examples of A-prosthesis. Rather, they illustrate U-prosthesis which occurred

after the initial vowel had been syncopated (see Chapter 6). In forms with initial

R- where the following vowel did not undergo syncope (as in Gartner’s examples),

there is no sign of a prosthetic vowel in Fassan, e.g. [’ri:va], [rut], [’rP:da] ‘slope,belch, wheel’ (< RIPA, RUCTU(M), R�OTA). Kramer (1977: 174) echoes this finding

for all the other major varieties of Dolomitish. The implication is therefore that

A-prosthesis was at best of marginal status in Dolomitish and that in more recent

times it has ceased totally to be productive.

Finally, in Friulian there has been a comparable retreat from A-prosthesis. In

later medieval texts, as we have seen, there are frequent attestations of prosthetic

forms although the evidence does not suggest that a categorical rule of prosthesis

ever developed in any Friulian variety. However, where prosthetic forms did arise

it appears that in more recent centuries the non-prosthetic alternants have

progressively become re-established as the sole occurring form. In Gartner

(1883: 184–5), no prosthetic forms are cited as reflexes of rauba ‘possessions’,

but in a few localities R�OTA ‘wheel’ is reported to have outcomes showing

A-prosthesis, e.g. [a’ru¡d¡] in Paluzza and Tolmezzo in the north, [ra’u¡d¡] in

53 Neither of these forms is unproblematic. The verb arube could well be prefixal, and

the etymology of arP:sk is uncertain (REW 1329 relates it to *BROSCUS ‘toad’ blended with

Low Latin RUSPUS or ROSPUS ‘toad’ of unknown origin). Only limited traces of a prosthetic

vowel have remained in these items. For the first one, AIS pt. 314 (Colfosco in Badia) has

[l awro:ʃk] whilst pt. 305 (S. Vigilio di Marebbe) has [a’rP:ʃk] (map III, 453). Only these

two localities have prosthetic reflexes. For the second, no form is cited for pt. 314 and none

of the surrounding localities recorded have prosthetic reflexes.54 Erto lies approximately 15 km NE of Belluno. In this study, the existence of numerous

non-prosthetic forms, rik, ride, r¡jt ‘net’, rey¡jve ‘to receive’, etc. is also indicated (p. 341).

184 A-prosthesis

Cormons and [ra’ueda] in Gorizia in the south-east, the latter two forms under-

going metathesis in the first syllable [ar-] > [ra-].55 In certain modern Friulian

varieties, words showing evidence of A-prosthesis remain in use but these are not

numerous and their originally prosthetic vowel has usually now been lexicalized.

They include items like aruede ‘wheel’, aruez ‘bunch’ < R�OTEU(M), aracli ‘prop to

support plants’ (Vanelli 1984: 282, n. 4).56 However, these prosthetic forms are by

no means generalized across Friulian. For instance, the AIS (map VI, 1227) cites

prosthetic forms for ‘wheel’ at just four points,57 the form in the emerging

standard Friulian variety being ruede. Furthermore, it is suggestive that many of

the prosthetic forms cited in Zamboni et al. (1984–7) are described as archaic, e.g.

aradi ‘to shave’, arefuida ‘to reject’, aribola ‘seething’, ariceu ‘to receive’, arodar

wheelwright’, aromonda ‘to prune’, arodolo ‘roll’, arose ‘rose’, aronc ‘terrace’ (as

against modern radi, refuda, ribuele, ricevi, ruedar, remonda, rul, rose, ronc). The

evidence therefore points to a general retreat from A-prosthesis and to the

absence in any modern Friulian variety of a genuinely productive rule of vowel

prosthesis.

5.3.1.2 Gascon

Although the evidence from medieval texts suggests that A-prosthesis enjoyed

considerable productivity across most if not all the Romance varieties of Gascony,

systematic studies of modern usage indicate that comparatively few varieties have

maintained prosthesis as a active process. In the study by Bec (1968), which took

into account the use of A-prosthesis in a number of words with initial etymologi-

cal R-, it was found that the eastern frontier ran down a little to the east of

Boulogne-sur-Gesse and St Gaudens before swinging slightly to the south-west to

pass a little to the east of Canejan in the Val d’Aran and Bagneres-de-Luchon in

the Pyrenees. To the west of this line, the varieties which have conserved the

earlier status quo most faithfully lie in the region closest to the Pyrenees and

hence most remote from outside influence.58 Even here, though, there has been a

noticeable diminution in the productivity of A-prosthesis in more recent times.

55 Reflexes of R�OTA in Friulian which developed an initial [a-] have generally been

assumed by scholars to have undergone phonologically conditioned vowel prosthesis.

However, it is not impossible that morphological factors have played a role through the

recutting of grammatical boundaries, as in ILLA R�OTA > ILL’AR�OTA.56 Curiously, neither of the two latter forms appear in Zamboni et al. (1984–7).57 In the north-east and east, [un¡ ar’w¡d¡], (pl.) [ar’wedes] at pt. 319 (Cedarchis,

Arta); [ar’jod¡ ], (pl.) [ar’jodis] at pt. 329 (Travasans); [aru’ede], (pl.) [aru’edis] at pt. 348(Sant’Odorico); and in the south-east, [ar’jPda], (pl.) [ar’jPde] at pt. 378 (Montona).

58 Cf. Millardet (1910: 121) who identifies the Landes and Basses-Pyrenees as ‘le dernier

refuge de l’ancienne prothese’.

A-prosthesis 185

Rhotic-initial learned words and French borrowings in particular have very

commonly resisted nativization through prosthesis, e.g. rriðew ‘curtain’, rrujole

‘German measles’, rrefula ‘to repress’ (Fr. rideau, rougeole, refouler). Furthermore,

cases of native Gascon words failing to undergo expected prosthesis have been

observed. Thus, Bec (1968: 179) reports the findings of Lalanne dating from the

mid twentieth century59 which indicate the presence of cases of polymorphism

arr- � rr- in native words of western Gascon dialects, and this has been found

with some lexical items even in dialects of the extreme SW of Gascony where A-

prosthesis may be expected to be faithfully preserved. In Pyrenean dialects of

Gascon further to the east, such as that of Bagneres-de-Luchon, words with initial

r- borrowed from French evidently continued to undergo prosthesis until at least

the early twentieth century, e.g. arruðew ‘curtain’, arrandebus ‘appointment’,

arramuna ‘to sweep a chimney’ (Fr. rideau, rendez-vous, ramoner). However, it

is not clear how productive A-prosthesis has remained as a process up to the

present day.

In the Gascon variety spoken in the Bethmale Valley, situated a little further

east of Bagneres-de-Luchon and to the SE of St Gaudens, however, significant

regression in the use of prosthesis has been reported.60 A detailed investigation of

this variety carried out in 1931 revealed that prosthesis had already been largely

abandoned (Schonthaler 1937: }74). Prosthetic forms appeared only rarely as

lexicalized items in the local speech, the examples cited being arre ‘nothing’

(< REM), and two verbs arrapa ‘to seize, snatch’ (< Germ. rapon) and the

denominal arrama ‘to support (beans) with branches’ ( RAMU(M) ‘branch’).61

An important factor in undermining the productivity of A-prosthesis, and

particularly so in more eastern and northern varieties of Gascon, has

59 The relevant work by Lalanne is an undated roneotyped study published in St-

Vincent-de-Paul and entitled L’independance des aires linguistiques en Gascogne maritime.

It has not been possible for the present writer to consult this work directly.60 The dialectal situation in the Bethmale Valley has received a good deal of attention. In

addition to coverage in the ALG pt 790S and in the monograph by Schonthaler (1937), it

was the subject of close sociolinguistic examination more recently by Helfenstein, Keller,

and Kristol (Wuest and Kristol 1993: 83–108). The focus of attention here was the continued

use of Gascon amongst the inhabitants of the Valley.61 The preservation of prosthetic arre in Bethmale finds parallels in many other Gascon

varieties where A-prosthesis has been abandoned; cf. fn. 9. Bec (1968: 175) links the

widespread maintenance of a prosthetic vowel in this item with the need for a fuller

phonetic form to give emphasis to an otherwise brief monosyllable. For the two verbal

forms, there is a strong possibility that prefixation with a- < AD- is involved rather than

prosthesis. Further prosthetic examples from Bethmale are provided by the ALG, pt. 790S,

e.g. arrat ‘rat’ (map I, 3). Schonthaler (1937: }119) reports only the non-prosthetic form

rrat.

186 A-prosthesis

undoubtedly been contact influence from Occitan and more especially standard

French. Already in the nineteenth century, Luchaire (1879: 208) recognized the

significance of this influence. After observing that there was a ‘repugnance’ for

initial [r-] amongst contemporary Gascon speakers which led them to strengthen

the consonant and precede it with a prosthetic vowel, he noted that this adapta-

tion was all the more likely and consistent, the more rural the variety was and the

less influenced it was by French, and also the more geographically distant it was

from the Garonne and hence from the Occitan of Languedoc. Schonthaler (1937)

identifies as likely sociolinguistic routes of French influence, school, the Church,

military service and commercial contacts.

The Gascon of the Aran Valley has been shielded in some measure from

influence from standard French, since this area has never formed part of the

French state. However, other contact influences have operated increasingly on the

speech of the inhabitants, this time from Catalan and Castilian. The absence of A-

prosthesis in these Ibero-Romance varieties has had a similar negative impact on

prosthetic usage as that experienced in Gascony. We may note that an equally

negative impact can be found on the southern side of the Pyrenees in varieties of

Aragonese, e.g. Rafel i Fontanals (1980) presents forms like [rre’ðono] ‘round (m.

sg.)’, [’rrato] ‘rat’ and [’rrweða] ‘wheel’ for the Benasc Valley and Badıa Margarit

(1950) cites [rre’ðiɾ] ‘to laugh’, [’rramo] ‘branch’, [’rrio] ‘river’, [’rrojo] ‘red’ forthe variety of Bielsa. Although Schädel (1908: 151) reported that A-prosthesis stillappeared regularly in Aranais, the decline in productivity of this process has beenconsiderable over more recent years. In fact, Bec (1968: 181) confirms that with theexception of the Canéjan Valley in the NW of the Aranais-speaking region, theprocess of A-prosthesis is clearly regressing. The special circumstances in theCanéjan Valley owe themselves evidently to its more northerly, isolated locationclose to other prosthetizing areas in Gascony and to the stronger pastoral traditionthere which fosters regular contact with those Gascon areas. More recently,attention has been called by Coromines (1990: 41) to diastratic variation and lexicallayering in the use of A-prosthesis in Aranais. Diastratically, the more cultivated aspeaker is the more likely (s)he is to suppress A-prosthesis; one result of this maybe hypercorrection, as in ratja ‘wild oats’ < arratja < (AVENA) ERRATICA. Lexically,

the use of A-prosthesis by speakers is more likely with well-established words, but

less usual with words perceived as being foreign or not part of the more familiar

native lexicon.

5.3.1.3 Catalan

In modern Catalan which is based on the educated usage of Barcelona, there is

very little evidence today of A-prosthesis. However, in more peripheral varieties

of Catalan, prosthetic forms are still reported to be fairly frequent. For example,

in Algueres (Algherese) which is spoken in NW Sardinia having been introduced

A-prosthesis 187

into the island in the fourteenth century by settlers who appear to have come

predominantly from eastern parts of the Catalan-speaking area,62 items like the

following are found (Blasco Ferrer 1984: } 77):

Alguerès Standard Catalan etymon[arra’kPVt] record ‘memory’ (deverbal) RE-C�ORD-

[arras’tat] restat ‘remained’ (p.p.) RESTATU(M)

[arru’ba] rubar ‘to steal’ (Germ.) raubon

[arru’veV] rovell ‘rust’ RUB�ICULU(M)63

[ar’res] res ‘something’ RES

Also, in the variety of Catalan used in the Roussillon, cases of prosthesis are

reported as still occurring in the early twentieth century, as in erreben [‰rr‰’en]‘suddenly’ (< REPENTE) and various verb forms such as erregar [‰rr‰’ªa] ‘to water’(< RIGARE), errollar [‰rruL’La] ‘to form a circle, surround’ (< ROTULARE), though

such verb forms may also reflect influence from prefixal a- < AD-.64 However, in

verb forms the prosthetic vowel only appears when the following syllable is

unstressed, hence [’rreª‰] ‘(s)he waters’ (< R�IGAT) etc. represents the only occur-

ring realization. Also, even the prosthetic verb forms have non-prosthetic var-

iants, e.g. [‰rr‰’ªa] � [rr‰’ªa], although the circumstances for the use of one

rather than the other are not made clear. The evidence therefore points to the

lingering, albeit much diminished, presence of A-prosthesis in this variety.65

In the light of these pieces of data, it seems reasonable to infer that in earlier

times A-prosthesis may have enjoyed a good deal of currency across most if not all

the Catalan-speaking region. From the late medieval period onwards, however,

there has been a progressive retreat from the use of this phonological process,

most significantly amongst speakers of the emerging standard language in the

Barcelona area.

62 The question of the precise origins of the early settlers in Alguer (Alghero) has been

the subject of much controversy. The earlier presumption that most came from the

Barcelona area has been largely rejected. The general consensus now is that the settlers

probably came from various parts of the Iberian Peninsula but that, predictably perhaps,

areas nearer to the sea were more represented, e.g. Barcelona and environs, Valencia,

Roussillon, and the Balearic Islands (Blasco Ferrer 1984: 4–5; Veny 1987: 102–5).63 As etymon, REW 7348 proposes a form derived from RUBIGO ‘rust’.64 Data for this Catalan variety are drawn from Fouche (1980a: 206).65 As Fouche (1980a: 206) observes of the contemporary situation with prosthesis, ‘il

s’en faut de beaucoup qu’elle [= la prosthese] soit aussi frequente que la prosthese de a

dans le domaine gascon.’

188 A-prosthesis

5.3.2 VARIETIES SHOWING MAINTENANCE OF A-PROSTHESIS

Unlike Gascon and Engadinish where A-prosthesis has experienced notable

regression, Campidanese Sardinian has largely preserved the productivity of the

process up to modern times, although it appears that some limited undermining

of it has occurred more recently. But while prosthesis has remained in large

measure an active process, a notable change has occurred in the quality adopted

by the prosthetic vowel. The earliest texts written in Campidanese, dating from

the twelfth century, indicate that the quality was determined by vowel copying

(cf. 5.2.4). However, in the pattern which is now operative, a low-quality [a-] is

systematically used. This pattern appears to have originated in the south of the

island, doubtless with its focal point in the usage of the influential town of

Cagliari from where it has spread progressively northward, reaching as far as

Milis in the west of Sardinia but, in the east, only up to Barbaricino and Ogliastra

where the earlier vowel-copying pattern has been partly or completely retained.

The circumstances surrounding the development of the generalized use of pros-

thetic [a-] are not clear. The strong influence on Cagliari from mainland Italy,

and especially from Tuscany, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries may be of

significance but this remains speculative.66 A further aspect of the rise of A-

prosthesis with generalized [a-] is that as it diffused northwards from southern

Sardinia, it appears to have coincided with the displacement of I-prosthesis. As a

result, in modern Campidanese we find that I-prosthesis is no longer produc-

tive,67 whereas in northern varieties, such as Logudorese and Nuorese, I-prosthe-

sis has remained productive but A-prosthesis has never become established.

Finally, in modern times it appears that the productivity of A-prosthesis in

Campidanese has ceased on occasions to be complete. In addition to one native

word which is reported mysteriously not to show prosthesis, namely [r¡i]‘king’,68 the recent influx of loanwords from Italian with an initial rhotic may

no longer be systematically pronounced with a prosthetic [a-] by some speakers.

Thus, Bolognesi (1998: 42–3) notes that while items like radio normally surface

with a prosthetic vowel giving [ar’raðiu], A-prosthesis can be variable in words

66 Cf. Wagner (1951: 52) ‘In Cagliari, la lingua toscana era, nei secoli XIII e XIV, talmente

diffusa che . . . intacco fortemente il sardo della capitale e della pianura.’ One can

hypothesize that the generalized use of prosthetic [a-] would represent a simpler, more

transparent pattern to Tuscan-influenced speakers and would find a counterpart of sorts in

the common occurrence in Tuscan of verbal forms in (prefixal) arr-.67 Blasco Ferrer (1984: 210) attributes the regression of I-prosthesis in Campidanese to

Italian influence.68 Bolognesi (1998: 43) attributes this anomaly to the fact that the kings (or their nearest

equivalents) in medieval Sardinia were known as judges. Yet, this would scarcely explain

the lack of prosthesis.

A-prosthesis 189

such as [’rPð¡u] ‘rodeo’, [rikja’mau] ‘called up for military service’ (< richia-

mato). The development here is reminiscent of what we saw earlier for Gascon,

with the more prestigious pronunciation patterns of a standard variety serving to

undermine native prosthetizing usage.

5.3.3 VARIETIES SHOWING ENHANCEMENT OF A-PROSTHESIS

A-prosthesis has gained ground in two Romance varieties, southern Italian and

Aromanian. The circumstances of these two cases are however rather different.

5.3.3.1 Southern Italian

It will be recalled that there is some uncertainty as to whether genuine phonologi-

cally based A-prosthesis did develop as a process in southern Italy in the Middle

Ages. Certainly, there are attested forms which have taken on an initial [a-] but it

seems that these have arisen primarily as a result of morphological rather than

phonological factors. However, from the later medieval period onward, a significant

numbers of words can be found containing an initial [a-] which can justifiably be

viewed as phonologically conditioned. Examples are: (Neapolitan) abbusso ‘box

tree’, addaino ‘fallow deer’, Addavete ‘David’, aggente ‘people’, all of which are

cited in D’Ambra (1873). Ultimately these items derive from BUXU(M), Late Latin

DAMU(M), (Hebrew proper name)David, GENTE(M), but they entered southern Italian

usage as later borrowings from standard Italian. This is clear as in southern Italian

varieties, the original word-initial voiced plosives B-, D-, and G- (in palatalizing

contexts) had typically developed to [v-], [ð-](> [r-]), and [j-] respectively (Rohlfs

1966: }} 150, 153, 156). As a result, Italian borrowings like thesewhich contained initial[b-], [d-], and [ Ðq-] were subject to nativization. However, in an apparent attempt

to reproduce these unfamiliar word-initial consonant types appropriately, more

educated speakers appear in some cases to have hypercharacterized the ‘correct’

standard Italian pronunciation and given rise to a geminate realization which was

then subject to A-prosthesis. Voiceless obstruents have not been affected in the same

way since they had usually remained unchanged in word-initial position in native

word-forms. Sonorants too, other than r- whose general tendency to strengthen in

southern Italo-Romance has been noted, do not seem to be generally affected.

However, a tendency to strengthen etymological initial M- has been noted for

Neapolitan and other southern varieties, mmaliddittu ‘cursed’, mmerda ‘excre-

ment’, mmesca ‘mixture’, mmira ‘aim’, mmorra ‘group, band’,69 with occasional

69 D’Ambra (1973: 230) says ofm-, ‘Questa lettera si pronunzia sempre con forza, e assai

spesso si raddoppia in capo alla parola.’ The frequency, and hence familiarity, of word-

190 A-prosthesis

instances of prosthesis as in ammaturo ‘ripe, mature’ and ammalamente ‘in a bad

way’ (D’Ambra 1873).

5.3.3.2 Aromanian

As has been noted earlier, there is no direct textual evidence of any substance for

Aromanian until the eighteenth century. However, the lack of attested examples

in Daco-Romanian in texts from the late Middle Ages onward provides sugges-

tive, though not decisive, evidence that the incidence of A-prosthesis may have

been at best modest across all types of Balkan-Romance in earlier times. None-

theless, its incidence has increased south of the Danube and more particularly in

more southerly Aromanian varieties,70 although in a more marginal way in

Megleno-Romanian (Rosetti 1978: 403, 415). The process is attested in eigh-

teenth-century texts written with Greek lettering by Aromanian writers living

in Albania, e.g. arradu ‘I laugh’, arramasatura ‘remainder’ (< RID(E)O, *RE-MANS-

ITURA) cited by Capidan (1932: }207), and it has come to enjoy considerable

productivity more recently. For example, in addition to the items in Figure 5.1,

we may cite arıu, alumtu, acumpıru (< RIVU(M), LUCTO, C�OMPARO) ‘river, I fight, I

buy’, although lexical items of comparable structure such as rogu, lapte, cupa (<

R�OGO, LACTE, CUPPA) ‘I ask, milk, goblet’ are reported with no prosthetic vowel

(Papahagi 1974). Vowel prosthesis has evidently not come to apply categorically

therefore, but it is widespread and clearly occurs preferentially before an etymo-

logical word-initial rhotic. This would seem to indicate that forms with initial

rhotics formed the starting point for the development of A-prosthesis here as

elsewhere.

The relative frequency with which A-prosthesis has operated on words begin-

ning with different word-initial segment types has been closely studied so that

parameters can be identified. Three proposals are set out in Figure 5.5 below.

initial [mm-] in Neapolitan has been significantly increased through the independent

development to [mm-] of prepositional or prefixal INþ voiced labial consonant, IN M�ORTE

> mmorte, IN-VITARE > mmitare, etc.70 Some uncertainty surrounds the use of A-prosthesis in Farserotic. Rosetti (1978: 415)

claims that it is found in this variety whilst Giese (1965: 299) asserts the opposite. Both base

their claims on the earlier study of Aromanian by Capidan (1932) which is unfortunately

not entirely clear on this point. Capidan (1932: }206) also reports that in Farserotic speech

the rhotic /r/ has more recently begun to move from an alveolar to a back articulation

except in word-medial position. Usually, a velar realization is found but with female

speakers a uvular pronunciation may occur.

A-prosthesis 191

(Capidan)

(Giese)

(Schlösser)

higher frequency lower frequency very rare

r-

r-

r- l- f- v- s + cons.

l- n- m- k- h- s-

n- s- l- m- p- f- g- u- v- z- k- j- d�- i-γ-

FIGURE 5.5. Parameter showing relative frequency of A-prosthesis in Aromanian

Sources: Capidan (1932: }27), Giese (1965: 299), Schlosser (1985)

The first parameter comes from the detailed data presented in the classic study on

Aromanian by Capidan which were established on the basis of items cited in

(unspecified) dictionaries of this variety. The second parameter is claimed to

draw on Capidan’s, but it is not only less detailed but also changes the relative

position of certain word-initial segment types. The third by Schlosser results from

a more recent description of the modern Aromanian variety of Metsovon located

in the Pindos Mountains of northern Greece.

A major point which emerges from such studies is that A-prosthesis is not

categorical in words beginning with any initial consonant type, even the rhotic

[r-] which is by far the most frequent trigger of prosthesis. Furthermore, for

certain initial consonants it is unclear how appropriate it is to assume that

A-prosthesis is genuinely operative. For instance, Capidan includes word-initial

[i-] in his parameter but no data are advanced in support of this claim. The only

real candidate which figures in the major dictionary of Aromanian by Papahagi

(1974) appears to be airate ‘revenue, income’ (< Turkish irad). The origin of the

initial [a-] here is unclear, however. Similarly, Schlosser postulates A-prosthesis

in forms beginning with [f-], [v-], and [sþ cons.-] although the evidence for

each of these is limited to a single example which in each case is open to

reinterpretation. But although doubt surrounds certain aspects of the data, one

clear and important development with A-prosthesis in southern Aromanian has

been the extension of its operation, albeit in a limited way, to include vowel-

initial words, especially those beginning with [u-], as in aungu, aumbra, auua

(< UNGO, UMBRA, UVA) ‘I grease, shade, grape’. The preferential application to

vowel-initial forms beginning with [u-] may be connected with the fact that it

is a high vowel and hence the least sonorous and salient of initial vowel types in

Aromanian.71

The reasons for the partial generalization of A-prosthesis in southern Aroma-

nian are not clear, although Rosetti (1978: 386, 415) identifies some potentially

71 Capidan (1932: }27) also includes the high front vowel [i-] in his parameter. However,

as we have seen, no reliable data appear to support this claim.

192 A-prosthesis

relevant factors. These relate to morphosyntactic developments in early Balkan-

Romance which may have created the conditions for the phonological effects

noted. Two of the factors find widespread parallels elsewhere in Romance, namely

the appearance of feminine singular pre-nominal proclitic forms ending in [-a],

such as ILLA > [a], and the presence of substantial numbers of verbs with prefixal

AD- (cf. 1.7). In addition to these, there is the rise of the syntactic pattern whereby

infinitives are introduced by the preposition AD (cf. southern Italian, 5.2.1.1). In all

of these contexts, it is suggested, speakers may have reinterpreted the morpho-

logical structure of individual lexical items, the result of which might be either

aphaeresis or A-prosthesis. The former outcome is found lexicalized across all

Romanian varieties in items such as ANN�OTINU(M) > Daco-Rom., Arom. noatin

‘one-year-old lamb’. But whereas Daco-Romanian has tended to engage more

generally in aphaeresis, southern Aromanian has preferentially used prosthesis.

The reasons for this and for the recent striking growth in its productivity remain

uncertain, however. If this interpretation of the genesis of A-prosthesis in south-

ern Aromanian is correct, the circumstances bear some resemblance to what

was seen in southern Italian (5.2.1.1), where an originally morphologically

conditioned process of vowel prosthesis has subsequently given rise to phonolo-

gically based A-prosthesis.

A-prosthesis 193

6

U-prosthesis

U-prosthesis represents chronologically the third and final of the major categories

of vowel prosthesis that have operated in Romance. Like I-prosthesis, it arose as a

process that served to simplify complex word-initial onset sequences. But, in

contrast to it, U-prosthesis led to the appearance of a vowel that has been rather

more variable in quality although a low value [a] has predominated. To reflect the

sometimes unspecific quality of the prosthetic vowel and to avoid confusion with

the category of prosthesis considered in the previous chapter (A-prosthesis), for

convenience we have adopted the term ‘U-prosthesis’ for the category of pros-

thesis under consideration here. Some illustrative examples may be cited.

Valsesia (N

Piedmont)

Novellara

(Emilia)

Bologna

(Romagna)

Celerina

(Upper

Engadine)

RE- (prefixal) ar´an’te: ar’meter ar �tsin’t¡:r algUr’de:r1

(Germ.) likkon al’ke: al’k¡:r al’k¡:r - 2 ‘to lick’

LEVARE - 3 al’v¡:r al’dA:m4 al’ve:r ‘to raise’

NEPOTEM an’vP: an’vo: an’vAwd YN’gu‰ta5 ‘nephew’

MINARE am’ne: mn¡:r mn¡:r mne:r ‘to drive’Sources: Spoerri (1918); Malagoli (1910-13); Mainoldi (1967); Coco (1970); Walberg (1907).

U-prosthesis began to operate as an active phonological process in Romance in

the course of the medieval period, building on the output of a prior syncope the

details of which we consider below in 6.1.2. More recently, however, there have

1 Reflexes of three different etyma containing prefixal RE- are represented in this row.

Columns 1 and 3 contain reflexes of RECENTARE ‘to rinse’, in column 2 the etymon is

REMITTERE ‘to put back’, and in column 4 there is the reflex of RECORDARE ‘to recall’.2 A form of comparable phonological shape is [al’ger] ‘to melt, liquify’ < LIQUARE.3 Cf. the derivationally related [al’ Ðqer] ‘light’ < LEV-IARIU(M).4 Deriving from LAETAMEN ‘dung’.5 Reflex of NE(C)-GUTTA ‘not a drop’! ‘nothing’ (cf. French ne . . . goutte).

been some developments affecting the productivity of U-prosthesis within many

of the linguistic varieties where it had arisen. It will therefore be appropriate once

again to split our treatment into two broad chronological sections reflecting this

difference. The dividing line lies very approximately at the outset of the early

modern period (sixteenth century) when written evidence for Romance first

becomes available for certain varieties affected by U-prosthesis.

6.1 Rise of U-prosthesis: early developments

6.1.1 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

U-prosthesis has occurred particularly in the central zone of Romania continua.

In the lateral areas, i.e. Ibero-Romance and Balkan Romance, its effects have been

much more limited; indeed, even when lexical items developed complex word-

initial onsets resembling those that became subject to U-prosthesis in central

varieties of Romance, they have remained unaffected. For instance, forms such as

[’psoN] < PERSONA ‘person’ with complex initial onsets have arisen in more recent

times in Portuguese but as yet no indications have been reported of their being

subject to prosthesis. The only circumstance under which U-prosthesis can be

found operating in lateral areas came about as a result of certain monosyllabic

grammatical forms becoming procliticized and undergoing vowel weakening. A

familiar example involves personal pronouns such as ME, TE, and SE which

developed into satellites before a verbal host, as in ME V�IDET ‘(s)he sees me’, and

subsequently emerged with a prosthetic vowel. Prosthesis of this type has oc-

curred in several Romance varieties such as Catalan and Romanian (see 6.1.4.3).

Within the central zone, U-prosthesis has been widely in evidence in northern

Italo-Romance, operating on both lexical and grammatical items (see Map 4).

Piedmont and Emilia-Romagna have been focal areas for the development. In

contrast, varieties from Liguria show few if any signs of U-prosthesis and likewise

most of Lombardy and the Veneto have been little affected, although in more

peripheral areas of these regions there are varieties in which U-prosthesis has

occurred due to influence from adjacent prosthetizing varieties. Italo-Romance

varieties spoken further south, including the Florentine-based standard variety of

Italian, are scarcely involved, although U-prosthesis has taken place in northern

transitional varieties of Lunigiana, particularly near the border with Emilia.

In Rheto-Romance, Friulian varieties offer no indications of U-prosthesis, and

Ladin has experienced prosthesis only in lexical items beginning with prefixal RE-,

as in [arba’se] ‘to lower’ < RE-BASSARE in the varieties of San Vigilio and Arabba

(Kramer 1977: 174). However, in the Grisons of Switzerland the process has been

productive with lexical and grammatical items, especially in eastern varieties (see

Map 4). The focal area here appears to be the Upper Engadine. Further to the east

U-prosthesis 195

of the Upper Engadine, the incidence of U-prosthesis diminishes: in the Lower

Engadine it has enjoyed a significantly lower degree of productivity, and in the far

east of the Grisons the varieties of the Val Mustair (or Munstertal) reportedly

offered just a lone example in the mid twentieth century, namely [ar´ajn’tar] ‘torinse’ < RECENTARE, although at earlier periods the phenomenon may have been

rather more in evidence (Schorta 1938). U-prosthesis also becomes increasingly

rare the further westward from the Upper Engadine one goes. In both Subselvan

and Surselvan, it is almost entirely absent in lexical forms though isolated

exceptions can appear, probably as a result of borrowing. In the varieties of

Surmeir spoken in an area not far westward from the Upper Engadine, just two

lexical forms showing U-prosthesis are reported by Grisch (1939): [ar’vjokt]‘vault’ < *REV�OLVITU(M) and[ar´an’tar] ‘to rinse’ < RECENTARE. The latter item

may be compared with the Surmeiran [rN’´ajnt] ‘brand new’ < RECENTE(M)

where the normal outcome for lexical items of this phonetic shape is found,

namely without prosthesis.6 Proclitic personal pronouns have also been affected

by prosthesis in Surmeiran, although more recently these forms have been

increasingly confined to literary usage by non-prosthetic counterparts (Haiman

and Beninca 1992: 127).

In Gallo-Romance, U-prosthesis has also occurred. It appears widely in north-

ern varieties, from Touraine and Anjou in the west across to Walloon and

Lorraine in the east, and, as in northern Italy and the Engadine, it has affected

both lexical and grammatical items. However, in the standard language, which

developed principally from varieties spoken in the central area of the langue d’oıl,

there are few if any indications of the presence of U-prosthesis in the many formal

descriptions that have been carried out, although cases of this phenomenon may

be found in more informal registers used by speakers of the Paris region.

6.1.2 STRUCTURAL PRECONDITIONS TO U-PROSTHESIS

Crucial to the rise of U-prosthesis was a sound change whose effect was to weaken

and delete an unstressed vowel in a word-initial syllable containing an onset. This

change we may refer to as ‘syncope of pre-tonic initial vowels’ or SPIV. SPIV finds

a counterpart in a fairly widespread but sporadic tendency in Late Latin for an

initial unstressed vowel, especially [e], to undergo syncope in forms whose initial

6 In the Surselvan varieties of Domat, Trin, and Flem (Flims) found west of Chur, the

only prosthetic form reported by Rupp (1963: }98) is once again [ar´an’ta:] ‘to rinse’ <

RECENTARE, indicating the often special and exceptional nature of this lexical item in Rheto-

Romance varieties.

196 U-prosthesis

unstressed syllables were composed of obstruentþVþ [r]-, where V represents

an unstressed vowel. For example:

D(I)RECTU(M) > (Fr.) droit, (Sp.) dreito, drecho,7 (It.) dritto, (Rom.) drept ‘right’

(REW 2648)

QUIRITARE > C(I)RITARE>(Fr.) crier, (Sp., Port.) gritar, (It.) gridare ‘to shout’

(REW 6967)

However, despite possible appearances to the contrary, this early change is

probably not directly connected with our development which only got under

way chronologically a good deal later and also operated in a much more geo-

graphically circumscribed area. The scope of SPIV has also been more extensive

since the change operated on word-initial syllables whose initial unstressed vowel

could have a wide range of possible flanking consonants rather than just a

preceding obstruent and a following rhotic. The effect of its operation was that

in many linguistic varieties a set of complex word-initial onsets previously

unknown in Romance was created (again unlike the Late Latin change which

merely created more cases of already existing obstruentþ rhotic onsets). The new

onsets could be of rising, level, or falling sonority such as [fn-], [vz-], [z Ðq-],

respectively; for instance, [’fn¡ʃtra] < FINESTRA ‘window’, [vziJ] ‘citizen’ < VICINU

(M), [z ÐqYkr] ‘axe’ < SECURE(M) in the Upper Engadinish dialect of Celerina

(Walberg 1907). When SPIV operated on verbs, it created morphophonemic

alternation in stems, as in the Piedmontese dialect of Viverone where we find

[t¡J] vs [tJi] ‘I hold’, ‘to hold’, [bejv] vs [’bvuma] ‘I drink’, ‘we drink’ < TENEO,

T(E)NERE; B�IBO, B(I)B-UMUS,8 such alternation being widely found in Rheto-Ro-

mance, northern Italian, and northern French varieties.

Sporadically, it can happen that a new complex word-initial onset is later

simplified through the deletion of the initial consonant, as in [’z�Ja] < [’bz�Ja](< *BISONE-AT) ‘it is necessary’ and [Jus’si:] < [kJus’si:] ‘to know’ (< COGNOSCERE)

from the varieties of Cevio and Villette in the northern Lago Maggiore area

(Salvioni 1886), [ʃty] < [fʃty] ‘twig’ (< FESTUCU(M)) in the Engadinish variety of

Celerina. Similarly, reflexes of [’vJi:re] < VENIRE ‘to come’ with later deletion of

the initial [v] are not uncommonly found, e.g. [JI:kr] in Celerinese,9 [Ji:] in the

Emilian variety of Novellara (Malagoli 1910-13) and also in the Piedmontese

variety of Valsesia (Spoerri 1918). However, reductive onset-restructuring of this

type is not general across the sweep of varieties experiencing SPIV. Interestingly,

7 The form dreito occurs in the twelfth-century Asturian Fuero de Aviles and the

phonetically Castilian form drecho appears in various Old Spanish texts.8 Data from Nigra (1901).9 Cf. gnir [Ji:r] in Bifrun’s sixteenth-century translation of the New Testament into

Upper Engadinish.

U-prosthesis 197

in certain Romance varieties where complex heterosyllabic onsets have arisen as a

result of a sound change other than SPIV, more systematic cases of restructuring

through deletion or epenthesis can be found. For example, in Gascon, complex

word-initial sequences such as [hr-], [hl-] developed from earlier FR-, FL- after the

regular change F- > h- had operated and these have been subject to restructuring

across most dialects.10 In contrast, complex word-initial onsets created by SPIV in

Romance have normally been retained with the possibility of their later being

subject to U-prosthesis

In view of the importance of SPIV for the operation of U-prosthesis, we may

usefully sketch some of its formal characteristics. In particular, we consider the

constraints to which syncope was subject in respect of the quality of the original

initial unstressed vowel and the nature of the original consonantal context

surrounding the vowel.11

6.1.2.1 Significance of the quality of the initial vowel

SPIV appears to have been especially favoured by the presence of the mid front

vowel [e] < �I, E, E, AE, whereas back vowels and the high front vowel [i] < I were

much less susceptible to syncope and the low vowel [a] was seldom involved at all.

For example, in the Upper Engadinish variety of Celerina:

TENERE > [tJær] ‘to hold’

VITELLU(M) > [’vd¡] ‘calf ’but FARINA > [fa’riJa] ‘flour’

FILARE > [fIler] ‘to spin’

*POTERE > [pU’dær] ‘to be able’

COMMUNE(M) > [kU’m�n] ‘common’

DURARE > [dY’rer] ‘to last’

(Source of data: Walberg 1907).

The available data from all Romance varieties affected by SPIV suggest a parame-

ter of vowel susceptibility to syncope as represented below in Figure 6.1. The

10 Thus, FR�IGIDU(M) ‘cold’ gives (with deletion) [rret] or [rr�] in SWdialects but (with

epenthesis) [he’ret] or [he’re �tʃ] in most Hautes-Pyrenees and W Ariege dialects, while

FLAMMA ‘flame’ emerges as (with deletion) [’lamo] in W. Gers dialects, (epenthesis)

[ha’lamo] in W. Ariege, (prosthesis) [eh’lamo], [eh’lam�], [eh’l�m�] in SW dialects.

Only rarely are [hr-], [hl-] found unchanged: [hr-] appears in a few dialects of W.

Ariege, e.g. [hre �tʃ] ‘cold’ (pt. 790SE, Couflens); and [hl-] occurs patchily in Pyrenean

dialects, e.g. pts 692, 694, 689SE, 790SE (maps ALG I, 157 frene; III, 1017 froid; III, 700

flamme).11 A more detailed review of SPIV in northern Italo-Romance and Rheto-Romance

appears in Mayerthaler (1982).

198 U-prosthesis

location of the high front vowel [i] in relation to the rounded vowels here is

motivated by the findings of Malagoli (1910–13, 1934, 1954) for a number of

Emilian varieties.

a i o u e

moreless

FIGURE 6.1. Parameter indicating susceptibility of vowel types to SPIV

The parameter for vowel quality in SPIV correlates well with parameters that can

be postulated for vowels undergoing weakening and deletion in other types of

unstressed syllable. Thus, for word-final unstressed vowels, [-a] has been by far

the most retentive of vowel types across Romance. Furthermore, in Ibero-

Romance it is notable that final [-e] (< E E �I I)12 is the vowel which has been

most susceptible to deletion, cf. Span. mar, ayer ‘sea, yesterday’ < MARE, HERI but

muro, curo, cera ‘wall, I care for, wax’ < MURU(M), CURO, CERA.

Cases of SPIV operating on [a] are occasionally found in certain types of

Romance. However, they usually appear in varieties where syncope has remained

largely restricted to lexical items whose initial unstressed syllable was of the form

#obstruentþVþ [r], that is, contexts where syncope would result in complex

word-initial onsets that were already licensed and had been since Latin. Syncope

therefore merely increased the incidence of these onsets. An example is provided

by the Surselvan variety of the Tavetsch valley, in the far west of the Grisons:

FARINA > [’fri:nN] ‘flour’PAR(I)ETE(M) > [pr‰jt] ‘wall’TARATRU(M) > [’tra:dNr] ‘auger, drill’

Here the new onsets are identical to etymological ones found in [frun(t)]

‘forehead’, [praw] ‘meadow’, [tra:f] ‘beam’ < FR�ONTE(M), PRATU(M), TRABE(M)

(Caduff 1952). And, as the parameter predicts, SPIV in this variety also acts on

other types of initial unstressed vowel in comparable contexts, as in:

TERRENU(M) > [’træjn] ‘(land) free of snow’CORONA > [’krunN] ‘crown’13

12 Deletion of final [-e] was only carried through and lexicalized in medieval Castilian

when a single consonant preceded, hence PARTE(M) > parte ‘part’. Also, the reflex of original

final -I was restored by analogy during the later Middle Ages in first singular preterite verb

forms such as hice, vine ‘I did, I came’; the phonetically regular forms hiz, vin are attested in

early Castilian texts.13 Sporadically, the context for syncope has been generalized to #obstruentþVþ

liquid-, thus affecting forms containing a lateral, e.g. [plu’´æjn] ‘chick’ < PULLI-CENU(M)

U-prosthesis 199

Finally, the scope of SPIV has sometimes been affected by other sound-changes

either when these modify another vowel type to [e] (feeding SPIV) or when they

change original [e] to another quality (bleeding SPIV). In the former case, two

factors have been important in early Romance: dissimilation or, more rarely,

prefixal influence. Unstressed initial I has sometimes passed to [e] when it

appeared in words whose stressed vowel was I. For example, FINIRE evidently

developed to [fe’ni:r(e)] in certain Emilian varieties (prov. Reggio) before be-

coming [fni:r] in the dialect of Valestra, [’fni:re] in that of Lizzano, though non-

dissimilated [fi’ni:r] is found in Novellarese (Malagoli 1934: 85); Old French and

Old Castilian fenir show the first stage of the same development.14 A further case

of dissimilation often led to initial unstressed [o] passing to [e] in words whose

stressed vowel was also [o] in Late Latin. For example, medieval Tuscan has forms

such as secorso ‘help’, serocchia ‘sister’, or sicorso, sirocchiawith later raising (< SUB-

CURSU(M), SOROR-CULA) and other Italian varieties show similar developments, e.g.

medieval Paduan serore ‘sister’, remore ‘noise’ (< SORORE(M), RUMORE(M)).15 In

Engadinish, we find the same dissimilation in SORORES > *SERORES > sruors ‘sisters’

as against the singular form sour < S�OROR ‘sister’ where the first vowel is stressed

and so preserves its back round quality.16 In French, a substantial number of

forms show a comparable outcome, as in Old French serors ‘sisters’, esperon ‘spur’

< Frankish sporon-, secort ‘(s)he helps’ < SUCCURRIT, selonc ‘according to’ < SUB-

L�ONGU(M).17 However, an alternative interpretation has been advanced by Holmes

(1935) for the development seen in these and other French cases where initial

unstressed [o] > [‰]. It is proposed that rather than first involving a dissimilatory

stage [o] � [o] > [e] � [o], the initial unstressed [o] simply weakened to [‰].Some evidence for this view comes from variant Old French forms such asmenaie

(beside monaie) ‘money’ < MONETA, dementres (beside domentres) ‘while’ < DUM-�INTERIM, ferasche (beside forasche) ‘alien’! ‘unsociable’ < FORASTICU(M), quemen-

cier (beside comencier) ‘to begin’ < CUMINITIARE where weakening has taken place

despite the fact that there is no following dissimilating stressed [o]. In some of

these exceptional cases, alternative explanations are available that still postulate a

but forms such as [pa’liw] ‘marsh’, [ku’lu:r] ‘colour’, [ka’li:ra] ‘heat’ < PALUDE(M), COLORE

(M), CAL-URA indicate that this is by no means a regular process.14 Fouche (1969: 456) attributes the development of unstressed I > [e] in early French in

forms such as fenir and devin < DIVINU(M) to the action of a regular change in Late Latin

whereby long vowels in unstressed syllables undergo shortening. This view has not won

general acceptance however.15 For further examples from Italo-Romance, see Rohlfs (1966: }330), Mayerthaler (1982:

157–8).16 These ‘standard’ orthographical forms in Engadinish are realized in Celerinese as

(sg.) [sokr], (pl.) [sru‰rs].17 Cf. Fouche (1969: 455).

200 U-prosthesis

first stage of unstressed [o] > [e]; for example, dementres may well have experi-

enced early prefixal influence from DE-, and ferasche may reflect the influence of

FERUS ‘wild, uncivilized’ (cf. REW 3432). However, there remain a number of cases

such as quemencier which cannot be explained through dissimilation. A possible

scenario that accounts for the data while reconciling the two opposing views is

that, in conformity with the parameter in Figure 6.1 above, weakening of un-

stressed initial vowels operated at first with [e] (including [e] < [o] through

dissimilation) before spreading sporadically to other vowel types. The preferen-

tial involvement of initial unstressed non-assimilated [o] in this later generaliza-

tion (as in quemencier) may owe itself to the incomplete implementation of

dissimilation of [o - o] > [e - o] in the langue d’oıl as in corone � querone

‘crown’ < CORONA, for example. The presence of variants with initial unstressed

[o] and [‰] (the latter from dissimilated [e] < [o]) in items such as corone �querone may well have helped to motivate a more general weakening of initial

[o] > [‰] in forms not containing a stressed vowel [o].

Adaptation of an initial unstressed vowel to [e] may also be effected through

association with an established prefix. Particularly important was RE- which

enjoyed considerable productivity for lexical derivation in medieval Romance.

Its influence resulted in a number of cases of remodelling, e.g. ROTUNDU(M) >

*RETUNDU(M) ‘round’ > Spanish redondo, Old Tuscan retondo, Upper Engadinish

arduond (Celerinese) [ar’du‰nt]; RADENTE > *REDENTE ‘near to’ (literally, ‘shaving’)

which gives the now literary Engadinish form ardaint (Celerinese [ar’dænt]).18

In contrast to these instances of change which feed SPIV, other developments

have caused bleeding. One such is the lowering of etymological [e] to [a] when it

precedes a rhotic. This is found fairly widely and appears to explain non-

syncopated forms such as [sa’ræJ] ‘clear weather’, [ta’ræJ] ‘free of snow’,

[ma’r¡nda] ‘snack’ (< SERENU(M), TERRENU(M), MERENDA) in the variety of Celerina

in which SPIV has otherwise been conspicuously active, although early dissimila-

tion may also be involved. We may compare [’pri‰v‰l] ‘danger’ < PERICULU(M)

where original pre-tonic [e] evidently underwent no quality change as a high

vowel followed and SPIV could therefore operate. In other varieties, however,

there has been no lowering of [e] and SPIV has systematically occurred before

rhotics too, e.g. [sraJ], [’mraNda] in Bolognese (Coco 1970).

18 Further examples of SPIV being fed through formal alignment with prefixal RE- are

found in Piedmontese, e.g. in the northern dialect of Castellinaldo, HOROL�OGIU(M) >

*RELOGIU > [ar’lP Ðqe] ‘public clock’, ROBUSTU(M) > *REBUSTU > [ar’byst] (Toppino 1902–5).

As is apparent, U-prosthesis has operated after SPIV in both these forms, just as in the

Engadinish examples.

U-prosthesis 201

6.1.2.2 Surrounding consonantal context

Weakening and deletion of an initial unstressed vowel have taken place most

often in contexts where the resulting word-initial onset would consist of two

consonants, i.e. in words with the original shape # CVCV-. However, various

constraints existed which governed the incidence of SPIV and these determined

which of the complex onset sequences potentially created by SPIV were licensed

in the individual Romance varieties concerned. The constraints related in partic-

ular to the inherent sonority of the flanking consonants and to their place and

manner of articulation. Thus, in the dialect of Valsesia (N. Piedmont) despite

the wide application of SPIV there appears to have been a constraint blocking

syncope if a complex initial onset [ Ðq]þ consonant would result; hence [ Ðqa’n�u]‘knee’, [ Ðqa’le] ‘to freeze’ < GENUCULU(M), GELARE (Spoerri 1918). In other dialects,

the constraints blocking syncope may be weak to the extent that even sequences

of two identical consonants may be licensed, giving a strong or geminate onset,

and thereby overriding the OCP (obligatory contour principle) which operates

widely in phonology and prevents identical adjacent segments or features from

arising through deletion within a morpheme.19 Cases of identical consonants

coming together after syncope and being retained as a geminate are found

notably in varieties from Emilia-Romagna, a region where SPIV has been partic-

ularly intense: e.g. Piacentino [zzeæı] < SEX-INU(M) ‘a monetary unit’ (Gorra 1890:

142), Novellarese (W. Emilia) [’ssa:Nta] ‘sixty’, [bbu] ‘drunk (p.pt.)’ < SEXAG�INTA,

BIB-UTU(M) (Malagoli 1910–13: 158).

In contexts where deletion would have created a word-initial onset containing

more than two consonants, stronger constraints have operated. Usually, new

onsets of no more than three consonants have been permitted. However, in

general such onsets have been licensed only if they contain a sibilant consonant

which was followed by an obstruent, e.g. [’sp �tʃ¡:r] ‘to mirror’ (= St.It. specchiare)

< SPEC(U)LARE, in the Novellarese (Malagoli 1910-13: 109), [msti:r] ‘trade, profes-

sion’ < MINISTERIU(M) in Bolognese (Mainoldi 1967). An exception to this arrange-

ment, found in some but not all varieties undergoing SPIV, concerns forms

beginning with a sonorant. Most frequently affected by far were forms beginning

with RE-, a prefix whose widespread use in word formation we have already noted.

The special significance of the word-initial sequence RE- for U-prosthesis is

explored more fully further below (6.1.4). Examples of the creation of three

consonant onsets may be cited from two varieties, those of Celerina and Bologna,

in both of which SPIV has been highly active as a process.

19 The OCP was first enunciated byWilliam Leben in his 1973 doctoral thesis to account

for a widely found constraint against adjacent syllables with identical tones within a

morpheme. It has subsequently been extended to cover prohibitions on identical

adjacent segments or segmental features within a morpheme.

202 U-prosthesis

Celerina Bologna

VESTIRE [fʃtikr]>[ʃtikr] [vti:r] (with later [s] deletion) ‘to dress’

FESTUCU(M) [fʃty]>[ʃty] — ‘twig’

SEPT(I)MANA —20 [’stm¡:na] ‘week’

MI(NI)STERIUM — [msti:r] ‘profession’

DIS-GRATIA — [’ �dzgrA: �tsja] ‘disgrace’

SPERANTIA [’ʃpræn �tsa] ‘hope’

but

VER(E)CUNDIA [var’gw‰Ja] [var’gaJJa] ‘shame’

TEMPESTA(S) [tam’p¡sta] [tim’p¡:sta] ‘storm’

SINGLUTTIU(M) [saN’glu‰t] [sin’ Ðqat] ‘sob’

CREPARE [kra’vu‰sta]21 [kar’p¡:r] ‘to burst’

SERPENTE(M) — [sar’paNt] ‘snake’

SPIV with later U-prosthesis

R(E)-TENERE /VENIRE [art’Jær] [ar’vJi:r] ‘to restrain, return’

R(E)-COMMENDARE [arkUman’der] [arkman’d¡:r] ‘to recommend’

R(E)-COGNOSCERE —22 [ark’Josser] ‘to recognize’

It appears that constraints blocking the formation of complex onsets of three or

more consonants were most subject to violation in varieties from Emilia-Ro-

magna, so that word-initial onset sequences of considerable complexity became

permissible during the course of the medieval period. Thus, in the one surviving

version of the sixteenth-century poem Pulon Matt or ‘Mad Paul’ written in the

Romagnolo dialect of Cesena, apparent cases of complex onsets abound (Bagli

1887). Some occur after a preceding vowel-final form, thereby allowing ready

syllabification, as in u Rbgon ‘the Rubicon’ (III, 19, 8) and bona mdsina ‘good

medicine’ (II, 20, 8) which can be syllabified as urb|gon, bo|nam|dsi|na. However,

certain cases suggest that onsets of considerable complexity came to be permissi-

ble in this variety by the sixteenth century, though more usually perhaps in more

informal registers:

u bon Flpon ‘the good Filippone’ I,18,5

Pulon rspos ‘Paul replied’ I,59,3

20 In Rheto-Romance, HEBDOMAS or the variant *HEBDOMINA usually provide the forms

designating ‘week’; Celerina dialect has the reflex [’¡gvna].21 Meaning ‘crust, scab’. The etymon CREPARE seems to have been crossed with CRUSTA to

yield this reflex. The verb CREPARE gives [kra’per] where the [p] rather than [v] suggests

possible influence from krap ‘rock’, according to Walberg (1907: 84).22 No reflex is cited for Celerinese by Walberg (1907). However, the form arcugniouscher

appears in the sixteenth-century translation of the New Testament in Upper Engadinish by

Jakob Bifrun.

U-prosthesis 203

tant dsdgnos ‘so disdainful (f.pl.)’ II,5,3

un bssbij ‘a whisper’ III,61,1

tant cstun ‘so many questions’ IV,4,5

ha dstne ‘has destined’ IV,26,6

The presence of such complex word-initial onsets is matched by the occurrence in

the poem of words with word-final codas of comparable complexity, as in pre-

pausal destr ‘right’ (I, 15, 7), u mdesm ‘the same’ (I, 36, 2).

To conclude, SPIVoperated in a variable, parametrized way and came to create

word-initial onsets of considerable diversity. Varieties of Piedmontese, Emilian,

and Romagnolo in Italy, and eastern varieties of the Rheto-Romance spoken in

the Grisons, especially Upper Engadinish, were particularly susceptible to this

type of syncope. In turn, these are the varieties in which U-prosthesis has been

most in evidence, reflecting the direct correlation between SPIVand U-prosthesis.

6.1.3 CHRONOLOGY

Dating the rise of U-prosthesis is problematic. In Rheto-Romance, for example, it

is certainly attested in the first substantial vernacular texts from the Grisons but

these only go back to the sixteenth century. For example, in Bifrun’s translation of

the New Testament published in 1560 we find: (tu t’) alguordas ‘you (sg.)

remember’ < (TU TE) REC�ORDAS, (es sto) alvo ‘(it) rose up’ < (EST STATUM) LEVATU

(M); and in the sixteenth- or seventeenth-century poem Susanna has (t’) almein-

tast < (TE) LAMENTAS ‘you (sg.) complain’, presumably via the stage (TE) *LEMENTAS

which developed as a result of assimilation.23

For the prosthetizing northern varieties of Gallo-Romance, there is available

philological evidence from the Middle Ages but U-prosthesis does not appear to

have been operative before early modern times. Old Picard texts show no sign of

the change but it is clearly indicated in Middle Picard documents. For instance, in

Des Fill’ qu’al n’ont point grament d’honte, a text from the Valenciennes region

dating from the end of the sixteenth century, forms appear such as erligieuse,

s’ertourno, which correspond to standard French religieuse, se retournait, and

ercran ‘tired’ which goes back to old Picard recreant (Flutre 1977: 38).

23 A parallel form [le’me:Nta] ‘lament’ (cf. also [leN’te:rna] ‘lantern’) is reported for the

rural speech of Novellara (Emilia) by Malagoli (1910–13: 108). Different dates of

composition have been proposed for the Susanna, a verse text originating from Bergun.

The earliest manuscript dates from the early seventeenth century, and Ulrich (1885–6) and

Lutta (1923: }16) take this as the century of composition, whereas Decurtins ([1900]1983–6:

vol. 5) attributes the text to the sixteenth century.

204 U-prosthesis

In northern Italy, there is also substantial medieval textual evidence but it

likewise offers little direct evidence of U-prosthesis until the early modern period.

For instance, there are no indications of its presence in the Piedmontese sermons

written in vernacular spelling in the twelfth century, although these clearly show

I-prosthesis (cf. 4.4.5). In the sixteenth-century poem Pulon Matt from Cesena in

Romagna, however, there are prosthetic forms such as (l’era dsorta) uvsin ‘(he was

by chance) near’ < VICINU(M), (dfat) armaner ‘(in fact) to stay’ < REMANERE.24 The

philological data directly attesting the U-prosthesis, therefore, suggest that the

development only got under way by the end of the Middle Ages at the earliest.

Another possible indicator for dating comes from relative chronology. As

U-prosthesis presupposes the prior operation of SPIV, by establishing the ap-

proximate chronology of the latter we can at least provide a terminus a quo for

U-prosthesis. Unfortunately, the philological data necessary for dating SPIV are

once again of limited usefulness. For, on the one hand, there is a lack of extant

documentation from theMiddle Ages for many of the varieties concerned, and on

the other hand, where medieval texts are available they often prove to be

uninformative as a result of influence from Latin or other Romance varieties

not affected by SPIV. For instance, in Bolognese where SPIV has been a very

productive process, there are three private letters dating from the first half of the

fourteenth century between members of the Bentivoglio family from Bologna

(Stella 1969). These contain a number of lexical items which might be expected to

provide us with revealing insights. However, the forms which occur <nevod>,

<volentera>, <recu>, <recevi> offer no indication that SPIV has operated, even

though the corresponding forms in modern Bolognese, [an’vAwd] ‘nephew’,

[vluN’ti:ra] ‘willingly’ and all parts of the verb [ar’ �tsavver] ‘to receive’,25 clearly

show its presence. As comparable syncopated forms are to be found not only in

Bologna but also widely elsewhere in Emilia-Romagna, it seems likely that SPIV is

not a recent development in this area. The conclusion therefore is that the forms

appearing in the letters do not faithfully reflect contemporary linguistic reality in

Bolognese. Rather, they show the influence on spelling and pronunciation exerted

by either Latin or, more probably, the increasingly prestigious Tuscan literary

language where SPIV was unknown (cf. 4.3.3).26

24 The forms appear in, respectively, IV, 12, 2; III, 66, 6.25 The lengthening of [v] is explained by the presence of a short preceding stressed

vowel. Bolognese developed a stressed vowel pattern of [V:] or [VC] creating greater

syllable isochrony. In coda-less syllables with a short vowel, lengthening of a following

consonant has occurred to form a coda (Coco 1970).26 A Bolognese medical text dating from the mid-fourteenth century shows similar

Tuscan influence (Longobardi 1994). As the editor concludes, ‘E dunque bolognese il

nostro testo, con influenza del toscano letterario.’

U-prosthesis 205

Other evidence can be invoked to shed light on the relative chronology of SPIV,

however. Reflexes of NEPOTE(M) such as [an’vAwd] in Bolognese and [an’vo:] inNovellarese indicate that SPIV postdates the regular lenition of intervocalic

voiceless obstruents, since etymological -P- must have remained intervocalic for

long enough to enable voicing to occur.27 All other Romance varieties subject to

SPIV likewise show the effect of lenition in syncopated reflexes of Latin forms

similar in structure to NEPOTE(M). For example, in Engadinish, there are

forms such as [al’gwa:r] or [al’ge:r] ‘to melt’ < LIQUARE which likewise show

that syncope preceded the voicing caused by lenition.28 As lenition of voiceless

plosives was a productive process that doubtless extended into the early Middle

Ages in northern Italy and Alpine regions, SPIV can safely be assumed to be a

medieval development. However, there is further evidence that SPIV may only

have operated at a fairly advanced stage in the Middle Ages, in some areas at least.

In the varieties of Valsesia (N Piedmont) and Voghera (S Lombardy, some 60 km

west of Piacenza) where SPIV has occurred widely, there are forms such as [lja:m]

‘dung’ < LAETAMEN.29 These indicate that before SPIV began to operate, lenition

had not only voiced the original intervocalic -T- but had gone so far as to delete it,

the probable path being [le’ta:me] > [le’da:me] > [le’a:m(e)] > [lja:m]. Had SPIV

occurred before the final stage, a sequence [(a)ld-] would have developed

word-initially just as has happened elsewhere in northern Italy, e.g. Bolognese

[al’dA:m]. Now, in all probability the deletion of [d] (< -T-) was not carried

through before the end of the first millennium. Even in the very rapidly evolving

Romance varieties of northern France, the evidence suggests that this change was

only implemented by about the eleventh century (Fouche 1966: 600). We may

therefore tentatively conclude that SPIV first began to operate, at least in north-

ern Piedmontese, at some stage near the end of the first millennium at the

earliest. In other varieties experiencing SPIV, however, its chronology may of

course have been somewhat different.

A final possible indicator may be briefly noted although it is of arguable

usefulness. It builds on the relation of SPIV to the palatalization of pre-

consonantal [s] and [z] which occurred as a regular development across all

27 Lenition is a general development in western Romance, i.e. northern Italo-Romance,

Rheto-Romance, Sardinian, Gallo-Romance, and Ibero-Romance. It affected all

intervocalic obstruents and led to changes such as -B-> [v], -P- > [b] > [v], -PP- > [p].28 The first form is found in the standardized form of Engadinish as cited in the

dictionaries of Peer (1962) and Bezzola and Tonjachen (1976), the second form appears

in the Upper Engadinish variety of Celerina (Walberg 1907). It will be recalled that Rheto-

Romance varieties derive their word for ‘nephew’ from the nominative NEPOS, giving

[neiv], [n¡kf], etc. Such forms were not of course affected by SPIV.29 Data from Spoerri (1918) and Maragliano (1976).

206 U-prosthesis

Rheto-Romance, giving forms such as [’ʃtæla] ‘star’ < STELLA and [’ʃtcela] ‘ladder’< SCALA in Upper Engadinish (Celerina). It also operated, but rather less consis-

tently, in a number of far northern Italo-Romance varieties, notably those of

northern Piedmont and Lombardy, Trento and the canton of Ticino, and parts

of Romagna (cf. Rohlfs 1966: }188).30 Now, in those varieties that underwent this

palatalization and also experienced SPIV, it is notable that any pre-consonantal

sibilants created by SPIV have failed to undergo palatalization; for example, [stIL]‘thin’ < S(U)BTILE(M) and [st�er] ‘to dry’ < S(I)CCARE in Upper Engadinish. Pre-

consonantal S-palatalization must therefore have ceased to be a productive

process before SPIV arose. Given that the palatalization of pre-consonantal

sibilants remained productive long enough into the medieval period to affect

borrowings such as [ʃprUm] ‘spur’ < early Germanic sporo(n)-, it would appear

that SPIVonly started to apply at some stage well into theMiddle Ages.31 A crucial

consideration, however, is the date at which pre-consonantal [s] palatalized in

southern Germanic itself. For if it predated the borrowing of items like sporo(n)-

(> sp(e)ron-) into early Romance, we would clearly not be able to use evidence

from such items to draw any conclusions on the chronology of pre-consonantal

sibilant palatalization in Rheto-Romance. Unfortunately, there is some disagree-

ment amongst Germanists over the chronology of pre-consonantal [s] palataliza-

tion. The first stage of the development is generally agreed to involve the

palatalization of initial [sk-] > [ʃ-] (presumably via a stage [ʃc-]), but the datingof this and later palatalizations of sibilants in other pre-consonantal contexts is

controversial. For some, the first stage dates only from late Old High German at

the earliest, i.e. the tenth or early eleventh centuries, and palatalization in other

contexts, e.g. in sp-, st-, sn-, sm-, is assumed to have occurred by the end of the

thirteenth century. The other interpretation, which suggests amuch earlier dating,

is based largely on the consistent distinction made in Old High German and early

Middle High German texts of the two graphies<s> and <z>, as in<kus> ‘kiss’ and

<nuz> ‘nut’, both of which clearly represented sibilants. The assumption is that

<z> probably represented voiceless alveolar [s], whilst <s> indicated a retracted

voiceless sibilant which was probably palatalized to some degree, perhaps [ʃ] or[�]. The latter developed first in the original sequence [sk-] and thenwas extendedin Old High German to other contexts, before splitting inMiddle High German to

give [ʃ] pre-consonantally and [s] elsewhere which merged with pre-existing [s].

In this interpretation, initial <s> could already have had a palatal quality in Old

High German. The general development of pre-consonantal <s> to [ʃ], which is

30 E.g. the reflexes of STELLA ‘star’: [’ʃt¡la] Ornavasso (NE Piedmont), [’ʃt¡:la]Germasino (N Lombardy), [’ʃt¡la] Predazzo (N Veneto) (AIS 2, 362; pts. 117, 222, 323).

31 REW 8130a. Cf. It. sp(e)rone, Old French esperon > eperon, Occ. esporo.

U-prosthesis 207

definitely accomplished by the thirteenth century, may therefore have involved

only a small increment in palatality. If this was true, early Germanic loans into

Rheto-Romance such as sporo(n)- might already have contained a partly palatal

initial sibilant. The use of such forms in attempts to determine the chronology of

SPIV in Rheto-Romance therefore would seem to be inappropriate.32

We may therefore rely on just the data emerging from forms affected by

western lenition, e.g. Bolognese amvod, to conclude that SPIV probably repre-

sents a change that was initiated close to the end of the first millennium at the

earliest. U-prosthesis would then have got underway at some later stage.

6.1.4 ACTUALIZATION

After SPIV had operated, the pattern of implementation of U-prosthesis in the

Romance varieties concerned has been complex with a good deal of variation

from region to region. Only an outline of the broad characteristics of actualiza-

tion will therefore be possible. Two factors in particular have guided the process,

and these have interacted in sometimes delicate ways. They are: (i) the nature of

the prosodic domain in which the word appears, and (ii) the internal structure of

the complex word-initial onset that was created by SPIV. We may consider these

factors in turn, focusing attention first on developments in lexical items. Pros-

thetizing contexts which involve monosyllabic proclitic forms, e.g. M(E) V�IDET

‘(s)he sees me’, are examined separately below.

6.1.4.1 Nature of the prosodic domain

U-prosthesis in lexical items appears to have been triggered particularly in

contexts where there was a preceding, closely syntactically linked word which

ended in a consonant. A preceding consonant-final determiner or clitic provided

the most favoured prosthetizing context. U-prosthesis has also occurred in post-

pausal contexts, though this has happened less commonly with heterosyllabic

onsets beginning with an obstruent; in contrast, it is usual with onsets beginning

with a sonorant, especially a liquid. Generally, prosthesis seems not to have

occurred in post-vocalic contexts within close-knit phrases, though cases can be

32 Proponents of the first interpretation, which assumes a first stage dated tenth to

eleventh century, include Bach (1965: 175), Tschirch (1969: 19) and Young and Gloning

(2004: 110). The classic work setting out the interpretation in favour of an earlier dating is

Joos (1952). My thanks go to Martin Durrell for his invaluable guidance in this complex

chapter of German phonological history.

208 U-prosthesis

found where this has taken place with sonorant-initial onsets, a development

which led to lexicalization of the prosthetic vowel. The following basic stages

seem to have occurred in a pattern of implementation that resembles what

happened with I-prosthesis and, less certainly, with A-prosthesis (4.1.4, 5.3.3):

post-consonantal! post-pausal! post-vocalic

The extent to which individual Romance varieties have progressed along this

path of actualization varies a good deal. In ‘common Piedmontese’ based on

Turinese, for instance, certain types of heterosyllabic word-initial onset (namely,

obstruent-initial) show U-prosthesis in post-consonantal position only (Clivio

1971, 2002: 160–1). Indeed, if there is a hesitation or partial pause between the

preceding consonant and the onset, a prosthetic vowel may fail to appear even in

that context, e.g. (post-vocalic) sensa dne ‘without money’, (phrase-internal,

post-pausal) tant . . . dne ‘much . . .money’ but (post-consonantal, without

pause) tant edne ‘much money’, where e indicates a schwa. In the Piedmontese

variety of Viverone, the occurrence of prosthesis is even more nuanced. Nigra

(1901: 253) reports that when a consonant-final determiner or clitic precedes,

there is regular prosthesis which yields a vowel with the quality [N]. But whensome other consonant-final form precedes within a noun phrase, the prosthetic

vowel is weak and scarcely perceptible, as in l’a-vzin [lNv’ziN] ‘the neighbour’ butsett aksu-i [’set Nk’sui] ‘seven buns’.

Complex onsets whose initial consonant was a sonorant have usually under-

gone U-prosthesis not only in post-consonantal contexts but also post-pausally

in Piedmontese. As a result, citation forms for words which had contained a

sonorant-initial onset sequence generally have a prosthetic vowel. Post-vocalical-

ly, however, prosthesis has been carried through only incompletely. A prosthetic

vowel may be absent when a vowel-final proclitic form precedes, particularly

when the initial consonant of the complex word-initial sequence created by SPIV

was not a liquid. Whether this reflects elision of an earlier prosthetic vowel or the

failure of prosthesis to occur at all is unclear. As an example of this pattern, the

dialect of Monferrato (SE of Turin) shows forms like in anvud ‘a nephew’ but me

nvud ‘my nephew’ < N(E)POTE(M). However, onsets with an initial liquid appear to

maintain the prosthetic vowel in this dialect even after a vowel-final proclitic: aj

ho arcunsı ‘I have recognized’ < R(E)-COGNOSC-ITU(M) (Nebbia 2001).

For the other major syncopating zone of northern Italy, Emilia-Romagna and

adjacent border areas, Malagoli (1910-13: 111) reports the regular presence of a

prosthetic vowel in Novellarese (Emilia) before complex onsets beginning with

the sonorants [r, l, n] but only in post-consonantal and post-pausal contexts,

since elision (or non-implementation of prosthesis) is apparently found in post-

vocalic contexts. A similar pattern is described for the variety of Pontremoli in the

Lunigiana, located in the northern transitional area where Tuscany abuts onto

Emilia and Liguria (Maffei Bellucci 1977: 46–7). Further to the east, in the variety

U-prosthesis 209

spoken in Piacenza at the end of the nineteenth century, U-prosthesis was

reported to have been generalized to all contexts and fully lexicalized in forms

beginning with liquidþ consonant and less commonly with nasalþ obstruent,

whereas other types of word-initial heterosyllabic onset appear not to be subject

to prosthesis, except post-consonantal s impura sequences (Gorra 1890: 143, 153).

In the Rheto-Romance of the Grisons, those varieties which experienced SPIVand

subsequent U-prosthesis have lexicalized the prosthetic vowel [a] in words whose

onsets began with a liquid and, sometimes but not often, with a nasal also. Thus,

Lutta (1923: }}121, 123) cites the following forms for the dialect of Bergun, where the

prosthetic vowel is maintained even when a vowel-final auxiliary precedes:

post-pausal post-vocalic

[al’de:r] ‘to manure’ [iL ’pro: ¡al’do:]

‘the field is

manured’

< LAET-ARE, -ATU(M)

[ar’ �tʃ¡gv‰r] ‘to receive’ [¡l P ar’ �

tʃi:] ‘he has received’ < REC�IPERE, *-ITU(M)

[amna’ �tʃe:r] ‘to threaten’ [¡l P am-

na’ �tʃo:]

‘he has

threatened’

< MINACIARE, -ATU(M)

Finally, in those varieties of northern Gallo-Romance where there was categor-

ical deletion of schwa in unstressed syllables, U-prosthesis has come to operate

where syllabification of a heterosyllabic consonant sequence would otherwise be

impossible. Thus, U-prosthesis has not applied in post-vocalic contexts since the

opening consonant of a heterosyllabic onset can be resyllabified as the coda of the

preceding syllable, but in post-consonantal contexts this is not possible and

prosthesis therefore offers a solution. Post-pausally, although prosthesis would

also be expected, the data prove to be a little less clear-cut and the appearance of

prosthetic vowels may not be categorical. The following examples are cited from

the Picard variety of Mesnil-Martinsart (Flutre 1955) and they indicate that

prosthesis here has occurred irrespective of the quality of the first consonant of

a heterosyllabic word-initial onset.

post-pausal 33 post-consonantal

[emne s vAk] ‘to lead one’s cow’ [i f� ll emne] ‘it is necessary to lead it’

[ertire] ‘remove ! (imp.pl.)’ [i n ersan pwq sq p¡r] ‘he does not look like

his father’

33 The data in Flutre (1955) are a little unclear in places over the incidence of post-pausal

U-prosthesis. Forms are cited in post-pausal contexts both with and without a prosthetic

vowel indicated. For instance, beside the prosthetic example [emne s vAk . . . ] which we citefrom p. 36, there is non-prosthetic [mne qn vAk . . . ] on p. 83, both post-pausal, and in the

glossary the citation (hence post-pausal) form is given as mne (non-prosthetic). However,

it is explicitly stated: ‘Quand un mot commence par plusieurs consonnes et qu’il est a

210 U-prosthesis

[elve s mq] ‘to raise one’s hand’ [klik el pPrt] ‘try the door knob’ (to see if

someone’s in)

[edmq] ‘tomorrow’ [ty n edman pwq] ‘you do not ask’

post-vocalic

[o mno] ‘we lead’

[i rsan sq p¡r] ‘he looks like his father’[(´ em ) sy lv¡] ‘I got up = (I) raised (myself)’

[sa mq dmade py lo] ‘without asking me for more of it’

Although I-prosthesis and later pre-consonantal [s] deletion had eliminated

original s impura onsets in this and the other Gallo-Romance varieties concerned,

new onsets with this structure reappeared in later loans and as a result of schwa

deletion, and these too have been subject to U-prosthesis since they have

continued to be interpreted as being heterosyllabic. For example, once again in

the Mesnil-Martinsart variety, there are forms such as [ʃe stasjo] ‘the stations’ but[al proʃqn estasjo] ‘at the next station’. Also systematically affected by the same

rule of prosthesis have been proclitic pronouns and other monosyllabic gram-

matical forms which had formerly contained the vowel schwa. These forms have

come to display the same morphophonemic alternation, e.g. with the feminine

singular definite article [klik el pPrt] ‘try the door knob (to see if someone’s in)’

but [dq l kur] ‘in the courtyard’.

In a more detailed coverage of prosthesis in another Picard dialect, that of

Vimeu, Auger (2001) indicates a comparable pattern, leading in a parallel way to

the same pattern of regular morphophonemic alternation. In addition, however,

it is noted that the incidence of a prosthetic vowel decreases the higher up on

the prosodic hierarchy the potentially prosthetizing context is found. Thus, if an

unlicensed onset is found within the prosodic word, i.e. a lexical word plus

affixes and associated clitics, the prosthetic vowel [e] appears categorically.

Within a phonological phrase, prosthesis is almost categorical but occasional

exceptions occur, whilst the incidence of prosthesis in intonational-phrase-

initial and especially utterance-initial position drops considerably. In the corpus

of data examined by Auger, prosthesis in utterance-initial position drops to less

l’initiale de la phrase, ou que le mot precedent ne finit pas par une voyelle sur laquelle ces

consonnes puissent appuyer, il y a developpement d’un e prosthetique ou epenthetique,

plus ou moins nettement articule’ (pp. 35–6). It is added (p. 36) that, ‘C’est en particulier le

cas lorsqu’un mot commence par le prefixe r- (franc. re-) suivi de consonne.’ Yet, the

citation form given in the glossary for even these prefixal items is non-prosthetic, e.g. for

the reflex of RE-SIMILARE ‘to resemble’ we find rsane (p. 226) rather than [ersane]. Some

doubt therefore hovers over the incidence of post-pausal prosthetic vowels in this dialect.

U-prosthesis 211

than one half of the possible cases where it might be expected to have occurred,

echoing in part the evidence from Flutre’s description (cf. n. 33).34 This finding

suggests that in at least some forms of medieval Romance a further path of

actualization relating to prosodic domains may have operated for U-prosthesis:

clitic phrase! phonological phrase! intonational phrase! utterance

Some support for the existence of this path of actualization can be found

elsewhere in Romance. For instance, in certain Romance varieties (e.g. Catalan)

U-prosthesis has only occurred within the clitic phrase, indicating that it is the

primary locus for prosthesis on the prosodic hierarchy (see 6.1.4.3). Also, Clivio

(1971: 338) cites Piedmontese forms showing prosthesis to be just optional rather

than obligatory in post-consonantal forms occurring in prosodic domains higher

than the clitic phrase.

6.1.4.2 Internal structure of the word-initial onset

As some of the data in the previous subsection have indicated, the actualization of

U-prosthesis has also been directly conditioned by the sonority profile of the

complex word-initial onsets created by SPIV. In broad terms and directly in

line with the SSG (cf. 1.7), onsets of rising sonority have generally been less

subject to prosthesis, whereas onsets of level and, particularly, falling sonority

have been more subject. In onsets of a given sonority slope, the sonority distance

between the successive consonants will also play a role. The greater the sonority

distance in rising sonority onsets, the less the incidence is of U-prosthesis; the

greater the distance is in falling sonority onsets, the greater the incidence of

U-prosthesis.35 Thus, we have at one extreme those sequences of rising sonority

composed of stopþ glide or liquid, where the sonority distance is large.

U-prosthesis is not triggered by such onsets except in very special cases. And at

the other extreme, there are onsets of falling sonority composed of glide or

34 The corpus of Auger is unfortunately entirely based on fictional dialogue appearing

in novels by modern Picard writers. Whilst such data may replicate linguistic usage fairly

accurately, some doubt remains as to just how authentically they represent natural speech.

Flutre’s data were based on usage in live speech. Nonetheless, both sources point to the less

than categorical nature of prosthesis in utterance-initial position.35 This is in conformity with generally preferred syllable structure patterns as presented

by Vennemann (1988). For complex onsets, the preference is for fewer rather than more

constituent consonants and for those consonants to be arranged with maximally rising

sonority. Thus, strategies for breaking up complex onsets may be expected to be more

systematically used, the more such onsets deviate from the preferred structure.

212 U-prosthesis

liquidþ stop, where there is a large sonority distance: these have systematically

triggered U-prosthesis. The data can be represented in broad terms36 using a

parameter on which prosthesis in individual dialects may be variably located

(Figure 6.3).

rising sonority level sonority

less more

(gl. = glide, liq. = liquid, obs. = obstruent, son. = sonorant, nas. = nasal)

stop+gl./liq. gl./liq.+stopobs.+son. son.+obs.obs.+obs. son.+son.

falling sonority

FIGURE 6.3. Relative susceptibility of sample context types to U-prosthesis

We may briefly review the relevant Romance data that underpin this parameter

before going on to consider the probable path of actualization that it indicates.

Maximally rising-sonority onsets containing stopþ liquid usually fail to un-

dergo U-prosthesis in any variety, as in [pla:] ‘to peel’, [fra:] ‘to shoe a horse’ <

PILARE, FERRARE in Valsesiano (N Piedmontese). Such onsets, it will be recalled, had

existed in Latin, and phonological theory generally views obstruentþ liquid

sequences as forming tautosyllabic or ‘true’ onsets. Elimination of such onsets

would not therefore be expected. The very rare exceptions concern the coronal

sequences [tl-], [dl-] which were both impermissible in Latin. Reflexes of

TELARIU(M) ‘loom’ and DOLORE(M) ‘pain’, for example, reportedly show U-prosthe-

sis in some Piedmontese varieties.37

In other types of obstruentþ sonorant onset sequence where the sonority rise

is relatively smaller (especially obstruentþ nasal) or in onsets where there is level

sonority, the susceptibility to prosthesis has been variable. It has been greater

in Piedmontese, for instance, than in Emilian or Romagnolo varieties. Thus,

onset sequences such as [fn-], [dn-] (obstruentþ nasal), and [vz-] (obs-

truentþ obstruent with level sonority) generally show a prosthetic vowel in

appropriate phonological contexts in Piedmontese:

36 A much finer-grained schema would be required for a detailed and accurate analysis.

Thus, the present simplified parameter fails to distinguish onsets such as [ml-] and [rm-],

both falling here under ‘son.þ son.’. However, the former is often found without prosthesis

in northern Italian dialects, e.g. Bolognese [mlAN] ‘melon’ < MELONE(M), whereas the latter

has regularly undergone prosthesis.37 For Viveronese, Nigra (1901) reports [tl-] as providing a prosthetizing context. In his

detailed inventory of onsets triggering U-prosthesis in Piedmontese, Telmon (1975)

includes [dl-] and cites the form [ad’lo:r] ‘pain’ < DOLORE(M) for the dialect of the

Andorno valley. However, no mention is made here of [tl-].

U-prosthesis 213

with prosthesis (post-consonantal) without prosthesis

F(E)NUCULU(M) > [dez ‰f’noj] ‘ten bulbs of

fennel’

[tre f ’noj] ‘three bulbs offennel’

D(E)NARIU(M) > [taNt ‰d’ne] ‘much money’ [’seNsa d’ne] ‘without money’

VICINU(M) > [dez ‰v’ziN] ‘ten neighbours’ [tre v’ziN] ‘three neighbours’

However, in Emilian-Romagnolo it appears that comparable prosthesis has not

regularly occurred.38

There are few onsets of rising or level sonority, the initial element of which was

a sonorant. The only type that has passed into Romance appears to have

contained [m] as the first element and for these the results are variable, just as

they are in onsets of falling sonority beginning with [m]. Prosthesis has occurred

but in some varieties it has been limited at most to post-consonantal contexts, as

in ‘common’ Piedmontese based on Turinese [mluN] ‘melon’< MELONE(M),

[mni’ze] ‘garbageman’ < MINUTIAþ-ARIU(M) (Clivio 1971) and Piacentino (Emi-

lian) [mloN] ‘melon’, [mny:d] ‘tiny’ < MINUTU(M) (Bearesi 1982). In other varieties

of Piedmontese and Emilian, however, it has been extended to post-pausal

contexts (hence citation form) as well, e.g. Castellinaldese [am’ruN] ‘melon’

(Toppino 1902-5), Monferrino [am’n¡stra] ‘soup’ < MENESTRA, [am’ne] ‘to lead’

< MINARE (Nebbia 2001), and sporadically and variably in Bolognese [(a)m(b)

rauz] ‘amorous’ < AMOROSU(M) but [’mraNda] < MERENDA (Mainoldi 1967). Finally,

in Upper Engadinish, U-prosthesis appears to have been lexicalized in some

forms only, e.g. Celerinese [Im’na �tʃa] ‘threat’ < MINACEA

39 as against [mnYkt]

‘tiny’ < MINUTU(M), [mne:r] ‘to lead’ < MINARE ‘to lead’.

Falling sonority onsets have been much more susceptible to prosthesis across

all varieties where SPIV has operated. Particularly affected have been onset

sequences beginning with a sonorant. U-prosthesis has always occurred at least

38 The Piedmontese data are drawn from Clivio (1971: 336, 2002: 161). For Emilian-

Romagnolo, Loporcaro (1998) indicates that for the Emilian variety of Grizzana Morandi,

which lies 40 km south of Bologna, onsets of rising sonority or level sonority form true

onsets, at least within clitic phrases, so that they do not give rise to prosthesis. Thus, [at

’kJPsen] ‘they (f.) know you’, [at pke:ven] ‘they (f.) were pecking you’, rather than non-

prosthetic **[al ti k’JPsen] [al ti p’ke:ven], as against [al ti v’de:ven] ‘they (f.) saw you’ with

prosthesis before an obstruent-initial onset with falling sonority.39 This form may owe its initial vowel to morphological recutting rather than U-

prosthesis, ILLA MINACEA > ILL’ AMINACEA. However, as initial [a-] usually gives [a] in Upper

Engadinish, e.g. APRILE(M) > [a’vriL] ‘April’, AMICU(M) > [a’mix] ‘friend’, the emergence of a

high front vowel in [Im’na �tʃa] would need explanation. It is significant that the regular

outcome of what is certainly a prosthetic vowel in other nasal-initial onset sequences is a

high vowel, e.g. [YN’gu‰ta] ‘nothing’ < NE(C)-GUTTA (the rounded quality of the initial

prosthetic vowel of this form is presumably due to labiovelar influence from the following

velar consonants and rounded stressed vowel). It may therefore be that either (i) prosthesis

214 U-prosthesis

in post-consonantal contexts, but where the initial sonorant is a liquid, prosthesis

is invariably found in both post-consonantal and post-pausal contexts (e.g. in

Novellarese), and it may have been generalized in all contexts and become fully

lexicalized (e.g. in Rheto-Romance varieties spoken in the Upper Engadine). For

instance, in the Engadinish dialect of Celerina, the prosthetic vowel is now

lexicalized in forms such as [ar’ �tʃæv‰r] ‘to receive’ < REC�IPERE and [al’ge:r] ‘to

melt’ < LIQUARE. With sonorant-initial onsets of falling sonority which begin with

a nasal, there has been widespread variation depending on the quality of the nasal.

Where the initial nasal is coronal, U-prosthesis has typically occurred in post-

consonantal and post-pausal contexts as in Novellarese (Emilian) [an’v¡:r] ‘to

snow’ < NIV-ARE and Monferrino (Piedmontese) [an’vu:d] ‘nephew’ < NEPOTE(M),

and sometimes it has been generalized and fully lexicalized, as in Upper Engadin-

ish [YN’gu‰ta] ‘nothing’ < NE(C)-GUTTA, [YJ’djyn] ‘nobody’ < NEC-UNU(M). How-

ever, prosthesis has been much less systematic when the nasal was bilabial [m], in

conformity with the pattern already seen for such onsets when they are of level or

rising sonority.40

The incidence of U-prosthesis before falling sonority onsets beginning with an

obstruent has been more variable across different varieties. In Upper Engadinish,

the evidence suggests that it has never occurred. For example, it seems that

syncopated forms such [vd¡] ‘calf ’< VITELLU(M) have always been non-prosthetic,41

and following the abandonment of I-prosthesis in Rheto-Romance, original

s impura onsets that (re)appeared in forms such as STRAME(N) ‘straw’, SPINA ‘thorn’

have behaved as other obstruent-initial falling-sonority onsets like [vd¡] and

similarly failed to undergo U-prosthesis, hence [ʃtram], [’ʃpiJa]. In northern

Italian dialects, U-prosthesis may occur with obstruent-initial onsets of falling

sonority in certain phonological contexts. For instance, this reportedly occurs in

did operate on MINACEA although it curiously failed to do so in [mnYkt] ‘tiny’ (the view of

Lutta 1923: }126), or (ii) a word-initial vowel [a] was first created in this word through

morphological recutting and later the vowel was aligned with that of other words which

began with unstressed vowelþ coda nasal, notably forms containing the prefix [Im-, In-] <

IN- such as [Im’pu‰nd‰r] ‘to use’ < IMPONERE. Similar conclusions may be drawn for forms

like [In’dzYgra] ‘measure’ < ME(N)SURA.40 Thus, in the Emilian dialect of Novellara, where U-prosthesis consistently occurs

with heterosyllabic onset sequences beginning with a liquid or [n], word-onset sequences

beginning with [m] are only sporadically affected by prosthesis whether they are of rising,

level, or falling sonority, e.g. [mlo:N] ‘melon’, [mn¡:r] ‘to lead’, [mzi:N] ‘half a litre’ beside[am’s¡:l] ‘missal’ (Malagoli 1910–13: }161).

41 It is noteworthy, however, that in the earliest attestations of the reflex of VITELLU(M)

‘calf ’ dating from the sixteenth century, SPIV had evidently still not operated in Upper

Engadinish. For example, in Bifrun’s translation of the celebrated parable of the fatted calf

(Luke 15), the form uidilg appears.

U-prosthesis 215

Grizzanese (Emilian) though it may not be general in all dialects of Emilia-

Romagna. Here too, where I-prosthesis lost productivity, s impura onsets have

generally been aligned with other falling-sonority onsets beginning with an ob-

struent.42 In Piedmontese varieties, I-prosthesis normally continued to operate

post-consonantally and, following SPIV and the rise of U-prosthesis, the two

processes interacted. As a result, a single generalized quality was adopted for the

prosthetic vowel with all types of heterosyllabic word-initial onset beginning with

an obstruent. Thus, in ‘common Piedmontese’ based on Turinese, forms are found

such as set esteile ‘seven stars’ (as against la steila ‘the star’) alongside set epnass

‘seven tails’ (as against tre pnass ‘three tails’), both with the generalized vowel [‰].At first sight, the actualization of U-prosthesis would appear to have involved a

single parametrized process, whereby contexts on the right-hand side of our

Figure 6.3 above were affected first and then prosthesis was generalized progres-

sively to contexts further to the left, in varying degrees according to dialect.

However, this may not be an entirely accurate picture of events. There is evidence

which suggests the possibility that U-prosthesis may have been actualized origi-

nally along two distinct but related paths, dependent on whether the complex

word-initial onset began with an sonorant or an obstruent. Various pieces of data

offer some support for this view. First, in certain varieties, phonetically different

types of prosthetic vowel are found in these two contexts. For instance, in the

Piedmontese variety of Viverone, the presence of two word-initial vowels [N] and[€I] is reported.43 The latter appears exclusively preceding sonorants, e.g. [€Irkur’da]‘to remember’, [€Il’va] ‘to lift’ (< RECORDARE, LEVARE), and the former in all other

contexts containing complex word-initial onsets that are not tautosyllabic.44

42 In Grizzanese, clitic phrases such as [al ti v’de:ven] ‘they (f.) saw you’ show a

prosthetic [i] triggered by the presence of the falling-sonority and hence heterosyllabic

onset [vd-]. Similarly, [al ti stofen] ‘they (f.) annoy you’ where the onset contains s impura.

In contrast, level-sonority onsets beginning with an obstruent such as [pk-] evidently do

not trigger prosthesis, e.g. [at pke:ven] ‘they (f.) were pecking you’ rather than prosthetic

** [al ti pke:ven] (Loporcaro 1998).43 The phonetic description of both vowels by Nigra (1901: 252) is unfortunately not

entirely clear. The vowel we represent as [N] is described as ‘un suono ottuso, che sta tra i

suoni di a ed e’ (‘a dull sound, situated between a and e’) which corresponds to the familiar

‘mute e’ [‰] widely found in Piedmontese varieties. Nigra emphasizes the difference

between it and [€I] which he presents as very short, unstressed, closed and less distinct.44 Just one exception concerns complex onsets involving etymological initial M- which

pattern like obstruent-initial onsets, e.g. [dl Nm’luN] ‘of the watermelon’ (< MELONE(M)).

Also, as noted above in 6.1.4.1, the realization [N] appears only in contexts where a

consonant-final determiner precedes; where other consonant-final forms precede, a

much phonetically reduced realization of the vowel occurs.

216 U-prosthesis

Second, the phonetic stages by which a prosthetic vowel developed seem to

have been different in the two types of context. With sonorant-initial onsets, the

original syllabicity of the etymological first syllable may well have been main-

tained at all stages, particularly in post-consonantal and post-pausal contexts. As

the original vocalic nucleus weakened, its syllabicity was probably taken over by

the sonorant which in turn became syllabic. Thereafter, there would be lineariza-

tion of the syllabic sonorant so that a sequence of unstressed vowelþ non-syllabic

sonorant developed (cf. 1.3). Direct evidence of the intervening stage is no longer

widely found but some modern Romance varieties do offer suggestive data. For

example, in the dialect of Pontremoli (N Lunigiana), weakening of unstressed

vowels in word-initial syllables has led to pre-consonantal sonorants appearing in

word-initial onset position where they may be realized as syllabic or be linearized

into vowelþ sonorant sequences, e.g. [r’kun’tar] or [arkun’tar] ‘to relate’ < RE-

COMPUTARE, the former of which can be found when a vowel-final form precedes; a

comparable alternation also appears medially in [’nuj a kr’’d‰ma] � [’nuj a

kar’d‰ma] ‘we think’ < *CRED-EMUS (Maffei Bellucci 1977: 46). Similarly, in

Gallo-Romance the presence of syllabic l, m (though not n)45 and especially r

in word-initial pre-consonantal position following the syncope of the original

unstressed vowel is reported for the Vendeen dialect of Vouvant, as in [r’turna] ‘to

return’, [r’lik] ‘remains’, [l

’ver] ‘lever’, [m

’luna] ‘to hum, buzz’ (Rezeau 1976: }11).

The first three of these forms may be compared with standard French retourner,

reliques, levier whose schwa can also be syncopated, though just in post-vocalic

contexts and without creating a syllabic sonorant; the fourth item which appar-

ently derives ultimately from MASCULUS (FEW VI, 426) has no direct counterpart in

standard French. Some further evidence of word-initial syllabic sonorants, espe-

cially syllabic r, appears in linguistic atlases.46 For instance, the ALCe (map 800,

une reprise mal faite) has [yn r’senyr] at points 28 (Flere-la-Riviere) and 32 (St-

Genou) in western Indre, where it is evidently the presence of a preceding

consonant that has triggered the syllabic outcome in the lexical item. In the light

of such data, it seems plausible that U-prosthesis with etymological word-initial

45 For example, for ‘nephew’ the variant forms reported are [nv�r], [nvu] < NEPOTE(M)

where syncope has occurred but apparently without leading to the creation of a syllabic

initial consonant.46 The ALF provides no clear evidence of syllabic consonants in potentially relevant

maps (1135, 1136, 1140, 1147, 1153, 1154, 1163). However, map 1585 grelot lists at least nineteen

points (mostly in Poitou-Charente) for which initial [grl-] is reported, a sequence whichcan scarcely be pronounced unless [r] is vocalic (my thanks to Yves Charles Morin for

bringing this to my attention). More recent French linguistic atlases likewise often prove to

be of limited assistance in this connection. This is because many of the potentially relevant

forms that have been elicited are located in post-vocalic contexts.

U-prosthesis 217

sonorants may generally have involved a transitional stage where the sonorant was

syllabic; only later was there linearization yielding a prosthetic vowel.

The starting point in the special pattern of evolution found with sonorant-

initial words appears to lie in lexical items beginning with the prefix RE-, which

were evidently one of the first, if not the first, to be subject to SPIV and

subsequent U-prosthesis.47 It is striking that all Romance varieties experiencing

SPIV in sonorant-initial words have undergone syncope in RE- forms, and in

some varieties of central Italy these forms represent almost the only items to

have been affected. For example, Rohlfs (1966: }164) cites for the dialect of

Ancona, Marche, arcava, arfa, ardı, argala ‘to extract, redo, say again, give a

present’, whereas SPIV in other contexts is unusual. The forms reported for

Umbrian arduna, armane, artira, armette ‘to gather, remain, draw back, replace’

and for the dialect of Cortona, E Tuscany, arcapite, arcoglie, arcuprı, armane

‘to happen again, gather up, re-cover, remain’ all have etyma in RE- and they

again provide virtually the only examples of syncope and U-prosthesis. Flutre

(1955: 36) also calls attention to the particular importance of prefixal R(E)- for

prosthesis in Picard.48

The explanation for the special susceptibility of word-initial RE- to adaptation

is uncertain. However, Blevins and Garrett (1998, 2004) note some suggestive

perceptual considerations which are associated with the presence of rhoticity.

Rhoticity is seen as a feature with ‘elongated cues’ such as a lowered F3 that can

spread over adjacent segments leading to the possibility of individuals ‘mishear-

ing’ and then reinterpreting the original sequencing of segments which include a

rhotic. These phonetic cues are more likely to spread from a rhotic into a

47 Cf. ‘Es gibt Evidenz dafur, dass Synkope des Vortonsvokals und folgende Prosthese in

dem Prafix RE- fruher eingetritt und daher auch haufiger zu finden ist als in sonstigen

Kontexten mit anlautendem Sonorant’ (Mayerthaler 1982: 92, n. 32). The observation is

based on Rheto-Romance and Italo-Romance data. Meyer-Lubke (1890: }367) likewise

notes the special status of etymological RE- and assumes the creation of a syllabic rhotic as

the intervening stage between etymological [re-] and later #vowelþ [r] sequences. He cites

forms such as pr’no, r

’venir (= St.Fr. prenons, revenir) as being frequently found in a wide

range of varieties in the west and east of the langue d’oıl. Loriot (1984: 190) also postulates

an intervening stage with a syllabic rhotic for Picard dialects.48 Flutre observes that, in the variety of Mesnil-Martinsart, vowel prosthesis is ‘en

particulier le cas lorsqu’un mot commence par le prefixe r- (franc. re-) suivi de

consonne’, e.g. in rtire ‘to withdraw’, rpartir ‘to leave again’. However, it is not quite clear

whether the ‘particular’ nature of the U-prosthesis here relates to its greater consistency, its

historical priority or to the relatively high statistical frequency of verb forms containing the

prefix r-. Similarly in the Picard the variety of Gondecourt, the only lexical items to have

systematically developed a prosthetic vowel are forms containing prefixal re- preceding a

consonant, e.g. [�rtirei] ‘to withdraw’ (Cochet 1933).

218 U-prosthesis

preceding or following vowel when the vowel is unstressed and short. The

presence of such spreading may thus be a trigger for perceptual metathesis,

leading ultimately to the possibility of restructured underlying forms on condi-

tion that enough speakers adopt and promote the resequenced forms. However,

the perceptual conditions described would also provide a basis for understanding

the creation of a syllabic rhotic, since the reinterpretation of a rhoticþ short

unstressed vowel sequence as a syllabic rhotic might well represent the first stage

of reinterpretation on the way to metathesis. This is more likely with initial

unstressed [e] which, as we have seen, has had a greater tendency to weaken

than other vowels in Romance (cf. 6.1.2). And it is particularly understandable in

a high-frequency and hence more predictable and rapidly articulated sequence

like the prefix RE-.49 Where such reinterpretation begins to occur, ‘the general

perceptual pattern is for listeners to attribute lowered F3 to a postvocalic segment.

Therefore, where there is a rhotic adjacent to the vowel historically, it will be

analyzed as postvocalic’ (Blevins and Garrett 1998: 518). A scenario thus emerges

for the creation of a prosthetic vowel in etymological RE- sequences. Unstressed

[re-] > [re-] first came to be reinterpreted as a syllabic rhotic before undergoing

restructuring into a sequence of vowelþ non-syllabic rhotic. We may envisage

that subsequently other word-initial sonorantþ consonant sequences arising

from the weakening and syncope of [e] followed the pattern of evolution estab-

lished by forms in RE-.

In contrast, it seems unlikely that in complex word-initial onsets created by

SPIV where the initial segment was an obstruent, e.g. Emilian [’vde:va] ‘he saw’ <VIDEBAT, syllabicity was maintained in the obstruent after syncope had occurred.

Instead, if a prosthetic vowel did develop, it was evidently created to enable

syllabification to occur.

In the light of the available evidence, a tentative conclusion which can be

drawn is that U-prosthesis in lexical forms may have operated first on Romance

words which had originally contained the high-frequency prefix RE- preceding a

consonant stem, as in RE-CORDARE. When SPIV got under way, the word-initial

rhotic in these forms absorbed the syllabicity of the weakening vowel [e] and

became syllabic. Later, it was linearized to a vowelþ [r] sequence. Other forms

also came to acquire heterosyllabic word-initial onsets through SPIV, and those

onsets that were sonorant-initial followed the pattern established by original RE-

forms, similarly passing through a phase where the sonorant was syllabic. When

49 The link between the frequency of occurrence of a linguistic form and its consequent

predictability, on the one hand, and between its predictability and rapidity of its

articulation leading to phonetic reduction, on the other, is well known. Familiar

examples are (Golden Age Spanish) vuestra merced > (standard Spanish) usted >

(informal styles) (u)te ‘you’ (sg., polite form); (French) je ne sais pas > (informal) [ʃpP]‘I don’t know’.

U-prosthesis 219

obstruent-initial heterosyllabic onsets developed, they too could take on a pros-

thetic vowel for syllabification purposes. The vowel used was generally identified

with the prosthetic vowel that had emerged with sonorant-initial onset se-

quences.

6.1.4.3 Actualization in proclitic forms

Monosyllabic proclitic forms, such as ME, TE, DE, QU�ID>[ke], have been subject to

SPIV just like lexical items and they too can surface with a prosthetic vowel.

However, SPIV and U-prosthesis have not always occurred in a directly parallel

way with proclitic forms and lexical forms. Three outcomes of U-prosthesis can

be distinguished:

(i) identical treatment of proclitic and lexical forms,

(ii) similar but not identical treatment of proclitic and lexical forms,

(iii) distinct treatment of proclitic forms.

Examples of (i) are found in north Gallo-Romance varieties. For example, Picard

has the following forms where a uniform vowel quality appears:

proclitic lexical form

[el smaJ pas¡] ‘the last week’ [elve s m¡] ‘to raise one’s hand’

[ty ka´ed plAʃ] ‘you (sg.) are changing

place’

[ty n edman pw~¡] ‘you (sg.) are not

asking’

Data from the dialect of Mesnil-Martinsart (Flutre 1955)

Examples of (ii) appear in northern Italian varieties where a different quality

may occasionally be found in the prosthetic vowel used with proclitics. In

Grizzanese (Emilian), for instance, the prosthetic vowel with lexical items is

reportedly [a] but with proclitics it may be [i] (Loporcaro 1998), and in Turinese

a prosthetic [i] can appear with the subject proclitic [t] ‘you (sg.)’,50 although the

50 The special circumstances with the 2nd sg. clitic pronoun arise from the fact that it

has been alone amongst the subject clitics of northern Italian dialects to have emerged with

a consonantal base-form. Turinese, for example, has the paradigm: (1st sg., 1st pl., 2nd pl.)

[i], (3rd sg. and 3rd pl.) [a] (Vanelli 1984: 292). The possibility of vowel prosthesis with

these forms is therefore excluded. Vanelli (1984 and 1987) offers a useful diachronic survey

of subject pronoun evolution in northern Italian varieties. It is demonstrated inter alia that

seemingly prosthetic proclitic forms such as am in the Romagnolo am arcord ‘I remember’,

made famous as the title of a 1973 film by Federico Fellini, in reality contain a subject

cliticþobject clitic but no prosthetic vowel; thus, am = a (1st sg. subj. cl.)þm (1st sg. obj.

cl.). However, the verb itself arcord (< REC�ORDO) has of course undergone prosthesis

following SPIV.

220 U-prosthesis

usual quality of the prosthetic vowel elsewhere is [‰] (Clivio 1971: 343; Vanelli

1984: 293):

proclitic lexical form

Grizzanese [al ti ’vde:ven] ‘they (f.) saw you’ REMANERE>[arma’Je:] ‘to remain’

Turinese [it ‰m ’dize] ‘you (sg.) tell me’ DECEM MELON-I>[dez ‰mluN] ‘tenmelons’

However, in most northern Italian varieties there seems to be identity between the

prosthetic vowel found with proclitics and lexical items, with [a] being the most

usual outcome. For example, [a] appears for syllabification reasons as a prosthetic

vowel in proclitic sequences involving the subject proclitic t ‘you (sg.)’ followed

by the object proclitic g [ Ðq] ‘to him/her’ or m ‘(to) me’: e.g. Ferrarese t ag da an

pum and Mantuan ti t am de ‰n pum ‘you give him an apple’(Vanelli 1984: 293).

Lexical forms and object clitics likewise show the use of [a] as a prosthetic vowel

in these varieties, e.g. Mantuan (lexical) arfudar ‘to refuse’, arvgnir ‘to come back’,

aldam ‘dung’, alvar ‘to raise’ and (object clitic) as ved ‘is seen’ (= St.It. si vede), etc.

(Cherubini 1827).

Finally, cases of (iii) arise when U-prosthesis has occurred with proclitic forms

whereas lexical forms have not been subject to SPIV and hence have not under-

gone U-prosthesis. This is found in several Romance varieties, notably in Catalan,

Romanian, and certain types of Swiss Rheto-Romance. In Catalan, a range of

prosthetic clitics have developed in most varieties including the standard lan-

guage although not in western varieties and in Algueres in Sardinia. Standard

Catalan has the forms em, et, es, ens [‰m ‰t ‰s ‰nz/‰ns] ‘me, you (sg.), him,

himself/herself etc. (reflex.), us’ < ME, TE, SE, NOS, which serve as both direct and

indirect object proclitic pronouns, e.g. em veu (a mi) ‘(s)he sees me’. Also, less

certainly, the forms el ‘him (dir.obj.)’, els ‘them (m. dir. obj. & m./f. ind. obj.), and

en ‘some (partitive), from there’ < ILLU(M), ILLOS / ILLIS, INDE may owe their vowel

to the action of prosthesis following the deletion of the etymological initial vowel.

These prosthetic forms occur just pre-consonantally. In other contexts, non-

prosthetic alternants are found, [m‰], [m]; [t‰], [t]; [s‰], [s]; [nus], [ns]; [łu],[ł]; [łus], [ł‰s]; [n‰], [n] which appear respectively in enclitic position, volia

veure-me ‘(s)he wanted to see me’ and pre-vocalically in proclitic position,

m’ajuda ‘(s)he helps me’. Prosthetic proclitics evidently developed in two stages.

First, there was weakening and loss of the vowel in contexts in which there was an

adjacent vowel within a syntactic phrase. This is clearly illustrated, for instance, in

the prose work Libre de Evast e Blanquerna by Ramon Llull which dates from the

1280s. Here, we consistently find alternation indicated between asyllabic and

syllabic proclitics. Asyllabic realizations are evident in: (prevocalic) Evast s’asech

‘E. sat down’ (p. 105), enveja t’a tengut ‘envy has held you’ (p. 108); (postvocalic)

que nosaltres no·ns mullem ‘so that we do not get wet’ (p. 101), ni·n volia haver ‘nor

did he want any’ (p. 106), no·m dona ‘it does not give’, que·s penedıs ‘that he

U-prosthesis 221

should repent’ (p. 114); and fa’m considerar en la gran gracia que Deus m’a feta ‘it

makes me think about the great grace that God has granted me’ (pp. 113–14)

showing deletion both post-vocalically and pre-vocalically.51 However, in syntac-

tic phrases where the adjacent segments were both consonants a syllabic form is

indicated: la vostra . . . caritat me fa cogitar ‘your charity makes me reflect’ (p. 113),

lo malalt se penedı ‘the sick man repented’ (p. 114). The pattern here thus

resembles closely that found in modern French: tu me vois [tym vwa] ‘you see

me’ and elle m’ecoute [¡l mekut] ‘she listens to me’ with vowel deletion in the

proclitic pronoun, as against elle me voit [¡l m‰ vwa] ‘she sees me’ with vowel

retention. The second stage of development in Catalan saw moves to eliminate

the interconsonantal proclitic alternants me, te, se, etc. It seems likely that the

forms containing a sonorant were first affected in this development, notably me

and nos, and possibly le(s), lo(s) and ne also. In these the syllabicity of the vowel

was transferred to the sonorant, giving a syllabic consonant. A possible early

indication of this occurs in certain feudal documents dating from the eleventh

century, et nu·ls en dedebre ni mal nu·ls en menare ‘and I will not deceive them in

this nor will I bring them harm in this’ (Russell-Gebbett 1965: 76), where <en>

may represent a syllabic nasal. Badia (1981: }125) also notes the attestation of

proclitic pronominal <el> from the late thirteenth century even in Rossellones

(Roussillonnais). However, in both cases it is also conceivable that the vowel is a

residue of the etymological initial vowel of ILLU(M), INDE. According to Blasco

Ferrer (1995: 500), it is not until the fifteenth century that prosthetic forms start to

appear.52 Apparent examples are found in Rossellones: lany mill quatre cents y

quinze es crema la sglesia ‘in 1415 there was a fire in the church’ (although the same

text also contains laqual se crema ‘which was on fire’) text dated 1415, and e ens ne

esposarem ‘and we will be married’ dated 1462 (Fouche [1924] 1980a: 43).

Romanian has certain dative pronouns all of which have developed a prosthetic

vowel [_t], namely ımi, ıti, ısi, ıi (< ME, TE, SE, ILLI) ‘to me, to you, to oneself, to

him/her’ and, less transparently, the masculine singular accusative pronoun ıl

(< ILLUM). A parallel change has also occurred with the now non-standard first

singular and third plural present indicative forms of the verb ‘to be’ ıs (< SUM and

SUNT).53 As in Catalan, U-prosthesis in Romanian has taken place when the forms

concerned were used proclitically within a verb phrase where they did not

immediately precede a vowel-initial clitic form (auxiliary or clitic pronoun),

e.g. ımi place foarte mult ‘I like him/her/it very much’, ıti uiti cartea ‘you (sg.)

51 We follow the edition by Salvador Galmes (1935), using his punctuation.52 Unfortunately, few if any of the examples which Blasco Ferrer adduces clearly

demonstrate the unambiguous presence of a prosthetic vowel.53 Forms ıs and as ‘they are’ are reported in the ALR to occur at various points in a

broad band of territory in north central Romania extending from the region around Arad

in the west across to the region around Iasi in the east, cf. map 1619.

222 U-prosthesis

are forgetting your book’ (= ‘you are forgetting to yourself the book’), but ti-ai

uitat cartea ‘you have forgotten your book’ mi-o da ‘(s)he gives it to me’.

Prosthetic forms are attested from the period of the earliest surviving texts, the

sixteenth century (Densusianu 1975: 405). In addition to the forms already cited,

the sixteenth-century text Privila ritorului Lucaci (1581) shows ıle ‘to them’ and

ılui ‘to him’ (< ILLIS, *ILLUI) but these have only ever been found in this work

(Lombard 1976).

A comparable outcome is also found in Surmeiran in the Rheto-Romance of

the Grisons. Here SPIV did not regularly operate, unlike the situation further to

the east in Upper Engadinish where it was intense (Grisch 1939: }39).54 In

Surmeiran, U-prosthesis occurred only with proclitic pronouns giving am, at,

as, ans, ats, iL, iLs ‘(to) me, you (sg.), us, self (3rd pers. refl. sg. and pl.), him, them

(m.)’. These forms, however, are now confined to literary use only (Haiman and

Beninca 1992: 127). U-prosthesis in proclitics in Surmeiran may represent a native

development but there is the possibility that the phenomenon developed as the

result of the westward diffusion of this process from the adjacent Upper Engadine

area where syncope of pre-tonic vowels was particularly strong.

It seems not unlikely that U-prosthesis with proclitics in all these Romance

varieties first operated with forms containing a sonorant. This would have

become syllabic prior to being linearized to enable syllabification to occur, and

emerging finally as a sequence of default vowelþ sonorant. It is unclear whether a

specific form established the use of a prosthetic alternant first of all and acted as a

leading form for the other proclitics, or whether prosthesis occurred as a move-

ment simultaneously affecting the subset of proclitics containing a sonorant

before it operated on the whole proclitic system. A plausible candidate as a

leading form in the former scenario might be the first person singular proclitic

ME (cf. Lutta 1923: }126). Parallel cases where tightly knit groups of grammatical

forms have been analogically remodelled on the first singular form are not

unusual in Romance, as for example the possessive pronoun forms in French.55

54 The variety of Bergun enjoys a special status as it shows clear evidence of SPIV having

operated although in other respects it seems to represent a type of Surmeiran. In the light

of his detailed study of this variety, Lutta (1923: } 11) concludes that its basis is Surmeiran

but that it later received an Engadinish overlay.55 The possessive forms tien ‘yours’, sien ‘his, hers, theirs’ in French have been

remodelled on the basis of mien. Similarly, the Portuguese possessives teu ‘your’, seu ‘his,

her, their’ are based on meu; and in Rheto-Romance (Grisons) tiu, siu are formed on miu.

A comparable pattern of remodelling, albeit in a more limited way, has also occurred in

northern Italian dialects where the subject clitic form for the 1st sg. has widely been

extended to 1st pl. and then to the 2nd pl. (Vanelli 1984: 290). Similarly, in northern

Gallo-Romance, je has been extended in many varieties to 1st pl. (j’avons) and less

commonly to 2nd pl. (j’avez). For the latter, the ALF at pts. 334, 336 in Orne, Normandy

U-prosthesis 223

The possibility of U-prosthesis affecting just proclitic forms is significant, for it

appears to add further support to the path of actualization relating to the

prosodic hierarchy which was tentatively proposed above:

clitic phrase! phonological phrase! intonational phrase! utterance

Unfortunately, it is not possible to demonstrate whether U-prosthesis operated in

principle in an identical way within the clitic noun phrase as within the clitic verb

phrase. The relevant proclitics in noun phrases, namely determiners, all

contained an etymological initial vowel which makes interpretation problematic

(ILLE, IPSE, UNU(M), UNA).

6.1.5 QUALITY OF THE PROSTHETIC VOWEL

Unlike the two other principal categories of prosthesis which operated with

segmentally specific word-initial onsets, namely those composed of either s im-

pura or a rhotic, U-prosthesis has acted on a phonetically diverse range of onset

types. As a result, vowel qualities of different types have developed. However, it is

evident that a low-quality [a] has predominated. This is true for Italo-Romance

and Rheto-Romance, although in Gallo-Romance a mid front unrounded vowel

[e] or [¡] has tended to be the most usual outcome.

To try to explain the variations in vowel quality, we may recall the principle of

minimal saliency which governs the initial stage of epenthetic vowel formation

(1.6). According to this, a short vowel of indeterminate quality develops first of

all, typically a schwa, and thereafter the vowel is assigned a quality that conforms

with that of an existing vowel-type.

In most, perhaps all, Italo-Romance and Rheto-Romance varieties affected by

U-prosthesis, it is unclear whether schwa existed as a licensed vowel-type at the

time when this process first began to operate. Where schwa was lacking in the

vowel inventory, a low value [a] was typically selected for the new vowel. Two

reasons can be adduced for this. First, [a] represents the most general default

vowel-type in language. Second, and more importantly, it seems highly probable

that the first context where a prosthetic vowel became established was in forms

with a word-initial onset beginning with a rhotic and, in particular, in the

numerous forms originally containing the prefix RE-. As we have seen, these

have been particularly subject to SPIV and it is reasonable to assume that these

forms were the ones where U-prosthesis took root first of all as their initial onsets

displayed the most extreme instance of falling sonority. In the selection of the

has [´ave] for both points in map 92 (vous avez), and [´Prje] (pt. 334), [´e:rje] (pt. 336) inmap 95 (vous auriez).

224 U-prosthesis

quality [a], the same factors would have operated as those that guided the choice

of vowel quality in A-prosthesis (cf. 5.2.4). As other types of complex word-initial

onset gradually acquired a prosthetic vowel, it is understandable that speakers

would have adopted the quality already established for complex onsets beginning

with a rhotic.

Despite the presence of a (rhotic initial) model using the value [a] for the

prosthetic vowel, sometimes a vowel of different quality has nonetheless devel-

oped in forms containing other complex initial onsets. For example, before onsets

with an initial nasal consonant, parallelism with the reflex of forms containing

prefixal IN-, IM- has led at times to the appearance of a high quality, [i] or [y], for

the prosthetic vowel, as in imsura ‘measure’, imsurer and imzurer ‘to measure’,

imnatscha ‘threat’, imnatscher ‘to threaten’, imgiuramaint ‘improvement’, im-

giurer, ‘to improve’, unguotta ‘nothing’, ungiun ‘nobody’ which appear in the

sixteenth-century works of Jakob Bifrun.56 Modern Upper Engadinish (dialect of

Celerina) has [Im’na �tʃa] ‘threat’, [In’dzygra] ‘measure’, [YN’gu‰ta] ‘nothing’

whose initial high vowel may be compared with that found in prefixal forms

such as [INkun’tre:r] ‘to meet’, [Im’pu‰nd‰r] ‘to impose’ < INCONTRARE, IMPONERE.

In Italo-Romance, [a] became and has remained the usual quality for prosthetic

vowels in Emilia-Romagna. But in the other main prosthetizing area, Piedmont,

various adaptations have subsequently occurred locally. Telmon (1975) provides a

detailed, though not always very critical, review of prosthetic vowel qualities

attested across a wide range of different contemporary Piedmontese dialects.

Whilst Clivio (1971, 2002) identifies just the value [‰] for ‘common Piedmontese’

(based on Turinese), Telmon reports no fewer than six types: [a, e, ‰, u, y, i]. Ofthese, [a] is by far the most commonly found; indeed, the others appear in only a

very small number of instances in the corpus of data presented. The vowel types

other than [a] appear to represent later localized developments conditioned by

phonetic context. Thus, the quality [u] is reported in the forms [uv’ziN] ‘near’,[un’val] ‘avalanche’, [ur’v¡rs] ‘reverse’ < VICINU(M), NIVALE(M), RE-VERSU(M), where

the labiodental [v] has presumably helped to round and raise the vowel.

In Gallo-Romance, we may assume once again that the prosthetic vowel first

took on the neutral value of schwa. In certain varieties of langue d’oıl, this value

has been maintained albeit with slight fronting sometimes to a short rounded

value [�] which commonly occurs as the realization for schwa. For instance, in

the variety of Sainte-Jamme (Seine-et-Oise) which lies close to Paris, there appear

forms such as [‰lpe:r] ‘the father’, [‰n ‰rsurs] ‘a fountain’, [‰rʃ~A´e] ‘to change’

(cf. standard French le pere, une (res)source, (re)changer).57 The same outcome is

56 The Latin etyma are: MENSURA, MENSURARE, MINACEA, MINACE-ARE, MELIORA-MENTUM,

MELIORARE, NE(C)-GUTTA, NEC-UNU(M).57 Passy (1891).

U-prosthesis 225

reflected in ‘rural Parisian’, a spoken variety distinct from the urban francais

populaire and still found in the capital in the middle of the twentieth century

(Durand 1945). As in Sainte-Jamme, the prosthetic vowel appears here with both

proclitic forms and lexical items: [kPm ‰´di] ‘like I say’, [av¡k ‰lp¡r] ‘with the

father’, [apr¡ savw�r ‰rturne] ‘after returning’ (cf. comme je dis, avec le pere, apres

s’avoir retourne). In descriptions of urban Parisian speech, such prosthetic vowels

have not traditionally been reported but there are occasional indications of their

presence. For instance, in her detailed transcriptions of the pronunciation of

fourteen Parisian speakers all of whom lived and were raised in Argenteuil,

Francois (1974) notes [alPK ‰ ʃ h

i paKti] ‘now I left . . . ’ (= alors, (e) je suis

parti) which appears to contain a prosthetic vowel. In some Picard varieties,

the closely related value [�] is found. For instance, in the dialect of Gondecourt

(located just south of Lille), proclitics such as articles and subject pronouns as

well as the reflex of prefixal RE- developed a prosthetic schwa in contexts where an

adjacent word would create a sequence of three consonants, as in the masculine

singular definite article where the base form is [ʃl] < ECCE-�ILLE which loses the

lateral when preceding a consonant-initial noun:

pre-consonantal: [prq ʃ ka:] ‘take the cat’, [�rv¡t �ʃ ka:]58 ‘look at the cat’

pre-vocalic: [prq ʃl om] ‘take the man’, [�rv¡t �ʃl om] ‘look at the man’

Source: Cochet (1933: 23)

However, more generally the prosthetic vowel has adopted a mid unrounded

front value of some sort, usually [e]. Thus, many Picard varieties in the departe-

ments of Somme, Oise, and Aisne show [e], e.g. ertourne ‘to return’, ercul ‘drawing

back’ in the dialect of Ledieu (Loriot 1984: 186). Similarly, in dialects of Touraine

prefixal re- has emerged as er- on a regular basis, as in ercu ‘received (p.pt.)’,

ercounaıte ‘to recognize’, erveni ‘to return’.59 This development has a parallel

amongst clitic elements only with the 1st sg. subj. pronoun which can variably

58 A retracted rounded vowel [o] ‘o vague’ occurs instead of [�] in a couple of villages

within the district whose speech Cochet is describing.59 A similar adaptation has occurred word-medially in lexical items. Here, in cases

where the deletion of earlier [‰] in [r‰] would have resulted in an unsyllabifiable sequence

of three consonants, the syllabic rhotic that developed from [r‰] was therefore

restructured to [er], e.g. venderdi ‘Friday’, berbis ‘sheep’, etc. It may be noted that, in

Gondecourt too, schwa is likewise adapted to [e] in word-medial contexts, cf. [� gvP] ‘ahorse’ vs [�ʃ kevP] ‘the horse’. The data suggest that in both these varieties SPIV only

systematically affected lexical items beginning with a liquid and especially those beginning

with prefixal RE-.

226 U-prosthesis

appear as [e´] pre-consonantally (Davau 1979: 24, 65–77).60 Here as elsewhere, it

is striking that when the prosthetic vowel takes on a mid front unrounded value,

the same quality is also generally found with schwas that have experienced

adaptation rather than SPIV. This is the case in varieties used in Brie.61 It is

also true for the north-west and the extreme south-east of Wallonia where many

varieties present the outcome [¡] in the typically proclitic monosyllables that

correspond to standard French je, me, te, le, se, de, ne, que as well as in items

containing prefixal re- and other lexical forms subject to SPIV, for instance the

cognates of items like cerise, fenetre; cf. ALW I, maps 8 (cerise) and 54 (le). In these

Walloon varieties, the same quality is also shared with the vowel emerging from I-

prosthesis, suggesting the durable presence of a default quality for vowels re-

quired for syllabification purposes.

Other qualities have also developed in the prosthetic vowels of langue d’oıl

varieties. A low vowel [a] is found, perhaps due to the lowering effect of a

following rhotic on mid front unrounded vowels; in Saintongeais, for example,

the forms argardez, artenez, armacier (= St.Fr. regardez, retenez, remercier) are

reported (Doussinet 1971: 406). However, Picard varieties show a remarkable

diversity of outcomes. The data from map 527 of the ALP (se retablir ‘to recover

from illness’) offer a convenient overview of the range of vowel qualities found

since the great majority of Picard varieties have lexical items for this meaning

which derive from forms containing prefixal RE-, namely cognates of (se) remettre,

requinquer, retaper, refaire, revenir and a verb (se) retousler without counterpart in

Standard French (see Map 5). In these prefixal items, there are indications of three

main prosthetic vowel qualities: [a] in numerous localities of Pas-de-Calais;62 [¡]or [e] in central and southern Somme; rounded [�] or [�] in northern and

central Oise.63 An isolated case of [o] is reported for the variety spoken in Carnin

in western Nord [sorfer] = se refaire, although map 375 (relaverie) indicates a

value [�] or [�] for the initial vowel in the same variety. A high front vowel [y]

may also appear in some dialects. This has been noted in the area of Argonne

(Ardennes) where, for instance, the dialect of Florent has urbeyi ‘to look at’,

urcommander ‘to recommend’, urvue ‘review’, urvuni ‘to come back’.64

60 With clitics other than je, schwa has likewise been adapted to [e] in contexts where

deletion would lead to sequences of three consonants, as in [me] in [´me se trope] ‘I was

wrong’ ([se] = St.Fr. suis).61 P.c. Yves Charles Morin who was brought up in Brie.62 Cf. the forms reported for the Arras region by Loriot (1984: 187): archuvoir ‘to receive’,

armucher ‘to hide’, s’arbiffer ‘to protest’, arprinde ‘to take up again (= reprendre)’.63 Cf. eurnier ‘to deny’, eurmembrance ‘memory’, eurposo ‘altar of repose’ found in Esne,

near Cambrai (Loriot 1984).64 The appearance of [y] has also been triggered by the presence of an adjacent labial

consonant, as is the case in Picard (cf. Flutre 1977: }23). The same development to [y] has

U-prosthesis 227

6.1.6 CAUSATION

There seems little doubt that syllabic factors led to the rise of U-prosthesis. In

Romance varieties where SPIVoccurred, the result was the creation of many new

types of word-initial complex onset that remained heterosyllabic. Syllabification

for these, especially in post-consonantal contexts, was impossible. Particularly

affected were new complex onset types of falling sonority, the most conspicuous

of which involved forms containing etymological RE- since the sonority fall here

could be maximal, as in [rp-] in words like R(E)PAUSARE. In such heterosyllabic

onsets, the appearance of a prosthetic vowel can readily be seen to have served as

a means of enabling syllabification, as in |rp- > Vr|p.

In the case of the northern Gallo-Romance varieties which experienced

U-prosthesis, the causation was similar. The weakening of unstressed non-low

vowels, especially [e], in an initial open syllable led to their development to schwa

before undergoing systematic deletion. This created sequences of word-initial

consonants which were often unsyllabifiable and prosthesis served as the means

for resolving the problem. In other langue d’oıl varieties, the same tendency for

schwa deletion also occurred, but it was not systematically carried through. In

standard French, for instance, in contexts where an unsyllabifiable sequence

would result from schwa deletion, schwa has typically been maintained, as in

deux chevaux [d� ʃvo] ‘two horses’ but mille chevaux [mil ʃ‰vo] ‘thousand

horses’.65 Elsewhere, as we have seen, schwa was likewise retained and in many

cases it was adapted to take on a new quality [e], [¡] and less commonly [i], [y]

(cf. 4.4.3.3). In varieties where schwa was retained (or strengthened) in this way

for syllabification purposes, the incidence of U-prosthesis has predictably been

much more limited and in some cases it has failed to operate.

operated, sporadically, with the originally initial vowel [‰] of lexical items such as the

cognate of French cresson (cf. ALF map 350, pts 186, 195, 197, 166, 164, etc.). The nearest

locality in the ALF to that cited by Loriot is pt. 155 (Belval-en-Argonne) which also has [y]

for cresson, [kryso]. The quality [y] also figures for NE Walloon dialects in another form

originally containing medial [e], e.g. [dyh~¡], [dyh¡:] corresponding to standard French

descends! ‘get down’ (ALW I, 28).65 The circumstances of the retention of schwa in standard French have given rise to a

considerable literature, descriptive and theoretical. The sense of survival surrounding the

more recent history of this vowel is aptly captured in the title of a paper by Walter (1990),

‘Une voyelle qui ne veut pas mourir’.

228 U-prosthesis

6.2 U-prosthesis: later developments

In the period from the sixteenth century onward, there appear to have been few

changes in the pattern of usage with clitic U-prosthesis. According to Vanelli

(1984, 1987), in northern Italian varieties the present situation with subject clitics

in the verb phrase had been established by the end of the seventeenth century. On

the assumption that the object clitic system had likewise been established by this

date, we may hypothesize that most developments concerning U-prosthesis with

verbal clitics had been accomplished in these varieties by the seventeenth century.

Similarly, the pattern of prosthesis with proclitics in Picard varieties (for which

we have documentary evidence from the Middle Ages) shows no significant

change since the sixteenth century when prosthetic realizations are first attested

(Flutre 1977). The situation in Engadinish is, however, a little less clear. In

sixteenth-century texts, U-prosthesis in proclitics is not consistently indicated.

In the Bible translation of Jakob Bifrun published in 1560, for example, prosthetic

forms of proclitics are not found, e.g. Per che nu faschiand stima da quellas n’s

plascha da baiuer oura ‘Because, not having respect for those [fountains], it

pleases us to drink from . . . ’ in the prologue, with <ns> rather than <ans> as

the clitic form. However, in other Upper Engadine texts of the same period the

presence of a prosthetic vowel is normally indicated. Thus, in the sixteenth- or

seventeenth-century verse composition Susanna,66 prosthetic vowels are generally

represented, as in (post-pausal) am fo un grand mel ‘it causes me great distress’

(l. 233), Zuaintar ch’els ans haun mis amaun ‘according to what they have put into

our hand’ (l. 663), la quela chi ans ho trat su ‘she who brought us up’ (l. 686) but,

as in modern usage, after certain vowel-final grammatical monosyllables such as

nu ‘not’ and schi ‘yes; indeed’ a prosthetic vowel is not found: Hei schi m’voglia da

te bain fider ‘Oh yes, I want to trust you’ (l.146).67 The process of actualization of

prosthesis seems to have been a little slower in Lower Engadinish, however. In the

translation of the Psalms published in 1562 by Durich Chiampel (Ulrich Campell

in German) who was born in Susch in the Lower Engadine in 1510 and died in

c. 1582, a picture of incomplete prosthesis is given. A prosthetic vowel appears in

proclitic pronouns containing a sonorant but not normally in other types: Deis

eir ans haa dat vittoargia ‘God too has given us victory’ (Preface, p. 5), Deis sul am

daa pussauntza ‘God alone gives us power’ (Psalm XVIII, l. 158; p. 78) but ch’ ell s’

poassa scriwer ‘that it can be written’, chia ls’ plaeds tuotts s’ cumbutten ‘that all the

statements may be rebutted’ (p. 5), qui nun t’ vain miss ‘Here there has not been

66 Cf. n. 23 above.67 We follow the text for this verse work which appears as Una bela senchia historgia da

quella sainchia duonna Susanna in Decurtins ([1900] 1983–6: vol. 5, 191–249). This

reproduces the edition by J. Ulrich published in 1888.

U-prosthesis 229

set before you . . . ’ (p. 6).68 This appears to be in conformity with the pattern of

actualization proposed above for U-prosthesis (6.1.4.3), and in the following

century a letter dated 1634 written by Zoartz Jenatz in Upper Engadinish offers

some comparable evidence. Prosthesis is indicated in am sumaglia ‘it seems to

me’ which appears once post-pausally and once post-vocalically, but no vowel is

indicated in l’g tractat da Isbruck s’lyaiva mauns ‘the formal statement of I. washes

its hands of it’, L’g Segner s’voglia acusglier ‘May the Lord wish to take to Himself ’,

and Dieu n’s cusalva ‘God preserve us!’ (cf. modern Dieu ans cussalva), though

curiously no prosthetic vowel is present with the first plural clitic in da nus n’s

vessa ‘as far as concerns us’.69

For lexical items, an important development which has directly impacted on

the incidence of U-prosthesis has been the general decline in the productivity of

SPIV, for this has necessarily entailed a reduction in the number of new forms

containing a phonological structure susceptible to prosthesis. The evidence

suggests that the retreat in productivity has been encouraged by the growing

influence of standard languages from which new lexical material including

learned borrowings has usually emanated. Significantly, the varieties which have

become established as standards in Romance have normally conserved pre-tonic

vowels.

Looking a little more closely at individual areas, we find that already in

sixteenth-century Upper Engadinish such learned forms as desert ‘desert’, devot

‘pious’, legiun ‘legion’, and segret ‘secret’ appear in Bifrun’s writings. At the

beginning of the twentieth century Walberg (1907) called attention to the appear-

ance of further borrowings in the Upper Engadinish variety of Celerina where

SPIV did not operate, [da’l¡t] ‘delight’, [sa’d¡la] ‘bucket’, and also noted cases

where U-prosthesis would otherwise have been expected to occur, such [as

r‰ba’le:r] ‘to rebel’, [r‰po’ze:r] ‘to rest’, [r‰’m¡gdi] or [rI’m¡gdi] ‘remedy’. The

dictionary of Peer (1962) cites numerous other neologisms which are similarly

unaffected by SPIV, e.g. resumer ‘to sum up’, renascher ‘to be reborn’, medaglia

‘medal, medallion’, semester ‘semester’, tenu ‘outfit, dress’, tesor ‘treasure, treasury’,

genuin ‘genuine’, devisa ‘symbol’, penibel ‘painful’, pedal ‘pedal’. And we may note

additional examples from recent editions of the newspaper Fogl Ladin which has

articles in both Upper and Lower Engadinish, such as deponia ‘disposal’, (as)

retirer ‘to retire’, sedativ ‘sedative’.

Furthermore, influence from outside prestigious varieties which had not expe-

rienced SPIV has sometimes led to reinsertion of a vowel which has served to

restore the original unstressed initial syllable destroyed by SPIV. This was noted

68 Data drawn from the edition of Chiampel’s text in Decurtins ([1900] 1983–6: vol. 5,

271–96).69 The text of the letter appears in Decurtins ([1904] 1983–6: vol. 6, 228–9).

230 U-prosthesis

for Lower Engadinish by Pult (1897: }166) who reported cases in the variety

spoken in Sent where such restructuring appears to have occurred. The forms

in the left-hand column appear in the writings of Durich Chiampel.

Chiampel (16th century) Sent (late 19th century)

tsngur [di´u’nur]dschplaschair [diʃpla’ʃajr]schmaiva [ʃti’me:va]

sngur [si’ Jur]

Although the forms attested in Chiampel’s writings may represent optional

syncope characteristic of more informal, allegro speech (cf. Mayerthaler 1982:

100–2), the evidence points to an increased favouring of forms with a full pre-

tonic vowel.

Comparable developments have also occurred in northern Italian varieties.

For Piedmontese, Clivio (1971: 338) reported that in the urban speech of

Turinese the heterosyllabic word-initial clusters [fn- mn- ml- vz-] may be

broken up by vowel insertion and he attributed this to the influence of

Standard Italian where these clusters are not found. However, word-initial

s impura sequences are not affected so that U-prosthesis remains an active

process in Turinese and ‘common Piedmontese’ although its incidence has

been curtailed somewhat.

In Emilian-Romagnolo, a similar decline in the productivity of U-prosthesis is

widely found. Malagoli (1910-13) noted the appearance of various lexical items in

Novellarese (Emilia) where SPIV and U-prosthesis have failed to operate. These

include borrowings such as [ro’bust] ‘sturdy’, [ri’trat] ‘portrait’, and also cases of

restoration of initial unstressed vowel through Italian influence as in [ni’su: N]‘nobody’ beside [an’suN] and [ris’poNder] ‘to reply’, [ris’p¡rmi] ‘saving’. The

latter two forms can be compared with native outcomes like [ars’k¡:lda]‘it warms’ < RE-EX-CALD-ARE, [ars’topja] ‘field after harvesting; field left fallow’ <

RE-STUPULA,70 where we see the possibility of SPIV operating to yield word-initial

sequences of [rs]þ voicless plosive prior to the operation of U-prosthesis. The

greater incidence of this restructuring in urban usage is illustrated by [ro’tond]‘round’ which had reportedly displaced the earlier form [ar’dond] except in rural

speech.

70 The etymon is a variant of CL ST�IPULA ‘stubble’ (REW 8265). The form STUPULA is

attested epigraphically and a syncopated variant STUPLA occurs in Varro’s Res Rusticae.

Beyond Italo-Romance, reflexes appear in Old French estouble, Mod. Standard French

eteule ‘stubble’, and widely in other Gallo-Romance varieties. Prefixal forms in RE- are also

not uncommon, e.g. (Saintongeais) retoube ‘field covered in stubble’, (Old Occitan)

restoble ‘stubble’ (FEW XII, 271–6).

U-prosthesis 231

In northern Gallo-Romance varieties, the decline in the productivity of SPIV

and, as a consequence, a reduction in the incidence of U-prosthesis have been far

less in evidence. The growing influence in more recent times from the French of

the capital, both the standard variety and working-class Parisian French, has

affected local speech patterns and led to the adoption of a certain number of

forms where the initial unstressed vowel has been preserved. Thus, the Picard

variety of Vermandois has a small number of forms such as rejeton ‘shoot’,

renouvelance ‘renewal’, repiye ‘snack’, repue ‘saturated’ which stand in contrast

to items like erlave ‘to wash up’, erkule ‘to withdraw’, erpa ‘meal’, ebzwin ‘need’,

edvine ‘to guess’, cf. Standard French relaver, reculer, repas, besoin, deviner (Debrie

1987). The presence of the former items might suggest a more recent tendency no

longer systematically to nativize borrowings through SPIV. However, the dictio-

nary from which these items were taken is far from complete, so that firm

conclusions are difficult to draw from the limited information which it provides.

When other items of Picard data are considered such as ene ertraduction ‘a re-

translation’ in the Vimeu dialect (cf. Standard French une retraduction), the

impression given is that U-prosthesis continues to operate generally as a robust

and productive process. This is doubtless not unconnected with the sense of

loyalty to their regional usage which Picards andWalloons appear to have retained

despite the linguistic influence from outside, a loyalty that is rather stronger than

that found amongst speakers from most other regions of the langue d’oıl.

To conclude, a varied picture emerges in respect of the preservation of

U-prosthesis in different Romance varieties over recent centuries. In Italo-Romance,

there has been a noticeable diminution in its productivity in those non-standard

varieties of the north where previously it has operated regularly. Growing influence

from standard Italianwhere the process is unknownmay be seen as amajor factor in

this development. In a parallel way, the earlier use of U-prosthesis in Upper

Engadinish has also experienced some decline which may perhaps owe itself in

part to the apparent diminution in prestige of this variety in relation to other

varieties of Swiss Rheto-Romance. It is significant, for instance, that the semi-official

form of written Rheto-Romance which has come to be adopted for use in govern-

ment regulations represents a consensus orthographic version of Lower Engadinish

(or Vallader), Surmeiran. and Surselvan (Haiman and Beninca 1992: 15–16). As a

result, speakers of Upper Engadinish might well be expected to engage in dialect

levelling through the elimination of this variety’s more salient phonological and

orthographic characteristics including SPIVand U-prosthesis.

Against this background, the fate of U-prosthesis in non-standard varieties of

northern France is surprising. Despite the potentially undermining influence

from Parisian usage in a nation state with one of the most strongly centralized

language policies, the process appears to have retained its productivity to a

considerable degree. The reasons for this perhaps unexpected outcome remain

rather unclear, however.

232 U-prosthesis

7

Conclusion: Retrospective

and Prospective

Though languishing for a long time in the little-investigated pool of “sporadic”

sound-changes, vowel prosthesis has emerged in this study as a wide-ranging

development with a clear and systematic structural basis. It unarguably represents

a type of regular sound-change and, as such, it should duly take its place within

the set of regular sound-changes that are customarily identified in histories of

individual varieties of Romance.

Three categories of Romance vowel prosthesis have operated whose historical

development we have explored in some detail. Each has its own chronological,

geographical, and structural characteristics, but it is not difficult to see certain

properties which they share over and above the basic defining characteristic of

involving word-initial vowel insertion. In particular, it is clear that factors relating

to syllable structure and, more precisely, the organization of syllable onsets have

been of central importance in their genesis. In all three categories of prosthesis, the

new prosthetic vowel can be seen to have arisen as a response to the presence of a

complex heterosyllabic onset sequence of some sort. This is especially evident in

the rise of I-prosthesis in Imperial Latin and, later on, of U-prosthesis in those

varieties of central Romance which underwent SPIV (syncope of pre-tonic word-

initial vowels). In both these cases, the presence of problematic onset sequences

acted as the trigger. Less clear at first sight is the affinity between these two

categories of vowel prosthesis and A-prosthesis. However, in this third category

of prosthesis too the trigger for the creation of a prosthetic vowel proves to have

been the pressure to eliminate a heterosyllabic word-initial onset, in this case the

rhotic [r-] which had undergone strengthening to become a geminate [rr-].

The shared structural basis of the three principal categories of Romance

prosthesis may be expected to have led to some formal overlapping when more

than one category has occurred in the evolution of a given variety. This has

sometimes happened, as in ‘common’ Piedmontese based on Turinese where

I-prosthesis and U-prosthesis have both operated. Here, [‰] has become estab-

lished as the prosthetic vowel in both cases. However, in other Romance varieties

formal differences in the reflexes of the prosthetic vowel have been maintained.

For instance, in Gascon both I-prosthesis and A-prosthesis have occurred, but

whereas the former has typically yielded the outcome [e], the latter has resulted in

a low vowel [a]. The data from these and other Romance varieties which have

experienced more than one category of vowel prosthesis appear to indicate that

the reflexes of A-prosthesis and U-prosthesis are perhaps more likely to coincide

with one another than with the outcome of I-prosthesis. However, further

research is required to establish more precisely the patterns of interplay between

the outputs of these three categories of prosthesis in Romance.

Another common property relates to the prosodic context in which vowel

prosthesis first arose and became established. Given the relevance of syllabic

structure and syllabification for the genesis of all the categories of prosthesis, it

is not surprising that prosthetic vowels typically appear to have developed first of

all in phonological contexts where permissible syllabification was not possible.

This was the case in post-consonantal and post-pausal contexts since in post-

vocalic contexts the initial consonant of the heterosyllabic word-initial onset

could be linked to the preceding syllable where it would form its coda. Only at

a later stage might there be generalization of the prosthetic form to all possible

contexts. Given the relevance of contextual factors in the rise of prosthesis, it is

unfortunate for our purposes therefore that the focus of phonological studies has

very often tended to fall on word-level forms only with few comments on

phonological phenomena appearing in prosodic units higher than the word,

such as the clitic phrase and the intonational phrase. This limitation of coverage

is found in many descriptions of the sound structure of individual varieties, and

likewise it is not uncommon even in recent times for linguistic atlases to investi-

gate almost exclusively word-level forms.1 More detailed reports of phonetic

realizations in higher-level prosodic units in different Romance varieties are

needed therefore to enable more reliable inferences to be drawn about earlier

patterns of actualization in Romance vowel prosthesis.

A further common property relates to the process of determining the quality of

the prosthetic vowel. With all categories of prosthesis, the framework which

builds on the principle of minimal salience was found to provide a fruitful

basis to account for the choice of vowel quality (1.6). However, the framework

allows for variable outcomes, and cases of variation in the quality of the vowel

triggered by a particular category of prosthesis were certainly found even in

geographically close Romance varieties. For instance, the reflex of A-prosthesis

in central Sardinian varieties could be determined either by vowel copying or by

1 More recent atlases which deal almost exclusively with word-level units include

ASLEF, ALD, ALPI, and the various regional atlases for Gallo-Romance (ALAL, ALB,

etc.). Other atlases such as ALF, AIS, ALEIC can be more revealing as the forms reported

often reflect usage within phrasal contexts.

234 Conclusion

the phonological structure of the adjacent following consonant, the rhotic [rr-].

In view of the generally high degree of congruence in Romance with respect to the

phonetic outcome of the vowel created by a specific category of prosthesis,

anomalies like this Sardinian case invite further research. A significant Romance

input could then be made to the more general ongoing debate on the form of

epenthetic vowels in language.

As has been noted, the organization of syllable structure has played a key role in

shaping the incidence of vowel prosthesis. Two considerations have emerged from

this. The first relates to the overall architecture of the syllable and the way in

which it has changed in the evolution of Romance. The maximal syllable in Latin

was characterized by, amongst other things, the relatively high degree of symme-

try which existed between its onset and its coda in respect of sequential complex-

ity (cf. 3.1). Each contained a maximum of three consonants, the outermost of

which was always and only the fricative [s]. In the early evolution of Latin-

Romance from Classical times to the end of the first millennium AD, a familiar

development has been the move towards the simplification of the non-nuclear

elements of syllable structure. Scholarly attention to this reductive change has

perhaps fallen more on evolution in coda structure. However, onsets show a

comparable tendency to simplify, and the different categories of prosthesis can

each readily be seen to have played an integral part in this broad development

within the early Romance syllable. The apparent parallelism in the reductive

changes affecting onset and coda structure invites a closer examination of syllabic

evolution in order to explore to what extent adaptation in the organization of

onsets and codas has operated symmetrically throughout the history of Romance

and across different Romance varieties.

The other aspect concerns the internal architecture of the onset itself. The role

of sonority as expressed in the sonority sequencing generalization (SSG) has

emerged as a factor of major importance in helping to explain the occurrence of

the different categories of prosthesis. Word-initial onset sequences of rising

sonority conform to the SSG and would not therefore be expected to be affected,

whereas onset sequences of falling sonority do not conform to the SSG and would

therefore be expected to be subject to vowel prosthesis. However, the details as to

which onsets of falling sonority have triggered prosthesis often prove to be rather

more complex than the SSG alone can account for. For instance, liquid-initial

onsets of falling sonority have always been susceptible to vowel prosthesis and the

resulting prosthetic forms in many Romance varieties have become lexicalized.

In contrast, obstruent-initial onsets of falling sonority have generally undergone

just the contextually conditioned prosthesis that affected all other heterosyllabic

onsets. To explain this difference, appeals might be made to the relevance of the

“sonority distance” between the initial and following consonant, i.e. to the degree

of disparity in sonority between the successive consonants; e.g. (maximal) [rd-]

down to (minimal) [vd-] and (zero) [bd-]. It might be assumed that the greater

Conclusion 235

the sonority distance in an onset, the greater its susceptibility is to vowel

prosthesis. However, this criterion likewise does not always provide a satisfactory

basis to account for the incidence of prosthesis. For example, in Celerinese

(Upper Engadinish) no prosthesis has occurred in [vd¡] “calf” < VITELLU(M)

whereas there is fully generalized and hence lexicalized prosthesis in [alman”te:r]

“to lament” > LAMENTARE, even though in both cases there is minimal sonority

distance, fricative! plosive, liquid! nasal. Instead, it appears to be the inherent

phonetic and phonological structure of the individual consonants in complex

onsets and the relationship between them in respect of constituency and their

articulatory basis that have exercised a decisive role in shaping patterns of vowel

prosthesis.

It has not been possible in the present work to consider in appropriate depth

either of these two aspects of syllabic organization in the history of Romance, but

it is evident that further work in this area would be desirable. Although some

general studies on Romance syllable development have been carried out (e.g.

Granda 1966, Kiss 1971, Holm 1992, Cull 1995, Sampson 2004b), the topic still

awaits a more thorough investigation.2

One final shared feature can be identified for the different categories of vowel

prosthesis and their historical development. This is that their productivity as

phonological processes has tended to diminish over the period since the late

Middle Ages and Renaissance. Exceptions can be found, notably I-prosthesis in

Ibero-Romance and, more particularly, in Spanish and Catalan. However, as has

emerged from the previous chapters, the unmistakeable trend in many Romance

varieties has been towards the progressive abandonment of vowel prosthesis as a

live process although forms with prosthetic vowels may be retained as lexicalized

items. This more recent development, which previous historical accounts of

Romance phonological evolution have tended to pass over in silence, owes itself

in no small measure to the action of sociolinguistic factors of various types. The

principal ones have already been outlined in section 1.7.5, but we may just

highlight some key considerations.

First, it has undoubtedly been significant that in the standard varieties which

have emerged in the nation states of France, Italy, and Romania there is no

operative rule of vowel prosthesis. In view of the prestige and increasing ubiqui-

tousness of the standard variety within a nation state, especially in more recent

centuries following the growth in mass literacy, communications, and other

linguistically levelling forces, the gradual recession of prosthesis in non-standard

varieties within these states is readily understandable. Second, from the later

2 The potential relevance of the results for phonological theory may be judged from the

impact of the brief general monograph on syllable structure by Vennemann (1988). The

data used for this are very largely derived from Romance.

236 Conclusion

Middle Ages onward the emerging standard varieties have commonly undergone

elaboration whereby their lexical stocks were expanded, sometimes massively, in

order to enable them to cover the formal and literary functions formerly per-

formed by Latin. The source of most of the new lexis was Latin itself, a written

language in which any rule of vowel prosthesis was unknown. For most emerging

standard Romance varieties, the prestige associated with new learned borrowings

led to a strong tendency amongst speakers to preserve the original shape of the

latinisms as far as possible, a tendency which militated against the use for these

new lexical items of rules of vowel prosthesis that were characteristic of the

everyday vernacular. A notable exception comes with Ibero-Romance where it

was mainly as a result of other more localized sociolinguistic factors, this time

politico-religious in nature, that vernacular patterns of I-prosthesis came to

operate on learned borrowings as well (cf. 4.4.2). Third, more recent borrowing

from other Romance (standard) languages or non-Romance languages has

brought new forms which may have complex word-initial onsets, e.g. [pn-],

[sv-], [ft-], [ks-] as in French pneu, svelte, phtisie, Xeres. The influence and

prestige of the written word in modern times has been such that speakers have

modified their speech habits to accommodate complex onsets of this type rather

than subject them to some formerly current adaptive process such as vowel

prosthesis. In the light of these and other possible sociolinguistic pressures, it is

perhaps understandable that new categories of vowel prosthesis have failed to

materialize in Romance from late medieval times onward and that already

established productive processes of prosthesis should have experienced wide-

spread regression.

The changing fortunes of vowel prosthesis in post-medieval times offer one

further example of the significance that sociolinguistic factors can have in shaping

formal change in individual linguistic varieties. Romance with its wealth of

surviving philological materials reaching back over many centuries provides an

unrivalled testing ground for exploring the complex interplay that has occurred

between sociolinguistic and structural factors in particular cases of phonological

evolution. How this interplay comes to operate in guiding current and future

patterns of prosthetic usage will be intriguing for later linguists to observe.

Conclusion 237

This page intentionally left blank

MAP 1. Areas showing systematic vowel prosthesis in Romance (past or present)

MAP 2. Epenthesis with s impura forms in Wallonia

Sources: ALW I, maps 35 epine, 38 etoile, 54 le (article)

Map 3. A-prosthesis and locations in Gascony

Sources: ALG maps 2129, 2130; Bec 1968: Carte phonetique generale 1.

R.Po

MAP 4. U-prosthesis in Italo-Romance and Rheto-Romance

Sources: AIS I 18 nipote; III 548 scure; IV 644 riposati!, 645 riposiamoci!, 737 vicino; V 892 finestra, V 954 pelare; VII

1397 siccare; VIII 1512 telaio. (cf. for SPIV, Mayerthaler 1982: 232, map)

Map 5. U-prosthesis in Picardy

Source: ALP map 527 se retablir.

Map 6. Vowel prosthesis and locations in Corsica

Map 7. Vowel prosthesis and locations in Sardinia

Principal source: Contini 1987: vol. II, maps 52, 74

MAP 8. Locations in the Iberian Peninsula

R.Po

MAP 9. Locations in Northern Italy and the Rheto-Romance area

Map 10. Locations in central-southern Italy

R.Rhône

Map 11. Locations in SE France and adjacent areas of Italy

MAP 12. Locations in Northern France

Bibliography

AGI: Archivio Glottologico Italiano.

AIS: Jaberg, K. & Jud, J. (eds). 1928–41. Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der

Sudschweiz, 8 vols. Zofingen: Ringier.

ALAL: Potte, J.-C. (ed.). 1975–87. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de l’Auvergne et

du Limousin, 2 vols. Paris: CNRS.

ALB: Taverdet, G. (ed.). 1975–88. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de Bourgogne,

4 vols. Paris: CNRS.

ALCat: Griera, A. (ed.). 1923–64. Atlas linguıstic de Catalunya, 8 vols. Barcelona:

Instituto International de Cultura Romanica.

ALCB: Bourcelot, H. (ed.). 1966–78. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de la

Champagne et de la Brie. 3 vols. Paris: CNRS.

ALCe: Dubuisson, P. (ed.). 1971–82. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Centre

(Berry et Bourbonnais). 3 vols. Paris: CNRS.

ALD: Goebl, H. (ed.). 1998. Atlant linguistich dl ladin dolomitich y di dialec vejins.

7 vols. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

ALEANR: Alvar, M. et al. (eds). 1979–83. Atlas linguıstico y etnografico de Aragon,

Navarra y Rioja. 12 vols. Madrid: CSIC.

ALEIC: Bottiglioni, G. (ed.). 1933–42. Atlante linguistico etnografico italiano della

Corsica, 10 vols. Pisa: L’Italia dialettale.

ALF: Gillieron, J. (ed.). 1902–10. Atlas linguistique de la France. Paris: Champion.

ALF: Corse Gillieron, J. (ed.). 1914–15. Atlas linguistique de la France: Corse. Paris:

Champion.

ALG: Seguy, J. (ed.). 1954–73. Atlas linguistique de la Gascogne, 6 vols. Toulouse-

Paris.

ALGa: ILG (ed.). 1990–. Atlas linguistico galego. Santiago de Compostela: ILG.

ALI: Massobrio, L. (ed.). 1995–. Atlante linguistico italiano. Rome: Istituto

Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato.

ALIFO: Simoni-Aurembou, M.-R. (ed.). Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de l’Ile-

de-France et de l’Orleanais, 2 vols. Paris: CNRS.

ALJA: Martin, J.-B. & Tuaillon G. (eds). 1971–78. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique

du Jura et des Alpes du Nord, 3 vols. Paris: CNRS.

ALLoc: Ravier, X. (ed.). 1978–86. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Languedoc

Occidental, 3 vols. Paris: CNRS.

ALLor: Boisgontier, J. (ed.). 1981–86. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Languedoc

Oriental, 3 vols. Paris: CNRS.

ALN: Brasseur. P. (ed.). 1980–84. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique normand, 2 vols.

Paris: CNRS.

ALP: Bouvier, J.C. & Martel C.(eds). 1975–86. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de

la Provence, 3 vols. Paris: CNRS.

ALPic: Carton, F. & Lebegue M. (eds). 1989. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique picard,

1 vol. Paris: CNRS.

ALR: Atlasul linguistic roman, Serie noua, 7 vols. Bucharest: Ed. Acad., 1956–72.

ALW: Remacle, L. (ed.). 1953–. Atlas linguistique de la Wallonie Liege: Vaillant-

Carmanne,

ASLEF: Pellegrini, G.B. (ed.). 1972–84. Atlante storico-linguidtico-etnografico friulano,

5 vols. Padua: Univ. of Padua.

CGL: Loewe, G. and Goetz, G. (eds.). Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum. 7 vols.

1888–1923. Leipzig: Teubner.

CIL: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. 17 vols. 1868–. Berlin: Wiedmann-De

Gruyter.

CLS: Chicago Linguistic Society.

DCECH: Corominas, J. & Pascual, J.A. 1980–91. Diccionario critico etimologico castellano

e hispanico. 6 vols. Madrid: Gredos.

DECLC: Coromines, J. 1980–91. Diccionari etimologic i complementari de la llengua

catalana. 9 vols. Barcelona: Curial.

DELI: Cortelazzo, M.C. and Cortelazzo, M.A. 1999. Il nuovo etimologico DELI.

Dizionario etimologico della lingua italiana. 2nd ed. Bologna: Zanichelli.

DHLF: Rey, A. (ed.). [1992] 1998. Dictionnaire historique de la langue francaise. 3 vols.

Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert.

FEW: Wartburg, W. von. (ed.). 1922– Franzosisches etymologisches Worterbuch, 25 vols.

Leipzig-Basel: Klopp-Zbinden.

JFLS: Journal of French Language Studies.

Keil: Keil, H. (ed.). 1857–80. Grammatici Latini, 7 vols. Leipzig: Teubner.

LN: Lingua Nostra.

LRL Holtus, G., Metzeltin, M. & Schmitt, C. (eds.). 1988–2005. Lexikon der

romanistischen Linguistik. Tubingen: Niemeyer.

MSLP: Memoires de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris.

REW: Meyer-Lubke, W. 1935 [repr. 1968]. Romanisches etymologisches Worterbuch,

3rd ed. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

RLaR: Revue des Langues Romanes.

RLiR: Revue de Linguistique Romane.

ROA: Rutgers Optimality Archive, Rutgers University.

RPh: Romance Philology.

TLL: Thesaurus Linguae Latinae.

ZrP: Zeitschrift fur romanische Philologie.

252 Bibliography

Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. 1990. Normes ortografiques. 3rd edn. Oviedo: Academia

de la Llingua Asturiana.

Adams, J. N. 1977. The Vulgar Latin of the Letters of Claudius Terentianus. Manchester:

Manchester University Press.

—— 2003. Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

—— 2007. The Regional Diversification of Latin 200 BC–AD 600. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Allen, W. Sidney. 1973. Accent and Rhythm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

—— 1978. Vox Latina. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

—— 1987. Vox Graeca. 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Altamura, Antonio. 1949. Testi napoletani dei secoli XIII e XIV. Naples: Perrella.

Altamura, Antonio (ed.). 1974. Cronaca di Partenope. Naples: Societa Editrice Napoletana.

—— (ed.). 1977. La regola salernitana. Naples: Societa Editrice Napoletana.

Alvar, Manuel. 1953. El dialect aragones. Madrid: Gredos.

—— 1973. Estudios sobre el dialecto aragones. I. Zaragoza: Institucion “Fernando el

Catolico”.

Alvarez, Guzman. 1985. El habla de Babia y Laciana. [Repr. of 1947 thesis]. Leon: Ediciones

Leonesas.

Alvarez Nazario, Manuel. 1991. Historia de la lengua espaola en Puerto Rico. Mayaguez,

Puerto Rico: Academia Puertorriquea de la Lengua Espaola.

Aly-Belfadel, Arturo. 1933. Grammatica piemontese. Noale: L. Guin.

Andersen, Henning. 1972. “Diphthongization”. Language 48: 11–50.

Andersen, Henning. (ed.). 1986. Sandhi Phenomena in the Languages of Europe. Berlin, New

York, and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.

Andersen, Henning. 1989. “Understanding linguistic innovations”. In L. E. Breivik and

E. H. Jahr (eds.). Language Change. Contributions to the Study of its Causes. Berlin and

New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Andersen, Henning. (ed.). 2001. Actualization. Linguistic Change in Progress. Amsterdam

and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Anderson, James, M. 1988. Ancient Languages of the Hispanic Peninsula. Lanham:

University Press of America.

Arquint, Jachen C. 1964. Vierv ladin. 2nd edn. Chur: Stamparia Bundner Tagblatt.

Arvinte, Vasiliu. 1980. Die Rumanen. Ursprung, Volks- und Landesnam. Tubingen: Narr.

Ascoli, Graziadio I. 1878. “Varia”. AGI 3: 442–71.

Aub-Buscher, Gertrude. 1962. Le parler de Ranrupt (Bas-Rhin). Paris: Klincksieck.

Audollent, A. 1904. Defixionum tabellae. Paris: Fontemoing. [repr. Frankfurt: Minerva,

1967].

Auger, Julie. 2001. “Phonological variation and Optimality Theory: evidence from word-

initial epenthesis in Vimeu Picard”. Language Variation and Change 13: 253–303.

Avram, Andrei. 1990. Nazalitatea si rotacismul ın limba romana. Bucharest: Editura

Academiei Romane.

Bibliography 253

Azra, J.-L. and Cheneau, V. 1994. “Jeux de langage et theorie phonologique. Verlan et

structure syllabique du francais”. JFLS 4: 147–70.

Bach, Adolf. 1965. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. 8th edn. Heidelberg: Quelle & Mayer.

Badia I Margarit, Antonio. 1950. El habla del Valle de Bielsa. Barcelona: Instituto de

Estudios Pirenaicos.

—— 1981. Gramatica historica catalana. Barcelona: Biblioteca d’Estudis i Investigacions.

Baehrens, W. A. 1922. Sprachlicher Kommentar zur vulgarlateinischen Appendix Probi. Halle:

Niemeyer.

Bagemihl, Bruce. 1991. “Syllable structure in Bella Coola”. LI 22: 589–646.

Bagli, Giuseppe Gaspare (ed.). 1887. “Pulon Matt. Frammento inedito di poema in dialetto

cesenate”. Documenti e Studi pubblicati per cura della Reale Deputazione di Storia Patria.

Vol. 2. Bologna: Regia Tipografia, 229–334.

Baldinger, Kurt. 1972. La formacion de los dominios linguısticos en la Penınsula Iberica. 2nd

edn. Madrid: Gredos.

Banniard, Michel. 1992. Viva voce: communication ecrite et communication orale du IVe au

IXe siecle en Occident latin. Paris: Institut d’etudes augustiniennes.

Barbina, Alfredo (ed.). 1969. Concordanze del “Decameron”. 2 vols. Florence: Giunti.

Barbosa, Jorge Morais. [1965] 1983. Etudes de phonologie portugaise. 2nd edn. Evora:

Universidade de Evora.

—— 1994. “Portugiesisch: Phonetik und Phonemik / Fonetica e fonologia”. LRL VI, 2:

130–42.

Bartoli Langeli, Attilio. 1989. Storia dell’alfabetismo come storia degli scriventi: gli usi della

scrittura in Italia tra Medioevo ed eta moderna. Florence: Universita di Firenze.

—— 2000. La scrittura dell’italiano. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Bartoli, Matteo. 1906. Das Dalmatische. Altromanische Sprachreste von Veglia bis Ragusa

und ihre Stellung in der apennino-balkanischen Romania. 2 vols. Vienna: Holder. [Ital.

version. Aldo Duro (ed.). 2000. Il dalmatico. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.]

Bassols de Climent, Sebastian. 1981. Fonetica latina. 5th impr. Madrid: CSIC.

Bauche, Henri. [1920] 1946. Le langage populaire. 4th edn. Paris: Payot.

Bayot, Alphonse. 1929. Le poeme moral. Brussels-Liege: Palais des Academies & Vaillant-

Carmanne.

Bearesi, Luigi. 1982. Piccolo dizionario del dialetto piacentino. Piacenza: Berti.

Bec, Pierre. 1968. Les interferences linguistiques entre gascon et languedocien dans les parlers

du Comminges et du Couserans. Paris: PUF.

Bembo, Pietro. [1525]. In Carlo Dionisotti (ed.). 1989. Prose della volgar lingua. Gli Asolani.

Rime. Milan: TEA.

Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 1999. ‘La sillabazione dei nessi /sC/ in italiano: un’eccezione alla

tendenza “universale”?’. In P. Beninca and A. Mioni (eds). Fonologia e morfologia

dell’italiano e dei dialetti d’Italia. Rome: Bulzoni, 71–96.

Bertoni, Giulio. 1905. Il dialetto di Modena. Turin: Loeschler.

—— 1908–11. “Banchieri a Imola nel sec. XIII (1260)”. Studi Medievali 3: 683–9.

—— 1925. Profilo del dialetto di Modena. Geneva: L. Olschki.

254 Bibliography

Bezzola, Reto and Tonjachen, Rudolf. 1976. Dicziunari tudais-ch–rumantsch ladin. 2nd edn.

Chur: Lia Rumantscha.

Bianchini, A. (ed.). 1987. Tempo di affetti e di mercanti. Lettere ai figli esuli. Alessandra

Macinghi Strozzi. Milan: Garzanti.

Biasci, Gianluca. 1998. L’evoluzione del dialetto pisano in un carteggio mercantile del XV

secolo. Pescara: Libreria dell’Universita Editrice.

Biville, F. 1994. “Existait-il une diphtongue ui en latin?”. In J. Herman (ed.). Linguistic

Studies on Latin. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3–18.

Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo. 1984. Grammatica storica del Catalano e dei suoi dialetti con speciale

riguardo all’Algherese. Tubingen: Narr.

—— 1995. “Sardisch / Il sardo”. LRL II, 2: 239–71.

Blevins, Juliette. 1995. “The syllable in phonological theory”. In J. A. Goldsmith (ed.). The

Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 206–44.

—— 2008. “Consonant epenthesis: natural and unnatural histories”. In J. Good (ed.).

Linguistic Universals and Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 79–107.

—— and Garrett, Andrew. 1998. “The origins of consonant-vowel metathesis”. Language

74: 508–66.

—— —— 2004. “The evolution of metathesis”. In B. Hayes, R. Kirchner, and D. Steriade

(eds). Phonetically-Based Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 117–56.

Bloomfield, Leonard. [1933] 1935. Language. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Bohne, Rudolf. 2003. Il dialetto del Sarrabus (Sardegna sud-orientale). Sestu (Cagliari):

Zonza.

Bolognesi, Roberto. 1998. The Phonology of Campidanian Sardinian. AUnitary Account of a

Self-Organizing System. HIL dissertations 38. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.

Bonazzi, Giuliano. [1900] 1979. Il Condaghe di San Pietro di Silki. Rev. edn by I. Delogu.

Sassari: Dessi.

Bonelli, Giuseppe & Contini, Gianfranco. 1935. “Antichi testi bresciani”. Italia Dialettale 11:

115–151.

Bonfante, Giuliano. 1955. “Il siciliano e il sardo” Bollettino del Centro di Studi Filologici

e Linguistici Siciliani 3: 195–222.

Bonnet, Max. 1890. Le latin de Gregoire de Tours. Paris: Hachette.

Borner, Wolfgang. 1976. Schriftstruktur und Lautstruktur. Studien zur altgalizischen Skripta.

ZrPh Beiheft 155. Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Bottiglioni, Gino. 1920. “Saggio di fonetica sarda”. Studi Romanzi 15: 13–114.

Bourciez, Edouard. 1936. “Le domaine gascon”. RLiR 12: 1–9.

—— 1956. Elements de linguistique romane. 4th edn. Paris: Klincksieck.

Boutier, Marie-Guy. 1995. “Franzosische Skriptaformen I. Wallonie / Les scriptae francaises

I. Wallonie”. LRL II, 2: 290–300.

Brero, Camillo. 1971. Gramatica piemonteisa. 2nd edn. Turin: Ij Brande.

Broselow, Ellen. 1991. “The structure of fricative-stop onsets”. Unpublished manuscript.

Brun, Auguste. 1931. Le francais de Marseille: etude de parler regional. Marseille: Institut

historique de Provence.

Bibliography 255

Bruneau, Charles. 1913a. Etude phonetique des patois d’Ardenne. Paris: Champion.

—— 1913b. La limite des dialectes wallon, champenois et lorrain en Ardenne. Paris:

Champion.

—— 1914–26. Enquete linguistique sur les patois d’Ardenne. 2 vols. Paris: Champion.

Brunel, Clovis. 1926. Les plus anciennes chartes en langue provencale. Paris: Champion.

—— 1952. Supplement. Paris: A. et J. Picard.

Brunot, Ferdinand. 1966. Histoire de la langue francaise. I. (New edn by G. Antoine). Paris:

Armand Colin.

Buck, Carl D. 1904. A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian. Boston: Ginn.

Buridant, Claude. 2000. Grammaire de l’ancien francais. Paris: Nathan.

Cabre i Monne, Teresa. 1993. “Interferencia, ortografia i gramatica”. In R. Alemany,

A. Ferrando, and L.B. Meseguer (eds). Actes del Nove Col.loqui Internacional de

Llengua i Literatura Catalanes. Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat,

vol. 3, 97–109.

Caduff, Leonard. 1952. Essai sur la phonetique du parler rhetoroman de la Vallee de Tavetsch.

Berne: Francke.

Cagliaritano, Ubaldo. 1975. Vocabolario senese. Florence: Barbera.

Calderini, Aristide. 1951a. “La corrispondenza greco-latina del soldato Claudio Tiberiano

e altre lettere del II sec. d. Cr. nel recente vol. VIII dei papiri del Michigan”. Rendiconti del

Istituto Lombardo, Classe di Lettere e Scienze Morali e Storiche. 84: 155–66.

Calderini, Rita. 1951b. “Osservazioni sul latino del P. Mich. VIII, 467–472”. Rendiconti del

Istituto Lombardo, Classe di Lettere e Scienze Morali e Storiche. 84: 250–62.

Camilli, Amerindo. 1929. “Il dialetto di Servigliano”. AR 13: 220–71.

Campus, G. 1901. Fonetica des dialetto logudorese. Turin: Bosa.

Cano, Rafael (ed.). 2004. Historia de la lengua espaola. Barcelona: Ariel.

Capidan, Theodor. 1932. Aromanii, dialectul aroman. Studiu lingvistic. Bucharest:

Imprimeria Nationala.

Caragiu Marioteanu, Matilda. 1975. Compendiu de dialectologie romana (nord si sud-

dunareana). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania.

——, Giosu, Stefan, Ionescu-Ruxandoiu, Liliana, and Todoran, Romulus. 1977.

Dialectologie romana. Bucharest: Ed. didacticasi pedagogica.

Carlton, Charles M. 1973. A Linguistic Analysis of a Collection of Late Latin Documents

composed in Ravenna between A.D. 445–700. The Hague: Mouton.

Carnoy, Albert. [1906] 1983. Le latin d’Espagne d’apres les inscriptions. Repr. Hildesheim,

Zurich, and New York: Olms.

Carreira, M. M. 1996. “Spanish clusters: coronals, /s/ and syllable structure conditions”. In

C. Parodi, C. Quicoli, M. Saltarelli, and M.L. Zubizarreta (eds). Aspects of Romance

Linguistics. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 123–34.

Carter, Henry H. 1941. Cancioneiro da Ajuda. A Diplomatic Edition. New York and Oxford:

Modern Language Association of America and Oxford University Press.

Castellani, Arrigo. 1952. Nuovi testi fiorentini del dugento. 2 vols. Florence: Sansoni.

—— 1976. I piu antichi testi italiani. Edizione e commento. 2nd edn. Bologna: Patron.

256 Bibliography

—— 1980. Saggi di linguistica e filologia italiana e romanza (1946–1976). 3 vols. Rome:

Salerno Editrice.

Cecchi, Elena (ed.) 1990. Le lettere di Francesco Datini alla moglie Margherita (1385–1410).

Biblioteca dell’Archivio storico pratese, 14. Prato: Societa Pratese di Storia Patria.

Cerquiglini, Bernard. 1991. La naissance du francais. Paris: PUF.

Chambon, Jean-Pierre and Greub, Yan. 2002. “Note sur l’age du (proto)gascon”. RLiR 66:

473–95.

Chaurand, Jacques. 1983. “Pour l’histoire du mot “francien””. In (no ed.) Melanges di

dialectologie d’oıl a la memoire R. Loriot. Fontaines les Dijon: Association

Bourguignonne de Dialectologie et d’Onomastique, 91–9.

Cherubini, Francesco. [1827] 1992. Vocabolario mantovano-italiano. Milan: Bianchi e Co.

Repr. Imola: Forni.

Christ, Karl. 1984. The Romans. London: Chatto & Windus.

Cierbide Martinena, Ricardo. 1988. Estudio linguıstico de la documentacion medieval en

lengua occitana de Navarra. Bilbao: Universidad del Paıs Vasco.

Claverıa Nadal, Gloria. 1991. El latinismo en espaol. Barcelona: Departament de Filologia

Espanyola, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.

Clements, George N. 1990. “The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification”. In

J. Kingston and M. E. Beckman (eds). Papers in Laboratory Phonology I.. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 283–333.

Clements, George and Hume, Elizabeth (1995). “The internal organization of speech

sounds”. In J. Goldsmith (ed.). The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford:

Blackwell, 245–306.

Clivio, Gianrenzo P. 1971. “Vocalic prosthesis, schwa-deletion and morphophonemics in

Piedmontese”. ZrPh 87: 334–44.

—— 2002. “Il Piemonte”. In Cortelazzo et al., 151–95.

—— and Danesi, Marcello. 1974. Concordanza linguistica dei “Sermoni subalpini”. Turin:

Centro Studi Piemontesi.

Cochet, E. 1933. Le patois de Gondecourt (Nord). Grammaire et lexique. Paris: Droz.

Coco, Francesco. 1970. Il dialetto di Bologna. Fonetica storica e analisi strutturale. Forni:

Bologna.

Cohen, G. 1949. Recueil de farces francaises inedites du XVe siecle. Cambridge, MA: Medieval

Academy of America.

Collinge, N. E. 1970. “Computation and Latin consonants”. In N. E. Collinge, Collectanea

Linguistica. Essays in general and genetic linguistics. The Hague–Paris: Mouton, 192–218.

Collingwood, R. G. and Wright, R. P. 1965. The Roman Inscriptions of Britain. 1. Inscriptions

on Stone. Oxford: Clarendon.

Contini, Gianfranco. 1941. Le opere volgari di Bonvesin da la Riva. I. Testi. Rome: Societa

Filologica Romana.

Contini, Michel. 1987. Etude de geographie phonetique et de phonetique instrumentale du

sarde. 2 vols. Turin: Edizioni dell’Orso.

Bibliography 257

Corda, Francesco. 1994. Grammatica moderna del sardo logudorese. Cagliari: Edizioni Dalla

Torre.

Cornagliotti, Anna. 1995. “Sprache der Waldenser / Il valdese”. LRL II, 2: 467–73.

Corneille, Thomas. 1687. Remarques sur la langue francoise de Monsieur de Vaugelas. 2nd

edn. 2 vols. Paris: Girard.

Coromines, Joan. 1990. El parler de la Vall d’Aran. Barcelona: Curial Ed. Catalanes.

Cornu, Jules. 1892. “Etudes de grammaire portugaise. II. L’a prothetique devant rr- en

portugais, en espagnol et en catalan”. Romania 11: 75–9.

Correa Rodrıguez, Jose Antonio. 2004. “Elementos no indoeuropeos e indoeuropeos en

la historia linguıstica hispanica”. In Cano (ed.), 36–57.

Cortelazzo, Manlio, Marcato, Carla, De Blasi, Nicola, and Clivio, Gianrenzo P. (eds). 2002.

I dialetti italiani. Storia, struttura, uso. Turin: UTET.

Cote, Marie-Helene. 2000. “Consonant cluster phonotactics: a perceptual approach.

Unpub. doctoral dissertation, MIT [# ROA 548].

Coteanu, Ion. 1981. Structura si evolutia limbii romane. Bucharest: Editura Academiei.

Cotgrave, R. 1611. A Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues. London: Islip. [Facsimile

University of South Carolina Press, 1950].

Coulmas, Florian. 1989. The Writing Systems of the World. Oxford: Blackwell.

Coupier, J. 1995. Dictionnaire Francais-Provencal. Diciounari Frances-Prouvencau. Aix-en-

Provence: Diffusion Edisud.

Coustenoble, Helene N. 1945. La phonetique du provencal moderne en terre d’Arles.

Hertford: S. Austin & Sons.

Covarrubias, Sebastian. 1611. Tesoro de la lengua castellana o espaola. Madrid: Sanchez.

[Facsimile Barcelona: Horta, 1943].

Cravens, Thomas D. 2002. Comparative Historical Dialectology. Italo-Romance Clues to

Ibero-Romance Sound Change. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Cull, Naomi. 1995. “Reconstruction of the Proto-Romance syllable”. Dans H. Andersen

(dir.). Historical Linguistics 1993. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 117–32.

Curchin, Leonard A. 1991. Roman Spain: Conquest and Assimilation. London: Routledge.

Cyran, Eugeniusz and Gussmann, Edmund. 1999. “Consonant clusters and governing

relations: Polish initial consonant sequences”. In Hulst and Ritter (eds.), 219–47.

Dalbera, Jean-Philippe. 1994. Les parlers des Alpes-Maritimes: etude comparative: essai de

reconstruction. London: AIEO.

Dalbera-Stefanaggi, Maria-Jose. 1978. Langue corse. Une approche linguistique. Paris:

Klincksieck.

—— 1991. Unite et diversite des parlers corses. Alessandria: Ed. dell’Orso.

D’Ambra, Raffaele. 1873. Vocabolario napolitano-toscano domestico di arti e mestieri. Naples:

publ. by author. [Facsimile 1996. Imola: Arnaldo Forni Editore].

Danesi, Marcel. 1976. La lingua dei “Sermoni subalpini”. Turin: Centro Studi Piemontesi.

D’Aronco, Gianfranco. 1960. Nuova antologia della letteratua friulana. Udine-Tolmezzo:

Aquileia.

258 Bibliography

Davau, Maurice. 1979. Le vieux parler tourangeau: sa phonetique, ses mots et locutions, sa

grammaire. Chambray-les-Tours: Ed. C.L.D.

Davis, Stuart. 1988. “Syllable onsets as a factor in stress rules”. Phonology 5: 1–19.

—— 1990. “The onset as a constituent of the syllable”. CLS 26: 71–81.

—— 1999. “On the representation of initial geminates”. Phonology 16: 93–104.

De Blasi, Nicola. 1986. Libro de la destructione de Troya. Rome: Bonacci.

De Giovanni, Marcello. 2003. Molise. Pisa: Pacini.

De Gregorio, Giacomo. [1890] 1993. Saggio di fonetica siciliana. Repr. S. Cristina Gela

(Palermo): Librarie Siciliane.

De Mauro, Tullio. [1963, 21970] 1993. Storia linguistica dell’Italia unita. Rome-Bari: Laterza.

Debrie, Rene. 1987. Lexique picard des parlers du Vermandois. Amiens: Universite de

Picardie.

Decurtins, Caspar (ed.). [1900] 1983–6. Ratoromanische Chrestomathie. 15 vols. Erlangen:

Fr. Junge. Repr. Chur: Octopus Verlag.

Deferrari, Harry A. 1954. The Phonology of Italian, Spanish, and French. Washington, DC:

Roy J. Deferrari.

Degli Innocenti, Mario (ed.). 1984. L’“Elucidario”. Volgarizzamento in antico milanese

dell’“Elucidarium” di Onorio Augustodunense. Padua: Antenore.

Dell, Francois. 1980. Generative Phonology and French Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. [revised trans. of Les regles et les sons. 1973. Paris: Hermann]

Deloffre, Frederic. [1961] 1999. Agreables conferences de deux paysans de Saint-Ouen et de

Montmerency sur les affaires du temps (1649–1651). Repr. with additions. Geneva:

Slatkine.

Densusianu, Ovid. [1901–38] 1975. Histoire de la langue roumaine. 2 vols. [Original edition,

Paris: Welter]. Bucharest: Editura Minerva.

Desgranges, J.-C.-L.-P. 1821. Petit dictionnaire du peuple a l’usage des quatre cinquiemes de la

France. Paris: Chaumerot Jeune.

Dessau, H. 1892–1914. Inscriptiones latinae selectae. 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann.

Deutschmann, Otto. 1971. Lateinisch und Romanisch. Munich: Hueber.

Diehl, E. 1924–31. Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres. 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann.

Diez, Friedrich. [1836–43] 1856/58/60. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. 2nd edn.

3 vols. Bonn: Weber.

Dinguirard, J.-C. 1979. “Observations sur le gascon des plus anciennes chartes”. Annales de

la Faculte des Lettres de Toulouse-Le Mirail 15: 9–46.

Doussinet, Raymond. 1971. Grammaire saintongeaise. La Rochelle: Rupella.

Dressler, Wolfgang. 1965. “i-Prosthese vor s-impurum in Kleinasien (und in Vulgarlatein)”.

Balkanso Ezikoznanie 9: 93–100.

Dubois, Jacques. [= Iacopus Sylvius]. 1531. In linguam gallicam isagge, vna cum eiusdem

Grammatica Latino-gallica, ex Hebræis, Græcis, & Latinis authoribus. Paris:

R. Stephanus. [Repr. Geneva: Slatkine, 1971].

Dubuis, Roger. 1996. Lexique des “Cent nouvelles nouvelles”. Paris: Klincksieck.

Bibliography 259

Ducibella, Joseph W. 1934. The Phonology of the Sicilian Dialects. Washington DC: Catholic

University of America.

Durand, Jacques. 1990. Generative and Non-linear Phonology. London: Longman.

Durand, Marguerite. 1945. “Quelques observations sur un exemple de parisien rural”.

Le Francais Moderne 13: 83–91.

Echenique Elizondo, Marıa Teresa. 2004. “La lengua vasca en la historia linguıstica

hispanica”. In Cano (ed.), 59–80.

Elwert, W. Theodor. 1972. Die Mundart des Fassa-Tals. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.

Erasmus, Desiderius. [1528]. In J. Kramer (ed.). Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami. De recta

Latini Graecique sermonis pronuntiatione dialogus. 1978. Meisenheim am Glan: Anton

Hain.

Ernout, Alfred. 1957. “Exsto et les composes latins en ex-”. In Alfred Ernout, Philologica.II.

Paris: Klincksieck, 198–207.

Ernst, Gerhard. 1985. Gesprochenes Franzosisch zu Beginn des 17. Jahrhunderts. ZrP Beih.

204. Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Espinosa, Aurelio M. 1925. “Syllabic consonants in New Mexican Spanish”. Language 1:

109–18.

Estienne, Henri. [1582] 1999. Hypomneses. Ed. J. Chomarat. Paris: Champion.

Everett, Nicholas. 2003. Literacy in Lombard Italy, c. 568–774. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Ewen, Colin J. 1982. “The internal structure of complex segments”. In Hulst and Smith

(eds), 27–67.

Falcone, Giuseppe. 1976. Calabria. Profilo dei dialetti italiani, 18. Pisa: Pacini.

Fermin, Maria H. J. 1954. Le vocabulaire de Bifrun dans sa trduction des quatre evangiles.

Amsterdam: L. J. Veen.

Fery, Caroline and Vijver, Ruben van de (eds). 2003. The Syllable in Optimality Theory.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fleischhacker, Heidi. 2001. “Cluster-dependent epenthesis asymmetries”. UCLA Working

Papers in Linguistics 7: 71–116.

Floricic, Franck. 2004. “A propos de certaines epentheses en sarde”. Cahiers de Grammaire

29: 59–87.

Flutre, Louis-Fernand. 1955. Le parler picard de Mesnil-Martinsart (Somme). Geneva: Droz.

—— 1977. Du moyen picard au picard moderne. Amiens: Musee de Picardie.

Fouche, Pierre. [1924] 1980a. Phonetique historique du roussillonnais. Toulouse: Privat.

Repr. Geneva: Slatkine.

—— [1924] 1980b. Morphologie historique du roussillonnais. Toulouse: Privat. Repr.

Geneva: Slatkine.

—— 1966. Phonetique historique du francais. III. Les consonnes. 2nd edn. Paris: Klincksieck.

—— 1969. Phonetique historique du francais. II. Les voyelles. 2nd edn. Paris: Klincksieck.

Fougeron, Cecile. 2001. “Articulatory properties of initial segments in several prosodic

constituents in French”. 29: 109–35.

260 Bibliography

Francard, Michel. 1980. Le parler de Tenneville. Introduction a l’etude linguistique des parlers

wallo-lorrains. Louvain-la-Neuve: Cabay.

—— 1981. “Voyelles instables en wallon: propositions pour une approche globale”. Cahiers

de l’Institut de Linguistique de l’Universite de Louvain 7: 169–200.

Francois, Denise. 1974. Francais parle. 2 vols. Paris: SELAF.

Frati, Lodovico. 1900. La vita privata di Bologna dal secolo XIII al XVII. Bologna: Zanichelli.

Fudge, Erik. 1969. “Syllables”. JL 5: 253–86.

Gaeng, Paul. 1968. An Inquiry into Local Variations in Vulgar Latin as reflected in the

Vocalism of Christian Inscriptions. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Gaeta, Franco (ed.). 1981. Machiavelli. Lettere. Milann: Feltrinelli.

Galmes de Fuentes, Alvaro. 1962. Las sibilantes en la Romania. Madrid: Gredos.

—— 1983. Dialectologıa mozarabe. Madrid: Gredos.

Galmes, Salvador (ed.). 1935. Ramon Llull. Libre de Evast e Blanquerna. Vol. 1. Barcelona:

Barcino.

Garcıa Arias, Xose Lluis. 1988. Contribucion a la gramatica historica de la lengua asturiana y

a la caracterizacion etimologica de su lexico. Oviedo: Biblioteca de Filoloxıa Asturiana.

Garcıa Rey, Verardo. 1934. Vocabulario del bierzo. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Historicos.

Garcıa Turza, Claudio and Garcıa Turza, Javier. 1998. “Los glosarios hispanicos: el

manuscrito 46 de la Real Academia de la Historia”. In Actas del IV Congreso

Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Espaola, vol. II: 939–60.

Gartner, Theodor. 1883. Raetoromanische Grammatik. Heilbronn: Gebr. Henninger.

—— 1892. “Die Mundart von Erto”. ZrP 16: 183–209, 308–71.

—— 1912. Das Neue Testament des Jakob Bifrun. Gesellschaft fur romanische Literatur 32,

2. Dresden: Niemeyer.

Gasca Queirazza, Giuliano. 1995. “Piemont, Lombardei, Emilia-Romagna / Piemonte,

Lombardia, Emilia e Romagna”. LRL II, 2: 98–111.

Gaspari, Gianluigi and Tirondola, Giovanna. 1976. “Analisi dell’area vocalica nel linguaggio

infantile dai due a quattro anni”. In R. Simone, U. Vignuzzi, and G. Ruggiero (eds).

Studi di fonetica e fonologia. Rome: Bulzoni, 117–28.

Gaudenzi, Augusto. 1889. I suoni, le forme e le parole dell’odierno dialetto della citta di

Bologna. Turin: Loescher.

Gavel, Henri. 1920. Elements de phonetique basque. Paris-Biarritz: Champion.

—— 1936. “Remarques sur les substrats iberiques, reels ou supposes, dans la phonetique

du gascon et de l’espagnol”. RLiR 12: 36–43.

Ghetie, Ion. 1974. Inceputurile scrisului ın limba romana. Bucharest: Editura Academiei

Republicii Socialiste Romania.

Giammarco, Ernesto. 1968–79. Dizionario abruzzese e molisano. 4 vols. Rome: Edizioni

dell’Ateneo.

Giannelli, Luciano. 2000. Toscana. Profilio dei dialetti italiani 9. Pisa: Pacini.

Giese, W. 1965. “Urrumanisches anlautendes r- im Aromunischen”. In (no ed.) Omagui lui

Alexandru Rosetti la 60 de ani. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste

Romania, 299–301.

Bibliography 261

Gil, Juan. 2004. “El latın tardıo y medieval (siglos VI–XIII)”. In Rafael Cano (ed.). Historia

de la lengua espaola. Barcelona: Ariel, 149–82.

Glatigny, M. 1989. “Norme et usage dans le francais du XVIe siecle”. In P. Swiggers and

W. van Hoecke (dir.). La langue francaise au XVIe siecle: usage, enseignement et approches

descriptives. Louvain: Leuven University Press–Peeters, 7–31.

Glessgen, Martin-Dietrich. 1989. Lo Thesaur del hospital de Sant Sperit. Edition eines

Marseiller Urkundeninventars (1399–1511). ZrPh Beiheft 226. Tubingen: Niemeyer.

—— 1995. “Okzitanische Skriptaformen III. Provence, Dauphinois / Les scriptae occitanes

III. Provence, Dauphinois”. LRL II, 2: 425–34.

Gokcen, Adnan M. 1996. I volgari di Bonvesin da la Riva. New York: Lang.

Goldsmith, John. 1990. Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology: An Introduction. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Gonzalez Palencia, Angel. 1926–30. Los mozarabes de Toledo en los siglos XII y XIII. 4 vols.

Madrid: Instituto de Valencia de Don Juan.

Gorra, Egidio. 1890. “Fonetica del dialetto di Piacenza”. ZrP 14: 133–58.

—— 1892. “Il dialetto di Parma”. ZrP 16: 372–9.

Gossen, Carl T. 1970. Grammaire de l’ancien picard. Paris: Klincksieck.

Goudeket, Maurice (ed.). 1964. Lettres de la Princesse Palatine de 1672 a 1722. Paris: Editions

Le Club du Livre.

Gouskova, Maria. 2001. “Falling sonority onsets, loanwords, and syllable contact”. CLS

37: 175–85.

Grafstrom, Ake. 1958. Etude sur la graphie des plus anciennes chartes languedociennes avec un

essai d’interpretation phonetique. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.

Grammont, Maurice. 1894. “La loi des trois consonnes”. MSLP 8: 53–90.

Granda, German de. 1966. La estructura silabica y su influencia en la evolucion fonetica del

dominio ibero-romanico. Madrid: CSIC.

Grandgent, Charles H. 1907. An Introduction to Vulgar Latin. Boston-London: Heath.

[1963. Introduccion al latın vulgar. Tr. F. B. de Moll. 3rd edn. Madrid: CSIC.]

Gratwick, Adrian. 1967. “Ipsithilla: a vulgar name. Catullus, XXXII, 1”. Glotta 44: 174–6.

Green, Antony D. 2003. “Extrasyllabic consonants and onset well-formedness”. In Fery and

Vijver, 238–53.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. “Some generalizations concerning initial and final consonant

clusters”. In J. H. Greenberg (ed.).Universals of Human Language 2. Phonology. Stanford:

Stanford University Press, 243–79.

Gregory, Stewart. 1981. “Le dialecte wallon avant 1165”. TraLiLi 19: 7–51.

—— 1982. “Quelques attestations de mots wallons au 12e siecle”. RLiR 45: 271–322.

—— 1990. The Twelfth-Century Psalter Commentary for Laurette d’Alsace (an Edition of

Psalms I-L). 2 vols. London: Modern Humanities Research Association.

—— 1994. La traduction en prose francaise du 12e siecle des Sermones in Cantica de saint

Bernard. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Grignani, Maria Antonietta. 1980. “Testi volgari cremonesi del XV secolo”. SFI 38: 55–70.

262 Bibliography

Grisch, Mena. 1939. Die Mundart von Surmeir (Ober- und Unterhalbstein). Paris, Zurich,

and Leipzig: Droz-Niehans.

Grober, Gustav. 1878. “Gli, egli, ogni”. ZrPh 2: 594–600.

Guarnerio, Pier Enea. 1906. “L’antico campidanese dei sec. XI-XIII secondo “le antiche

carte volgari dell’Archivio arcivescovile di Cagliari””. Studi Romanzi 4: 189–259.

—— 1918. Fonologia romanza. [repr. 1978]. Milan: Hoepli.

Guiraud, Pierre. 1978. Le francais populaire. 4th edn. Paris: PUF.

Hadlich, Roger L. 1965. The Phonological History of Vegliote. Chapel Hill: University of

North Carolina Press.

Haiman, John and Beninca, Paola. 1992. The Rhaeto-Romance Languages. London:

Routledge.

Hajek, John and Goedemans, RobW. N. 2003. “Word-initial geminates and stress in Patani

Malay”. The Linguistic Review 20: 79–94.

Hall, Robert A. 1964. “Initial consonants and syntactic doubling in West Romance”.

Language 40: 551–6.

Hall, T. A. 1997. The Phonology of Coronals. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Ham, William. 2001. Phonetic and Phonological Aspects of Geminate Timing. New York and

London: Routledge.

Hammarstrom, Goran. 1953. Etude de phonetique auditive sur les parlers de l’Algarve.

Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.

Hammond, Robert M. 2000. “The phonetic realizations of /rr/ in Spanish—a

psychoacoustic analysis”. In H. Campos et al. (eds). Hispanic Linguistics at the Turn of

the Millennium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 80–100.

Harris, James W. 1983. Syllable Structure and Stress in Spanish. A Nonlinear Analysis.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Harris, Roy. 2000. Rethinking Writing. London: Athlone.

Harris, William V. 1989. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hartman, Stephen L. 1986. “Learned word, popular words, and “first offenders””. In

O. Jaeggli and C. Silva-Corvalan (eds). Studies in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht:

Foris, 87–98.

Haugen, Einar. [1966] 1972. “Dialect, language, nation”. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds).

Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 97–111.

Haust, Jean. 1933. Dictionnaire liegeois. Liege: Vaillant-Carmanne, Imprimerie de

l’Academie.

Helfenstein, Ruth, Keller, Deborah, and Kristol, Andres. 1993. “Bethmale: la fin d’une

tradition”. In Wuest and Kristol, 83–108.

Herculano de Carvalho, Jose. 1958. Fonologia mirandesa. I. Coimbra: s.n.

Herman, Jozsef. 1990. Du latin aux langues romanes. Etudes de linguistique historique.

Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Herzog, Eugen. 1904. Streitfragen der romanischen Philologie. I. Die Lautgesetzfrage zur

franzosischen Lautgeschichte. Halle: Niemeyer.

Bibliography 263

Hesseling, D. C. and Pernot, H. 1919. “Erasme et les origines de la prononciation

erasmienne”. Revue des Etudes Grecques 32: 278–301.

Hill, Archibald A. 1954. “Juncture and syllable division in Latin”. Language 30: 439–47.

Hock, Hans Henrich. 1986. Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

—— and Joseph, Brian D. 1996. Language History, Language Change, and Language

Relationship. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1949. “A note on Latin prosody: initial s impure after short vowel”.

Transactions of the American Philological Association 80: 271–80.

—— 1964. “Graduality, sporadicity, and the minor sound change processes”. Phonetica 11:

202–15.

Holm, Catherine. 1992. “La structure syllabique dans l’histoire du francais”. In R. Lorenzo

(ed.). Actas do XIXCongreso Internacional de Linguıstica e Filoloxıa Romanicas. A Corua:

Fundacion “Pedro Barrie de la Maza, Conde de Fenosa”. Vol. 5, 171–82.

Holmes, Urban T. 1935. “French words with e for o in unaccented initial syllables”. Language

11: 231–7.

Holt, D. Eric (ed.). 2003. Optimality Theory and Language Change. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Holt, D. Eric. 2004. “Optimization of syllable contact in Old Spanish via the sporadic

sound change metathesis”. Probus 16: 43–61.

Hope, T. Edward. 1971. Lexical Borrowing in the Romance Languages. 2 vols. New York: New

York University Press.

Horning, Adolf. 1887. Die ostfranzosischen Grenzdialekte zwischen Metz und Belfort.

Franzosische Studien 5, no. 4. Heilbronn: Gebr. Henninger.

Huguet, E. 1925–67. Dictionnaire de la langue francaise du seizieme siecle. 7 vols. Paris:

Didier.

Hulst, Harry van der and Smith, N. (eds). 1982. The Structure of Phonological

Representations. II. Dordrecht: Foris.

—— and Ritter, Nancy (eds). 1999. The Syllable. Views and Facts. Berlin and New York:

Mouton de Gruyter.

Ive, A. 1886. “L’antico dialetto di Veglia”. AGI 9: 114–87.

Jackson, Kenneth. 1953. Language and History in Early Britain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.

Jaggli, Peter. 1959. Die Mundart von Sennori. Zurich: Juris-Verlag.

Jennings, Augustus C. 1940. A Linguistic Study of the Cartulario de San Vincente [sic] de

Oviedo. New York: Vanni.

Jespersen, Otto. 1904. Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner.

Joos, Martin. 1952. “The medieval sibilants”. Language 28: 222–31.

Jungemann, Fredrick H. 1956. La teorıa del sustrato y los dialectos hispano-romances

y gascones. Madrid: Gredos.

Kasten, Lloyd A. and Nitti, John J. (eds). 1978. Concordances and Texts of the Royal

Scriptorium Manuscripts of Alfonso X, El Sabio. Madison: Hispanic Seminary of

Medieval Studies.

264 Bibliography

—— 2002. Diccionario de la prosa castellana del Rey Alfonso X. 3 vols. New York: Hispanic

Seminary of Medieval Studies.

Kaye, Jonathan. 1992. “Do you believe in magic? The story of s+C sequences”. SOAS

Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 2: 292–313.

Keating, Patricia, Cho, Taehong, Fougeron, Cecile, and Hsu, Chai-Shune. 2003. “Domain-

initial articulatory strengthening in four languages”. In John Local, Richard Ogden,

and Rosalind Temple (eds). Phonetic interpretation. Papers in Laboratory Phonology 6.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 145–63.

Keller, Emil. 1934. Die Reimpredigt des Pietro da Barsegape. 2nd edn. Frauenfeld: Huber.

Kelly, Reine Cardaillac. 1973. A Descriptive Analysis of Gascon. The Hague: Mouton.

Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

—— 2003. “The role of perception in loanword phonology”. Studies in African Linguistics

32: 95–112.

Kent, Roland G. 1945. The Sounds of Latin: A Descriptive and Historical Phonology. 3rd edn.

Baltimore: Publications of the Linguistic Society of America.

Kerswill, Paul and Williams, Ann. 2002. ‘“Salience” as an explanatory factor in language

change: evidence from dialect levelling in urban England’. In Mari C. Jones and Edith

Esch (eds). Language Change: The Interplay of Internal, External, and Extra-Linguistic

Factors. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 81–110.

King, Robert D. 1969. Historical Linguistics and Generative Grammar. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. “How abstract is phonology?”. Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Repr. in P. Kiparsky. 1982. Explanation in Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris, 119–63.

Kiss, Sandor. 1971. Les transformations de la structure syllabique en latin tardif. Debrecen:

Kossuth Lajos Tudomanyegyetem.

—— 1992. “La portion initiale de la syllabe en preroman. Etude de phonologie

diachronique”. Actas do XIX Congreso Internacional de Linguıstica e Filoloxıa

Romanicas V, 71–8. Corua: Fundacion Barrie de la Maza. Conde de Fenosa.

Kitto, Catherine and De Lacy, Paul. [1999] 2006. “Correspondence and epenthetic quality”.

Proceedings of AFLA VI. Toronto: Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics [ROA #337],

181–200.

Klob, Otto. 1901. “A Vida de Sancto Amaro. Texte portugais du XIVe siecle”. Romania

30: 504–18.

Kohler, Klaus. 1967. “Modern English phonology”. Lingua 19: 145–76.

Kontzi, Reinhold (ed.). 1982. Substrate und Superstrate in den romanischen Sprachen.

Darmstadt : Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Kramer, Johannes. 1977. Historische Grammatik des Dolomitenladinischen. Gerbrunn bei

Wurzburg: A Lehmann.

Krotsch, Monique. 2004. “La formation de groupes de consonnes au debut des unites

phoniques en francais parle”. In T. Meisenburg and M. Selig (eds). Nouveaux departs en

phonologie. Tubingen: Gunter Narr, 217–33.

Kuen, Heinrich. 1995. “Ladinisch / Le ladin”. LRL II, 2: 61–8.

Bibliography 265

Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1966. “A problem of German alliteration”. In Mieczyslaw Brahmer,

Stanislaw Helsztynski, and Julian Krzyzanowski, (eds). Studies in Language and

Literature in Honour of Margaret Schlauch. Warsaw: PWN–Polish Scientific Publishers,

195–201.

Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.

—— 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change. II. Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ladefoged, P. and Maddieson, I. 1996. The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Blackwell:

Oxford.

Laeufer, Christiane. 1991. “Syllabification and resyllabification in French”. In D. Wanner

and D. A. Kibbee (eds). New Analyses in Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins,

19–36.

Lalanne, Ludovic. [1880] 1970. Lexique des œuvres de Brantome. Paris. Repr. Geneva:

Slatkine.

La Noue, Odet de. [1596] 1623. Dictionnaire des rimes francoises. Cologny: M. Berjon.

La Scala, Frank J. 1975. The Development of Prosthetic Vowels in Latin and the Romance

Languages. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. [Facsimile University

Microfilms International 1981].

Lass, Roger. 1980. On Explaining Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

—— 1984. Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lausberg, Heinrich. 1963. Romanische Sprachwissenschaft. I. Einleitung und Vokalismus. 2nd

edn. Berlin: De Gruyter.

—— 1967. Romanische Sprachwissenschaft. II. Konsonantismus. 2nd edn. Berlin: De

Gruyter.

Le Blant, Edmond M. 1892. Nouveau recueil des inscriptions chretiennes de la Gaule

anterieures au VIIIe siecle. Paris: Imprimerie nationale.

Leite de Vasconcellos, Jose. 1929a. “O dialecto mirandes”. In Opusculos. IV.2. Filologia.

Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 679–722.

—— 1929b. “Breve estudo dos falares de Riodonor e Guadramil”. In Opusculos. IV.2.

Filologia. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 741–90.

—— 1970. Esquisse d’une dialectologie portugaise. [Repr. of 1901 edn.]. Lisbon: Centro de

Estudos Filologicos.

Leonard, Clifford S. 1978. Umlaut in Romance. Grossen-Linden: Hoffman.

Leon, Pierre R. 1992. Phonetisme et prononciations du francais. Paris: Nathan.

Leumann, M. 1977. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. I. Munich: C. H. Beck’sche

Verlagsbuchhandlung. [Rev. edn of Leumann-Hofmann-Szantyr, Lateinische

Grammatik. I. 5th edn. 1926]

Lindau, Mona. 1985. “The story of /r/”. In V. A. Fromkin (ed.). Phonetic Linguistics. Essays

in Honor of Peter Ladefoged. Orlando: Academic Press, 157–68.

Lindley Cintra, M. L. F. 1963a. “Les anciens textes portugais non litteraires. Classement et

bibliographie”. RLiR 27: 40–58.

266 Bibliography

—— 1963b. “Observations sur l’orthographe et la langue de quelques textes non litteraires

galiciens-portugais de la seconde moitie du XIIIe siecle”. RLiR 27: 59–77.

Lindsay, W. M. 1894. The Latin Language. Oxford: Clarendon.

Linnell, Per. 2005. The Written Language Bias in Linguistics. London: Routledge.

Liver, Ricarda. 1982. Manuel pratique de romanche. Chur: Lia Rumantscha.

Lloyd, Paul M. 1971. “A Note on Latin Syllable Structure”. Classical Philology 64: 41–2.

Lodge, R. Anthony. 1993. French. From Dialect to Standard. London: Routledge.

—— 1996. “Stereotypes of vernacular pronunciation in 17th-18th century Paris” ZrP 112:

205–31.

—— 2004. A Sociolinguistic History of Parisian French. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Lofstedt, Bengt. 1961. Studien uber die Sprache der langobardischen Gesetze. Stockholm: Acta

Universitatis Uppsala.

Lombard, Alf. 1976. Le ı prosthetique du roumain. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Nova

Series 2:5. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 111–18.

Lombardi, Lisa. 2003. “Markedness and the typology of epenthetic vowels”. Unpublished

MS, University of Maryland. [ROA #578].

Longobardi, Monica. 1994. “Un frammento di ricettario del Trecento”. L’Archiginnasio 89:

249–78.

Loporcaro, Michele. 1988. Grammatica storica del dialetto di Altamura. Pisa: Giardini.

—— 1996. “On the analysis of geminates in Standard Italian and Italian dialects”. In

B. Hurch and R. A. Rhodes (eds). Natural Phonology: The State of the Art. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter, 153–87.

—— 1997a. L’origine del raddoppiamento fonosintattico: saggi di fonologia diacronica

romanza. Basle: Francke.

—— 1997b. “On vowel epenthesis in Alguer Catalan”. In P. M. Bertinetto (ed.). Certamen

Phonologicum III. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier, 205–27.

—— 1998. “Syllable structure and sonority sequencing. Evidence from Emilian”. In

A. Schwegler, B. Tranel, and M. Uribe-Etxebarria (eds). Romance Linguistics.

Theoretical Perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 155–70.

—— 1999. “On possible onsets”. In Rennison and Kuhnhammer (eds), 133–51.

—— 2005. “La sillabazione di muta cum liquida dal latino al romanzo”. In S. Kiss,

L. Mondin, and G. Salvi (eds). Latin et langues romanes. Tubingen: Niemeyer, 419–30.

Lorck, J. Etienne. 1893. Altbergamaskische Sprachdenkmaler (IX.-XV. Jahrhundert). Halle:

Niemeyer.

Lorenzo, Emilio. 1996. Anglicismos hispanicos. Madrid: Gredos.

Lorenzo Vazquez, Ramon. 2003. “El gallego en los documentos medievales escritos en

latın”. In H. Perdiguero Villareal (ed.). Lengua Romance en textos latinos de la Edad

Media. Burgos: Universidad de Burgos, 161–92.

Loriot, Robert. 1984. Les parlers de l’Oise. Dijon-Amiens: Association bourguignonne de

dialectologie et d’onomastique & Societe de linguistique picarde.

Bibliography 267

Lovera, L., Bettarini, R. and Mazzarello, A. (eds). 1975. Concordanza della Commedia di

Dante Alighieri. 3 vols. Milan: Einaudi.

Lowenstamm, Jean. 1981. “On the maximal cluster approach to syllable structure”.

Linguistic Inquiry 12: 575–603.

—— 1996. “Remarks on Mutae cum Liquida and branching onsets”. In J. Durand and

B. Laks (eds.). Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods. Salford: ESRI,

University of Salford, 419–43.

—— 1999. “The beginning of the word”. In Rennison and Kuhnhammer (eds), 153–66.

Lucas Alvarez, M. 1986. El tumbo de San Julian de Samos (siglos VIII–XII). Santiago de

Compostela: Caixa Galicia.

Luchaire, Achille. 1877. Les origines linguistiques de l’Aquitaine. Extrait du Bulletin de la

Societe des Sciences, Lettres et Arts de Pau. Pau.

—— 1879. Etudes sur les idiomes pyreneens de la region francaise. [Repr. 1973. Geneva:

Slatkine].

—— 1881. Recueil de textes de l’ancien dialecte gascon. Paris: Maisonneuve.

Ludtke, Helmut. 1957. “Sprachliche Beziehungen der apulischen Dialekte zum

Romanischen”. Revue des Etudes Roumaines 3–4: 130–46.

Lurati, Ottavio. 1988. “Lombardei und Tessin / Lombardia e Ticino”. LRL IV: 485–516.

—— 2002. “La Lombardia”. In Cortelazzo et al., 226–60.

Lutta, C. Martin. 1923. Der Dialekt von Bergun. ZrP Beih. 71. Halle: Niemeyer.

Lyche, Chantal. 1994. “Government phonology and s+C clusters in French”. In C. Lyche

(ed.). French Generative Phonology: Retrospective and Perspectives. University of Salford,

Salford: AFLS & ESRI, 259–75.

Machado, Jose Pedro. 1977. Dicionario etimologico da lıngua portuguesa. 5 vols. Lisbon:

Livros Horizonte.

McMahon, April M. S. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

—— 2003. “When history doesn’t repeat itself”. In Holt (ed.), 121–42.

Macinghi Strozzi, Alessandra. 1987. See Bianchini 1987.

Maffei Bellucci, Patrizia. 1977. Lunigiana. Profilo dei dialetti italiani 9,1. Pisa: Pacini.

Maia, Clarinda de Azevedo. 1975–8. “Os falares do Algarve”. RPF 17: 37–205.

—— 1977. Os falares fronetiricos do concelho de Sabugal e da vizinha regiao de Xalma

e Alamedilla. Coimbra: Instituto de Estudos Romanicos.

—— 1986. Historia do Galego-Portugues. Estudo linguıstico da Galiza e do Noroeste de

Portugal desde o seculo XIII ao seculo XVI. Coimbra: INIC.

Maiden, Martin. 1995. A Linguistic History of Italian. London: Longman.

Maiden, Martin and Parry, Mair (eds). 1997. The Dialects of Italy. London and New York:

Routledge.

Maiden, Martin and Robustelli, Cecilia. 2000. A Reference Grammar of Modern Italian.

London: Arnold.

Mainoldi, Pietro. 1967. Vocabolario del dialetto bolognese. Bologna: Forni.

268 Bibliography

Malagoli, Giuseppe. 1910–13. “Studi sui dialetti reggiani. Fonologia del dialetto di

Novellara”. AGI 17: 29–146, 147–97.

—— 1930. “Fonologia del dialetto di Lizzano in Belvedere (BO)”. ID 6: 125–96.

—— 1934. “Studi sui dialetti reggiani: fonologia del dialetto di Valestra”. ID 10: 63–110.

—— 1954. “Intorno ai dialetti dell’alta montagna reggiana”. ID 19: 111–42.

Malkiel, Yakov. 1975. “Conflicting prosodic inferences from Ascoli’s and Darmesteter’s

Laws ?”. RPh 28: 483–520.

Maneca, Constant. 1965. “Considerazioni sopra la protesi vocalica in italiano”. Revue

roumaine de linguistique 10: 499–507.

Maniet, Albert. 1975. La phonetique historique du latin. Paris: Klincksieck.

Maragliano, A. 1976. Dizionario dialettale vogherese. Bologna: Patron.

Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. 1995. L’evolution du francais. Paris: Armand Colin.

Marshall, M. M. 1984. The Dialect of Notre-Dame-de-Sanilhac. Saratoga, CA: ANMA Libri.

Marotta, Giovanna. 1999. “The Latin syllable”. In Hulst and Ritter, 285–310.

Marrese, Maria (ed.). 1996. Lettere. Marco Parenti. Florence: Olschki.

Martinet, Andre. 1952. “Celtic lenition and western Romance consonants”. Language 28:

192–217. [Cf. Martinet 1955 [1964]: 257–96].

—— [1955] 1964. Economie des changements phonetiques. Traite de phonologie diachronique.

2nd edn. Berne: Francke.

—— 1956. Description phonologique, avec application au parler franco-provencal

d’Hauteville (Savoie). Geneva: Droz.

—— 1969. “Qu’est-ce que le “e muet””. In id. Le francais sans fard. Paris: PUF, 209–19.

Mateus, Maria H. and d’Andrade, Ernesto. 2000. The Phonology of Portuguese. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Mayerthaler, Eva. 1982. Unbetonter Vokalismus und Silbenstruktur im Romanischen.

Tubingen: Niemeyer.

McCarthy, John J. (ed.). 2004. Optimality Theory in Phonology. A Reader. Oxford:

Blackwell.

McKenzie, Kenneth. 1912. Concordanza delle rime di Francesco Petrarca. Oxford and New

Haven: Oxford University Press and Yale University Press.

McMahon, April. 2000. Change, Chance, and Optimality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Meillet, Antoine. 1927. “De la prothese vocalique en grec et armenien”. BSLP 27: 129–35.

Melillo, A. M. 1977. Corsica. Profilo dei dialetti italiani 21. Pisa: Pacini.

Menendez Pidal, Ramon. 1964a. Orıgenes del espaol. 5th edn. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.

—— 1964b. Cantar de Mio Cid. 3 vols. 4th edn. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.

—— 1966. Manual de gramatica historica espaola. 12th edn. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.

Merci, Paolo. 1992. Il Condaghe di San Nicola di Trullas. Sassari: Delfino.

Merlo, Clemente. 1959. “Contributi alla conoscenza dei dialetti della Liguria odierna”.

In Clemente Merlo. Saggi linguistici. Pisa: Pacini-Mariotti, 127–60.

Meyer-Lubke, Wilhelm. 1890. Grammaire des langues romanes. I. Phonetique. Paris: Welter.

Bibliography 269

—— 1929. “Unterschicht und Oberschicht und der Lautwandel”. In Behrens-Festschrift.

Supplementheft der Zeitschrift fur franzosische Sprache und Litteratur 13. Jena-Leipzig:

Gronau, 16–36.

Michel, Franciscus. 1860. Libri Psalmorum. Versio Antiqua Gallica. Oxford: Clarendon.

Michel, Louis. 1948. “La vocalisation de l’S dans l’Aude”. RLaR 70: 29–38.

—— 1956. Etude du son “s” en latin et en roman. Montpellier: PUF.

Michelena, Luis. 1990. Fonetica historica vasca. [Repr. of 2nd edn. 1977]. San Sebastian:

Diputacion Foral de Gipuzkoa.

Migliorini, Bruno. 1984. The Italian Language. Rev. edn. London: Faber and Faber. [tr. and

recast by T. G. Griffith from Storia della lingua italiana. 2nd edn. 1960. Florence:

Sansoni].

Mignani, Rigo (ed.). 1979. El Conde Lucanor. Florence: Licosa Ed.

Mihaescu, Haralambie. 1978. La langue latine dans le sud-est de l’Europe. Bucharest and

Paris: Ed. Academiei-Les Belles Lettres.

Mihaila, Gheorghe. 1974. Dictionar al limbii romane vechi. Bucharest: Editura

enciclopedica romana.

Milanesi, Gaetano (ed.). 1875. Le lettere di Michelangelo Buonarroti. Florence: Le Monnier.

Millardet, Georges. 1909. “Le domaine gascon (jusqu’en 1907)”. Revue de Dialectologie

Romane 1: 122–56.

—— 1910. Etude de dialectologie landaise. Toulouse: Privat.

Molho, Maurice. 1961. “Les homelies d’Organya”. Bulletin Hispanique 63: 186–210.

Moll, Francisco B. de. 1952. Gramatica historica catalana. Madrid: Gredos.

Monfrin, Jacques. 2001. “Humanisme et traductions au Moyen-Age”. In Jacques Monfrin.

Etudes de philologie romane. Paris: Droz, 757–85.

Montreuil, Jean-Pierre. 1986. “Null segments in Romance”. In O. Jaeggli and C. Silva-

Corvalan (eds). Studies in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, 265–81.

—— 2000. “Sonority and derived clusters in Raeto-Romance and Gallo-Italic”. In

L. Repetti (ed.). Phonological Theory and the Dialects of Italy. Amsterdam and

Philadelphia: Benjamins, 211–37.

Morelli, Frida. 2003. “The relative harmony of /s+stop/ onsets: obstruent clusters and the

Sonority Sequencing Principle”. In Fery and Vijver, 356–71.

Morin, Yves Charles. 1979. “La morphophonologie des pronoms clitiques en francais

populaire”. Cahier de Linguistique 9: 1–36.

—— 2003a. “Remarks on prenominal liaison consonants in French”. In Ploch (ed.),

385–400.

—— 2003b. “Le statut linguistique du chva ornemental dans la poesie et la chanson

francaises”. In J.-L. Aroui (ed.). Le sens et la mesure: de la pragmatique a la metrique.

Hommage a Benoıt Cornulier. Paris: Champion, 459–98.

Morosi, G. 1888. “L’odierno linguaggio dei valdesi del Piemonte”. AGI 11: 309–415.

Mott, Brian. 1989. El habla de Gistaın. Huesca: Diputacion Provincial.

Munthe, Ake W. 1887. Anteckningar om folkmalet i en trakt af vestra Asturien. Uppsala:

Almqvist & Wiksell.

270 Bibliography

Mushacke, Wilhelm. 1884. Geschichtliche Entwicklung der Mundart von Montpellier

(Languedoc). Franzosische Studien 4, Schlussheft 5. Heilbronn: Gebr. Henninger.

Mussafia, Adolf. 1873. Beitrag zur Kunde der norditalienischen Mundarten im XV.

Jahrhunderte. Denkschriften der philosophisch-historischen Classe der kaiserlichen

Akademie der Wissenschaften, 22. Vienna: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften,

103–228.

Nandris, Octave. 1963. Phonetique historique du roumain. Paris: Klincksieck.

Nauton, Pierre. 1974. Geographie phonetique de la Haute-Loire. Paris: Belles Lettres.

Nebbia, Sergio. 2001. Dizionario Monferrino. Savigliano: Ed. Artistica Piemontese.

Nebrija, Antonio de. [1481] 1981. Introductiones Latinae. Ed. E. de Bustos. Salamanca:

Universidad de Salamanca.

—— [1492] 1946. Gramatica Castellana. Ed. Galindo Romeo and L. Ortiz Muoz. 2 vols

[critical edition and facsimile]. Madrid: Ed. de la Junta del Centenario.

—— [1517] 1957. Reglas de orthographia en la lengua castellana. Ed. A. de Quilis. Bogota:

Publicaciones del Instituto Caro y Cuervo.

Nespor, Marina and Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.

Niedermann, Max. 1954. Recueil Max Niedermann. Neuchatel: Faculte des Lettres,

Universite de Neuchatel.

Nieri, Idelfonso. 1902. Vocabolario lucchese. Memorie e documenti per servire alla storia di

Lucca, 15. Lucca: Tipografia Giusti.

Nigra, Costantino. [1901] 1973. “Il dialetto di Viverone”. In Miscellanea linguistica in onore

di Graziadio Ascoli. Turin. Repr. Geneva: Slatkine, 247–62.

Nisard, Charles. 1872. Etude sur le langage populaire en patois de Paris et de sa banlieue.

Paris: A. Franck.

Noske, Roland. 1982. “Syllabification and syllable changing rules in French”. In Hulst and

Smith (eds), 257–310.

Nyrop, Kristoffer. [1899] 1935. Grammaire historique de la langue francaise. 4th edn.

Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel.

Ohala, John J. 1990. “Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental

sequential constraints”. Chicago Linguistic Society 26, vol. 2: 319–38.

Omeltchenko, Stephen W. 1977. A Quantitative and Comparative Study of the Vocalism of

the Latin Inscriptions of North Africa, Britain, Dalmatia, and the Balkans. Chapel Hill:

University of North Carolina Press.

Orazi, Veronica. 1997. El dialecto leones antiguo. Madrid: Univ. Europea-CEES Ediciones.

Ott, Wilhelm. 1973–85. Metrische Analysen zu Vergil Aeneis. 12 vols. Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Palay, Simin. 1971. Dictionnaire du Bearnais et du Gascon modernes. Paris: CNRS.

Palsgrave, John. 1530. Lesclarcissement de la langue francoyse. In F. Genin (ed.). Documents

inedits sur l’histoire de France. Deuxieme serie. Histoire des lettres et des sciences. Paris:

Imprimerie nationale, 1852. [Facsimile and French translation and notes: Susan

Baddeley (ed.). 2003. L’eclaircissement de la langue francaise. Paris: Champion].

Paoli, Cesare and Piccolomini, Enea. 1871. Lettere volgari del secolo XIII scritte da Senesi.

Bologna: G. Romagnoli.

Bibliography 271

Papahagi, Tache. 1974. Dictionarul dialectului aroman. 2nd edn. Bucharest: Ed. Acad.

Republ. Soc. Romania.

Paradis, C. and Prunet, J.-F. (eds). 1991. Phonetics and Phonology. The Special Effect of

Coronals: Internal and External Evidence. San Diego: Academic Press.

Parenti, Marco. 1996. See Marrese 1996.

Pariente, Angel. 1968. “El problema de las formas stlocus, stlis, stlat(t)a y stlatarius”.

Emerita 36: 247–69.

Parry, Mair. 2005. Sociolinguistica e grammatica del dialetto di Cairo Montenotte. Savona:

Societa Savonese di Storia Patria.

Passy, Paul. 1891. “Patois de Sainte-Jamme (Seine-et-Oise)”. Revue des patois gallo-romans

4: 7–16.

Peer, Oscar. 1962. Dicziunari rumantsch ladin - tudais-ch. Samedan: Lia Rumantscha.

Pei, Mario A. 1932. The Language of the Eighth-Century Texts in Northern France. New York:

Carranza & Co.

Peixoto de Fonseca, F. V. 1978. “Prothese, epenthese et epithese en ancien portugais”. RLiR

42: 53–5.

Peletier, Jacques. 1550. Dialogue de l’ortografe e prononciation francoese. [Facsimile: Geneva:

Slatkine 1964]. Poitiers: Ian & Enguilbert de Marnef.

Penny, Ralph. 2002. A History of the Spanish Language. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Pensado, Carmen. 1985. “On the interpretation of the non-existent: nonoccurring syllable

types in Spanish phonology”. Folia Linguistica 19: 313–20.

—— 2006. “Existio alguna vez la “variacion del romance occidental””. RLiR 70: 5–19.

Petrocchi, Policarpo. 1966–7. La Divina Commedia. 2 vols. Societa Dantesca Italiana.

Milan: Mondadori.

Petrovici, Emil. 1930. De la nasalite en roumain. Recherches experimentales. Cluj: Institutul

de arte grafica “Ardealul”.

—— 1957. Kann das Phonemsystem einer Sprache durch fremden Einfluß umgestellt werden ?.

The Hague: Mouton.

Piccitto, Giorgio. 1977–2002. Vocabolario siciliano. 5 vols. Catania: Centro di Studi

Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani.

Pieri, Silvio. 1890–2. “Fonetica del dialetto lucchese”. AGI 12: 107–34.

Pieros, Carlos-Eduardo. 2005. “Syllabic-consonant formation in Traditional New Mexican

Spanish”. Probus 17: 253–301.

Pirandello, Luigi. [1891] 1973. Laute und Lautentwickelung der Mundart von Girgenti. Halle:

Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses. Repr. Pisa: Edizioni Marlin.

Pittau, Massimo. 1972. Grammatica del sardo-nuorese. Bologna: Patron.

Plenat, Marc. 1993. “Observations sur le mot minimal francais. L’oralisation des sigles”.

In B. Laks and M. Plenat (eds). De Natura Sonorum. Essais de phonologie. Paris: Presses

Universitaires de Vincennes, 143–72.

Ploch, Stefan (ed.). 2003. Living on the Edge. 28 Papers in Honour of Jonathan Kaye. Berlin

and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

272 Bibliography

Plomteux, Henri. [1975] 1981. I dialetti delle Liguria orientale odierna, la val Graveglia.

Bologna: Patron.

Politzer, Robert L. 1949. “A study of the language of the eighth-century Lombardic

documents”. Ph.D. dissertation. New York: Columbia University.

—— 1959. “A note on the distribution of prothesis in Late Latin”. Modern Language Notes

74: 31–7.

—— 1961. “The interpretation of correctness in Late Latin texts”. Language 37: 209–14.

—— 1967. Beitrag zur Phonologie der Nonsberger Mundart. Romanica Aenipontana 6.

Innsbruck: Institut fur Romanische Philologie der Leopold-Franzens-Universitat.

Politzer, Frieda N. and Politzer, Robert L. 1953. Romance Trends in 7th and 8th-Century

Documents. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Pop, Sever. 1966. “Romania e Sardegna: rapporti linguistici”. Acta Philologica 4: 547–85.

Pope, Mildred K. 1952. From Latin to Modern French. 2nd edn. Manchester: Manchester

University Press.

Posner, Rebecca. 1961. Consonantal Dissimilation in the Romance Languages. Oxford:

Blackwell.

—— 1996. The Romance Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Price, P. J. 1980. “Sonority and syllabicity: acoustic correlates of perception”. Phonetica 37:

327–43.

Prince, Alan and Smolensky, Paul. [1993] 2004. “Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction

in Generative Grammar”. In McCarthy, 2004, 3–71.

Prinz, Otto. 1938. “Zur Entstehung der Prothese vor s-impurum im Lateinischen”. Glotta

26: 97–115.

Prou, Maurice. 1892. Les monnaies merovingiennes. Paris: Rollin & Feuardent.

Pulgram, Ernst. 1958. The Tongues of Italy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pult, Gaspar. 1897. Le parler de Sent (Basse-Engadine). Lausanne: Pache.

Rafel i Fontanals, J. 1980. “Sobre el benasques”. In J. Bruguera (ed.). Actes del cinque col.

loqui internacional de llengua i literatura catalanes. Montserrat: Publicacions de l’Abadia

de Montserrat.

Reichenkron, Gunter. 1965. Historische Latein-altromanische Grammatik. I. Einleitung: das

sogenannte Vulgarlatein und das Wesen der Romanisierung. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.

Reighard, John. 1985. “La velarisation de l’<r> en francais et en portugais”. Actes du XVIIe

Congres de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes vol. 2. Aix: Presses de l’Universite de

Provence, 311–24.

Reiss, Charles. 2003. “Language change without constraint reranking”. In Holt (ed.),

143–68.

Remacle, Louis. 1948. Le probleme de l’ancien wallon. Liege: Fac. de Philo. et Lettres.

Rennison, John R. and Kuhnhammer, Klaus (eds). 1999. Phonologica 1996. Syllables!?.

Proceedings of the 8th International Phonology Meeting. Vienna, 1–3 November 1996.

The Hague: Thesus.

Repetti, Lori. 1997. “The syllable”. In Maiden and Parry, 52–7.

Bibliography 273

Restaut, Pierre. [1730] 1773. Principes generaux et raisonnes de la grammaire francoise. 10th

edn. Paris: Lottin.

Rezeau, Pierre. 1976. Un patois de Vendee. Le parler rural de Vouvant. Paris: Klincksieck.

Richter, Elise. 1934. Beitrage zur Geschichte der Romanismen. I: Chronologische Phonetik des

Franzosischen bis zum Ende des 8. Jahrhunderts. [ZrP Beih. 82]. Halle: Niemeyer.

Rickard, Peter. 1976. Chrestomathie de la langue francaise au quinzieme siecle. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1966/68/69. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti.

3 vols. I. Fonetica, II. Morfologia, III. Sintassi e formazione delle parole. Turin: Einaudi.

—— 1970. Le gascon. Etudes de philologie pyreneenne. ZrP Beih. 85. 2nd edn. Tubingen:

Niemeyer.

—— 1977. Nuovo dizionario dialettale della Calabria. 2nd edn. Ravenna: Longo.

Ronjat, Jules. 1930–41. Grammaire istorique des parlers provencaux modernes. 4 vols.

I. Fonetique (Vowels) 1930, II. Fonetique (Consonants) 1932, III. IV. Montpellier:

Societe des Langues Romanes.

Ronsch, Hermann. [1868] 1965. Itala und Vulgata. Munich: Max Hueber.

Rosati, Valeria (ed.). 1977. Le lettere di Margherita Datini a Francesco (1384–1410). Biblioteca

dell’Archivio storico pratese, 2. Prato: Cassa di Risparmi e Depositi.

Rose, Yvan and Demuth, Katherine. 2006. “Vowel epenthesis in loanword adaptation:

representational and phonetic considerations”. Lingua 116: 1112–39.

Rosetti, Alexandru. 1978. Istoria limbii romane. 2nd edn. Bucharest: Editura stiintifica si

enciclopedica

Rousselot, abbe Pierre. 1893. “Les modifications phonetiques du langage etudiees dans

le patois d’une famille de Cellefrouin (Charente)”. Revue des patois gallo-romans 5:

209–386. (One of four parts, the others being 4: 65–208, 6: 9–48, 65–208).

Rubach, Jerzy and Booij, Geert E. 1990. “Edge of constituent effects in Polish”. Natural

Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 427–63.

Rupp, Theodor. 1963. Lautlehre der Mundarten von Domat, Trin und Flem. Chur: Sulser.

Russell-Gebbett, Paul. 1965. Medieval Catalan Linguistic Texts. Oxford: Dolphin.

Sala, Marius. 1976. Contributions a la phonetique historique du roumain. Paris: Klincksieck.

Salvador Galmes, Mn. 1935. Libre de Evast e Blanquerna. Barcelona: Ed. Barcino.

Salvioni, Carlo. 1886. “Saggi intorno ai dialetti di alcune vallate all’estremita settentrionale

del Lago Maggiore”. AGI 9: 188–234, 249–59.

Sampson, Rodney. 1980. Early Romance Texts. An Anthology. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

—— 1985. “The pattern of evolution of Proto-Romanian //”. Revue roumaine de

linguistique 30: 327–59.

—— 1999. Nasal Vowel Evolution in Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

—— 2004a. “Henri Estienne and vowel prosthesis: a problem in the phonetic adaptation

of 16th-century Italianisms”. French Studies 58: 327–41.

—— 2004b. “Tendances et contretendances dans la structuration de la syllabe en

protoroman”. Aemilianense 1: 481–500.

274 Bibliography

—— 2005. “Vowel prosthesis and its maintenance in Spanish: a comparative perspective”.

In Roger Wright and Peter Ricketts (eds). Studies on Ibero-Romance Linguistics

Dedicated to Ralph Penny. Newark, DE: Juan de la Cuesta, 241–58.

—— 2006. “L’evolution de la voyelle accentuee des formes tinto, pinta, punto, unto, etc. en

castillan”. RLiR 70: 21–40.

Sanga, Glauco. 1995. “Italienische Koine / La koine italiana”. LRL II, 2: 81–98.

Santos Silva, Maria Helena. 1961. “Caracterısticas foneticas do falar minhoto”. BF 20:

309–21.

Saralegui, Carmen. 1977. El dialecto navarro en los documentos des monasterio de Irache

(958–1397). Pamplona: Diputacion Foral de Navarra & CSIC.

Sarrieu, B. 1902–6 “Le parler de Bagneres-de-Luchon et de sa vallee”. RLaR 5: 385–446; 6:

317–98; 7: 97–153, 481–534; 9: 5–48, 465–94.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. [1916] 1974. Cours de linguistique generale. Edition critique

preparee par Tullio de Mauro. Geneva: Payot.

Schadel, Bernd. 1908. “La frontiere entre le gascon et le catalan”. Romania 37: 140–56.

Schane, Sanford A. 1968. French Phonology and Morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Schiaffini, Alfedo. 1926. Testi fiorentini del Dugento e dei primi del Trecento. Florence:

Sansoni.

—— 1928. “Influssi dei dialetti centro-meridionali sul toscano e sulla lingua letteraria”.

Italia Dialettale 4: 77–129.

—— 1961. I mille anni della lingua italiana. Milan: All’Insegna del Pesce d’Oro.

Schiaparelli, Luigi. 1929–33. Codice diplomatico lombardo. 2 vols. Rome: Tipografia del

Senato.

Schizzerotto, Giancarlo. 1985. Sette secoli di volgare e di dialetto mantovano. Mantua:

Publi-Paolini Ed.

Schlosser, Rainer. 1985. Historische Lautlehre des Aromunischen von Metsovon. Hamburg:

Buske.

Schmitt, Christian. 1984. “Variete et developpement linguistiques. Sur les tendances

evolutives en francais moderne et en espagnol”. RLiR 48: 397–437.

Schneegans, Heinrich. 1888. Laute und Lautentwickelung des sicilianischen Dialectes.

Strasbourg: Trubner.

Schonthaler, Willy. 1937. Die Mundart des Bethmale-Tales. Tubingen: Gobel.

Schorta, Andrea. 1938. Lautlehre der Mundart von Mustair. Paris, Zurich, and Leipzig:

Droz-Niehans.

Schrijver, P. 1995. Studies in British Celtic Historical Phonology. Amsterdam and Atlanta,

GA: Rodopi.

Schneegans, Heinrich. 1888. Laute und Lautentwickelung der sicilianischen Dialectes.

Strassburg: Trubner.

Schortz, Michele. 1998. Le parler de Senneville-sur-Fecamp. Uppsala: Uppsala University

Press.

Schuchardt, Hugo. 1866/67/68. Der Vokalismus des Vulgarlateins. 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner.

Schurr, Friedrich. 1918–19. Romagnolische Dialektstudien. 2 vols. Vienna: Holder.

Bibliography 275

Schwarze, Christoph. 1963. Der altprovenzalische “Boeci”. Munster: Aschendorffsche

Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Seelmann, Emil. 1885. Die Aussprache des Latein nach physiologisch-historische Grundsatzen.

Heilbronn: Henninger.

Seguy, Jean. [1950] 1978. Le francais parle a Toulouse. Toulouse: Privat.

Seklaoui, Diana R. 1989. Change and Compensation. Parallel Weakening of [s] in Italian,

French and Spanish. New York, Berne, Frankfurt, and Paris: Lang.

Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1982. “The syllable”. In Hulst and Smith (eds), 337–83.

Serianni, Luca. 1977. Il dialetto pratese nel Medioevo. Prato: Cassa di Risparmi e Depositi.

—— and Castelvecchi, Alberto. 1988. Grammatica Italiana. Italiano comune e lingua

letteraria. Turin: UTET

Sgrilli, Paola (ed.). 1983. Il “Libro di Sidrac” salentino. Pisa: Pacini.

Siadbei, T. 1958. “La prothese vocalique dans les langues romanes”. Revue de Linguistique

3: 153–63.

Sievers, E. [1881]1901. Grundzuge der Phonetik. 5th edn. Leipzig: von Breitkopf & Hartel.

Simon, Hans Joachim. 1967. Beobachtungen an Mundarten Piemonts. Heidelberg: Winter.

Singh, Rajendra. 1985. “Prosodic adaptation in interphonology”. Lingua 67: 269–82.

Skytte, Gunver. 1975. Italiensk Fonetik. Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag.

Smith, Colin. 1983. “Vulgar Latin in Roman Britain: epigraphic and other evidence”. In

H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds). Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt. II,

2. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 893–948.

Sole, Maria-Josep. 2002a. “Aerodynamic characteristics of trills and phonological

patterning”. Journal of Phonetics 30: 655–88.

—— 2002b. “Assimilatory processes and aerodynamic factors”. In C. Gussenhoven and N.

Warner (eds). Laboratory Phonology 7. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 351–86.

Solmi, Arrigo. 1905. “Le carte volgari dell’Archivo Arcivescovile di Cagliari”. Archivio

Storico Italiano 35: 273–330.

Spence, Nicol. 1990. ““Sporadic” changes in Jersey French”. In J. N. Green and W. Ayres-

Bennett (eds). Variation and Change in French. London: Routledge, 210–25.

Spoerri, Teofilo. 1918. “Il dialetto della Valsesia”. Rendiconti dell’Istituto Lombardo. Serie II.

51: esp. 391–409, 683–98.

Staaff, Erik. 1907. Etude de l’ancien dialecte leonais d’apres les chartes du XIIIe siecle.

Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.

Stella, Angelo. 1969. “Tre lettere bolognesi del secolo XIV”. LN 30: 51–2.

Steriade, Donca. 1988. “Gemination and the Proto-Romance syllable shift”. In D. Birdsong

and J.-P. Montreuil (eds). Advances in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, 371–409.

—— 1994. “Complex onsets as single segments: the Mazateco pattern”. In J. Cole and

C. Kisseberth (eds). Perspectives in Phonology. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 202–91.

Stotz, Peter. 1996–2004. Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters. 5 vols. Munich:

C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. [Esp. vol. 3. Lautlehre. 1996].

Straka, Georges. 1979. Les sons et les mots: choix d’etudes de phonetique et de linguistique.

Paris: Klincksieck.

276 Bibliography

Stussi, Alfredo. 1965. Testi veneziani del Duecento e dei primi del Trecento. Pisa: Nistri-

Lischi.

—— 1982. “Antichi testi salentini in volgare”. In Alfredo Stussi. Studi e documenti di storia

della lingua e dei dialetti italiani. Bologna: Mulino, 155–81.

Svenson, Lars-Owe. 1959. Les parlers du Marais vendeen. 2 vols. Gothenburg: Almqvist &

Wiksell.

Sylvius, Iacobus. (= Jacques Dubois). 1531. In linguam gallicam isagge…Paris: R. Stephanus.

[Repr. Geneva: Slatkine, 1971].

Taboada, Manuel. 1979. El habla del Valle de Verın. Verba, Anejo 15. Compostela:

Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.

Tabourot, Etienne. 1588. Les bigarrures du Seigneurs des Accords. [Repr. Geneva: Slatkine,

1969].

Tardif, Jules. 1866. Fac-simile de chartes et diplomes merovingiens et carlovingiens. Paris:

J. Claye.

Taylor, R. 1965. “Les neologismes chez Nicole Oresme traducteur du XIVe siecle”. Actes du

Xe Congres International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes vol. 2. Paris: Klincksieck,

727–36.

Tekavcic, Pavao. 1972. Grammatica storica dell’italiano. I: Fonematica. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Telmon, Tullio. 1975. “La prosthese vocalique dans les parlers du Piemont”. RLiR 39: 122–71.

Ternes, Elmar. 1986. “A grammatical hierarchy of joining”. In Andersen (ed.), 11–21.

Teyssier, Paul. 1980. Histoire de la langue portugaise. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language Contact. An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.

—— and Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics.

Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford: University of California Press.

Thurot, Charles. 1881. De la prononciation francaise depuis le commencement du XVIe siecle.

2 vols. Paris: Welter. [Repr. Geneva: Slatkine, 1966].

Tjader, Jan-Olof. 1955. Die nichtliterarischen Papyri Italiens aus der Zeit 445–700, I. Lund:

Gleerup.

Tomasini, Giulio. 1951. “Minime di grammatica dialettale. La vocale prostetica nel

Trentino”. Studi Trentini di Scienze Storiche 30: 115–17.

Tomasoni, Piera. 1985. “L’antica lingua non letteraria a Bergamo. Un formulario notarile

inedito del secolo XV”. In G. Vitali and G. O. Bravi (eds). Lingue e culture locali.

Le ricerche di Antonio Tiraboschi. Bergamo: Lubrina, 229–61.

Topintzi, Nina. 2006. “Moraic onsets”. Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation. University College

London.

Toppino, Giuseppe. 1902–5. “Il dialetto di Castellinaldo”. AGI 16: 517–48.

Traina, Alfonso. 1973. L’alfabeto e la pronunzia del latino. 4th edn. Bologna: Patron.

Trask, R. Larry. 1996. Historical Linguistics. London and New York: Arnold.

—— 1997. The History of Basque. London: Routledge.

Tschirch, Fritz. 1966–9. Geschichte des deutschen Sprache. 2 vols. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.

Bibliography 277

Turchi, Laura and Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 2000. “La durata vocalica di fronte ai nessi /sC/:

un’indagine su soggetti pisani”. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 29:

389–421.

Uffmann, Christian. 2006. “Epenthetic vowel quality in loanwords: empirical and formal

issues”. Lingua 116: 1079–111.

Ulrich, Jacob. 1885–6. “Sacra rappresentazione del secolo XVII, testo ladino, varieta di

Bravugn”. AGI 8: 263–303, 9: 107–14.

Vaananen, Veikko. 1966. Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompeiennes. 3rd edn. Berlin:

Akademie-Verlag.

Valdes, Juan de. [1535] 1967. Dialogo de la lengua. Ed. C. Barbolani de Garcıa. Messina-

Firenze: G. D’Anna.

Valkhoff, Marius. 1931. Etude sur les mots francais d’origine neerlandaise. Amersfoort:

Valkhoff and Co.

Vanelli, Laura. 1984. “Pronomi e fenomeni di prostesi vocalica nei dialetti italiani

settentrionali”. RLiR 48: 281–95.

—— 1987. “I pronomi soggetto nei dialetti italiani settentrionali dal Medioevo a oggi”.

Medioevo Romanzo 13: 173–211.

Varvaro, Alberto. 1984. “La situazione linguistica della Sicilia nel basso Medioevo”. In

Alberto Varvaro. La parola nel tempo. Lingua, societa e storia. Bologna: Il Mulino, 145–74.

Vasconcellos, Jose Leite de. See Leite de Vasconcellos, Jose.

Velazquez, Isabel. 2000. Documentos de epoca visigoda escritos en pizarra (siglos VI–VIII).

2 vols. Turnhout: Brepols.

—— 2003. Latine dicitur, vulgo vocant. Aspectos de la lengua escrita y hablada en las obras

gramaticales de Isidoro de Sevilla. Logroo: Fundacion San Millan de la Cogolla.

Vennemann, Theo. 1988. Preference Laws for Syllable Structure. Berlin, New York, and

Amsterdam: Mouton-De Gruyter.

Veny, Joan. 1987. Els parlars catalans. 7th edn. Palma de Mallorca: Ed. Moll.

Verner, Karl. 1877. “Eine Ausnahme der ersten Lautverschiebung”. Zeitschrift fur

vergleichende Sprachforschung 23: 97–130. [Eng. tr. “An Exception to Grimm’s Law”. In

P. Baldi and R. N. Werth (eds). 1978. Readings in Historical Phonology. University Park

and London: Pennsylvania State University Press, 32–63].

Vielliard, Jeanne. 1927. Le latin des diplomes royaux et chartes privees de l’epoque

merovingienne. Paris: Champion.

Vineis, E. 1998. “Latin”. In A. G. and P. Ramat (eds). The Indo-European Languages. London

and New York: Routledge, 261–321.

Virdis, Maurizio. 1978. Fonetica del dialetto sardo campidanese. Cagliari: Edizioni della

Torre.

Vitale, Maurizio. 1992. Studi di storia della lingua italiana. Milan: LED.

Vives, Jose. 1969. Inscripciones cristianas de la Espaa romana y visigoda. 2nd edn. Barcelona:

CSIC.

—— 1971–2. Inscripciones latinas de la Espaa romana. 2 vols. Barcelona: CSIC.

278 Bibliography

Wagner, Max L. 1936. Restos de latinidad en el norte de Africa. Coimbra: Biblioteca da

Universidade.

—— 1941. Historische Lautlehre des Sardischen. ZrPh Beiheft 93. Halle: Niemeyer.

—— 1951. La lingua sarda. Storia, spirito e forma. Berne: Francke.

Walberg, Emmanuel. 1907. Saggio sulla fonetica del parlare di Celerina-Cresta (Alta

Engadina). Lund: Gleerup.

Walde, A. and Hofmann, J. B. 1938–56. Etymologisches Worterbuch der lateinischen Sprache.

3rd edn. 2 vols. Heidelberg: C. Winter.

Walter, Henriette. 1990. “Une voyelle qui ne veut pas mourir”. In J. N. Green and W. Ayres-

Bennett (eds). Variation and Change in French. London and New York: Routledge,

27–36.

Waquet, Francoise. 2001. Latin or the Empire of a Sign. [tr. of J. Howe. Latin ou l’empire d’un

signe. 1998. Paris: Michel]. London and New York: Verso.

Warnant, Leon. 1956. Constitution phonique du mot en wallon. Paris: Societe d’edition “Les

Belles Lettres”.

Wartburg, Walther von. 1936. “Die Ausgliederung der romanischen Sprachraume”. ZrP 56:

1–48.

—— 1950. Die Ausgliederung der romanischen Sprachraume. Berne: Francke. [Spanish

tr. 1952, French tr. 1967].

Weinrich, Harald. 1969. Phonologische Studien zur romanischen Sprachgeschichte. 2nd edn.

Munster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in Contact. The Hague: Mouton.

Wheeler, Max. 1979. Phonology of Catalan. Publications of the Philological Society 28.

Oxford: Blackwell.

—— 2005. The Phonology of Catalan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wiese, Richard. 1996. The Phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon.

Woledge, Brian and Clive, H. P. 1964. Repertoire des plus anciens textes en prose francaise

depuis 842 jusqu’aux premieres annees du XIIIe siecle. Geneva: Droz.

Wright, Roger. 1982. Late Latin and Early Romance. Liverpool: Francis Cairns.

—— 2000. El Tratado de Cabreros (1206): estudio sociofilologico de una reforma ortografica.

Papers of the Medieval Hispanic Research Seminar 19. London: Department of Hispanic

Studies, Queen Mary and Westfield College.

Wuest, Jakob. 1979. La dialectalisation de la Gallo-Romania. Berne: Francke.

—— 1995. “Dauphinois”. LRL II, 2: 434–40.

—— and Kristol, Andreas M. (eds). 1993. Aqueras montanhas. Etudes de linguistique

occitane: Le Couserans (Gascogne pyreneenne). Tubingen and Basle: Francke.

Wunderli, Peter. 1969. Die okzitanischen Bibelubersetzungen des Mittelalters. Frankfurt:

Klostermann.

Wyatt, William F. 1972. The Greek Prothetic Vowel. Philological Monographs of the

American Philological Association 31. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University.

Yip, Moira. 1991. “Coronals, coronal clusters, and the coda condition”. In Paradis and

Prunet (eds), 61–78.

Bibliography 279

Young, Christopher and Gloning, Thomas. 2004. A History of the German Language

through Texts. London: Routledge.

Zamboni, Alberto, Cortelazzo, Manlio, Pellegrini, Giovanni Battista, Beninca, Paola,

Vanelli Renzi, Laura and Francescato, Giuseppe (eds). 1984–7. Dizionario etimologico

storico friulano. 2 vols. [up to ezzita only]. Udine: Casamassima.

Zamora Vicente, Alonso. 1967. Dialectologıa espaola. 2nd edn. Madrid: Gredos.

Zink, Gaston. 1986. Phonetique historique du francais. Paris: Presses Universitaires de

France.

Zirin, Ronald A. 1970. The Phonological Basis of Latin Prosody. The Hague: Mouton.

Zorner, Lotte. 1989. Die Dialekte von Travo und Groppallo. Vienna: Verlag der

Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Zufferey, Francois. 1987. Recherches linguistiques sur les chansonniers provencaux. Paris:

Droz.

280 Bibliography

Index

A-prosthesis

actualization 169–71

causation 171–80

chronology 154–9

contact approach to 178–80

enhancement 190–3

vs etymological initial r- 148–9

examples 146

geography 150–1

identification 147–50

and initial rhotic 159–63

maintained 189–90

origins 158–9

overview 37

phonetic approach 175–7

phonological approach 177–8

vs prefixation 148

regression 182–8

vs syncope of pre-tonic vowel 149

vowel quality 164–8

abandonment of I-prosthesis 78–80

in Castilian 106

in Corsica 99

in French 119–26

in Gallo-Romance 129

in Italian 94

in Italo-Romance 143–4

in Portuguese 110–11

in Rheto-Romance 136

in Tuscan 86

in Venetian dialect 141–2

see also regression of A-prosthesis

abandonment of schwa in French 125–6

Abruzzo and Molise 153

acoustic similarity of [s] and [i] 63–5

actualization 19

of I-prosthesis 65–7

of A-prosthesis 169–71

of U-prosthesis 202–24

additive processes 1

Agrigento, A-prosthesis 152

Al-Andalus 102–3

Albigeois text 131

Algueres, regression of A-prosthesis 187–8

Alsace 126

alternation 10–13

in A-prosthesis 169–70

Ancona, sonorant-initial words and

U-prosthesis 218

aphaeresis 1, 4, 56–8, 128, 143–4

in Balkan-Romance 78

Occitan 132–3

in Sardinian 98–9

southern Italian 79–80

apocope 1

Appendix Probi 59

Arabic script 102–3

Aragonese 102, 155

Aromanian 26, 146

and A-prosthesis 158, 169, 191–3

initial rhotic 162

Arquint, J.C. 183

assimilation of vowels 164–5

Asturian dialects 102, 111

Asturo-Leonese area 109, 112

attitude to prosthesis in French 134

Auger, J. 211–12

Badia, A. 150n, 222

Baehrens, W.A. 59n

Bagemihl, B. 17n

Balkan-Romance 61, 175

and A-prosthesis 158

and I-prosthesis 76–9

initial rhotic 162

Banniard, M. 32

Barsegape, P. (poet) 142

Bareges dialect 159

Basque 178–80

Bastogne dialect 130

Bec, P. 151n, 156, 170, 185–7

Belcalzer, V. 144

Bembo, P. 92

Bergun dialect 210, 223n

Bezzola, R. and Tonjachen, R. 183

Bible translations 136, 157

and U-prosthesis 204, 229–30

Bifrun, J. 136, 157, 204, 225, 229

Blasco Ferrer, E. 222

bleeding SPIV 200, 201

Blevins, J. 21–2

Blevins, J. and Garrett, A. 218

Boccaccio 85, 92

Boeci 131

Bolognese 144

and SPIV 203, 205–6

and U-prosthesis 194

Bolognesi, R. 189–90

Bonvesin (da la Riva) 93n, 143

borrowing scale 179–80

boundary markers, prosthetic vowels as 26

Brantome 119

Brescia 143

Broselow, E. 51n

Brun, A. 134

Busachi dialect, vowel copying 164

Cabre, T. 12

Cairo Montenotte dialect

(Piedmontese) 140

Calabrian, A-prosthesis 152–3

Caltanissetta, A-prosthesis 152

Campidanese 39

maintenance of A-prosthesis 189–90

vowel copying 164

vowel quality 168

see also Sardinian

Cancioneiros 108

Capidan, T. 191–2

Carnin and U-prosthesis vowel

quality 227

Carolingian reforms 113–14

Castilian, I-prosthesis 104–6

Catalan 12, 97, 102, 107

and A-prosthesis 150n, 187–8

proclitics vs lexical forms 221–2

and U-prosthesis 195

vowel quality 16

causation

of A-prosthesis 171–80

of I-prosthesis 67–73

in language change 19

lexical alignment 27

morpholexical factors 27

morphophonological factors 25–6

phonological factors 20–5

sociolinguistic factors 28–33

of U-prosthesis 228

Celerina dialect 236

and SPIV 197–8, 201, 203

and U-prosthesis 194, 230

Cesena, complex onsets 203–4

Cevio variety and SPIV 197

Chanson de Sainte Foi d’Agen 131

charters 115, 158

Chiampel, D. 231

Christian inscriptions 60

Christian Spain 102

chronology of U-prosthesis 204–8

Cisalpine Gaul 137

classification of prosthesis 40

clitic phrases 25

Clivio, G.P. 34, 214n, 221, 225, 231

Clivio, G.P. and Danesi, M. 139

Cochet, E. 226

Coco, F. 194

coins, inscriptions in 113

complex onsets

in Latin 45–6

and SPIV 203

and U-prosthesis 209, 225

Consonantal Strength 22n

consonants

Classical Latin 41–2

complexity 23

contact approach to A-prosthesis 178–80

Corneille, T. 126n

Coromines, J. 187

Correa Rodrıguez 179n

Corsican 99

and I-prosthesis 95

vowel quality 165–7

282 Index

Coulmas, F. 31

Coupier, J. 135

Cremonese 143

Dacia 61–2

Daco-Romanian

and A-prosthesis 193

and I-prosthesis 77

initial rhotic 162

Dalbera, J.-P. 133

Dalmatian, I-prosthesis 77–8

D’Ambra, R. 153

Dante, A. 84–5

De Mauro, T. 94

De Sathana cum Virgine (Bonvesin) 143

deletion of [n] as explanation of

I-prosthesis 70

Desgranges, J.-C.-L.-P. 122

dictionaries

as evidence of A-prosthesis 153

Engadinish-German 183

Dinguirard, J.-C. 156

diphthongization of word-initial

vowels 5–6

direct indicators of vowel prosthesis 3–7

Divine Comedy (Dante) 84–5

Dolomitish, regression of A-prosthesis 184

Donzac dialect 134

Dordogne 135

d’Orleans, C. 116

Dressler, W. 56, 67

Dubois, J. 118–19

Ducibella, J.W. 152

Dutch, Middle, loanwords 115

Elba, I-prosthesis 95

Elizondo, E. 179n

Elwert, W.T. 184

Emilian-Romagnolo 142, 144–5, 214n

and SPIV 199, 202–3

and U-prosthesis 209, 231

Engadinish 136, 206

and A-prosthesis 169, 183–4

and SPIV 200

and U-prosthesis

developments 229–31

and falling sonority 215

vowel quality 225

environments for I-prosthesis

epenthesis 1, 71–2

vs I-prosthesis 126–7

vs prosthesis 51

vowel quality 166

in Walloon 129–30

Erasmus, D. 123

Estienne, H. 119, 120n, 134

etymological initial r-

and A-prosthesis 155, 159–63

and vowel insertion 148–9

etymological prefixal vowels 73

evidence 34–5

excrescent vowels 17n

extant inscriptions 60

Falcone, G. 152

falling sonority onsets and

U-prosthesis 214–16

Farserotic 191n

Fassan, regression of A-prosthesis 184

feeding SPIV 200–1

Fleischhacker, H. 51

Florentine writers 85

Flutre, L.-F. 210–11, 218

Fonni dialect, vowel copying 164

Fouche, P. 125, 188n, 200n

Fougeron, C. 171, 171n

Francard, M. 130

Francois, D. 226

Frankish, loanwords 115

French 4, 9, 25

abandonment of I-prosthesis 123–6

alternations 13

influence on Gascon 187

initial rhotic 160–1

loanwords in 115, 125

from Italian 119–20

Old 39

published grammar 118–19

resemblance to Sardinian 100n

SPIV 200–1

Index 283

French (cont.)

standardization 30n, 120

effect on langue d’oc 134

word-initial syllables and

U-prosthesis 217

frequency of [s] and [i] 63

Friulian 136

and A-prosthesis 157–8, 184–5

Gaeng, P. 60

Galician dialect 102, 108, 109–10

vowel deletion 111

Gallo-Romance

and I-prosthesis 112–35

northern varieties 133

and U-prosthesis 196, 204, 210–12, 228

development 232

vowel quality 225–6

and word-initial syllables 217

Gallurese dialect 99

see also Sardinian

Gartner, T. 183–4

Gascon dialect 121, 146, 156–7, 234

and A-prosthesis 147–51

actualization 170–1

implementation 169

regression of 185–7

and I-prosthesis 66

initial rhotic 160, 163

SPIV 198

vowel quality 168

word-initial morphemes 4

Gavel, H. 179n

geminate consonants 42

geminate rhotic 172, 175, 177–8

gemination

and ign- forms 181

in southern Italian 190

geography and I-prosthesis 74–5

Germanic

influences 129, 136–7

and SPIV 207–8

Giammarco, A-prosthesis 153

Giannelli, L. 95

Giese, W. 191n, 192

Gorra, E. 145

Gouskova, M. 17

Government Phonology (GP) 24, 177–8

grammatical factors in vowel prosthesis 39

grammatical vowel addition 4

Greek 67

geminated rhotic 175

influence on Latin syllabification 48

loanwords 43, 72

Gregory of Tours 113

Grisch, M. 196

Grisons 136

Grizzando Morandi variety 145

Grizzanese

falling sonority and U-prosthesis 215–16

proclitics vs lexical forms 220–1

Hall, R.A. 173

Hall, T.A. 44n

Hall and Cravens, T.D. 172

Hall and Weinrich, H. 173

Hammond, R.M. 176

Harris, J.W. 11

Herman, J. 47n

heterosyllabic onsets 50–1

hierarchy, phonological 20

Hindi, sibilants and stop segments 51

Hindret, J. 120–1n

Holmes, U.T. 200

Homelies de Organya 107

Huguet, E. 119–20n

hypercorrection 56–8, 101, 113

I-prosthesis

actualization 65–7

and Balkan-Romance 76–9

causation 67–73

environments 54–5

and Gallo-Romance 112–35

and Ibero-Romance 100–12

and La Spezia-Rimini line 74–5

and langue d’oc 130–5

and langue d’oıl 114–23

and northern Italo-Romance 137–45

origins 56–60

284 Index

overview 36–7

and Rheto-Romance 135–7

and Sardinian 96–100

and southern Italian 79–80

spread during Roman times 60–2

and Tuscan 80–96

vowel quality 62–5

Iberian 178–9

Ibero-Romance

and A-prosthesis 155

and I-prosthesis 100–12

initial rhotic 160

and SPIV 199

ign- forms and A-prosthesis 180–2

indirect indicators of vowel

prosthesis 7–8

initial rhotic

and A-prosthesis 159–63, 191

articulation problems 176–7

strengthening 171–5

internal prosthesis 54–5

interplay between word edges 25–6

intervocalic -n- in Gascon 156

Italian 5, 9, 10–11

and A-prosthesis 157, 169

dialects, falling sonority and

U-prosthesis 215–16

loanwords in French 119–20

northern and U-prosthesis 205

sandhi 26

southern 79–80, 190–1

Italo-Romance

and A-prosthesis 151–4

initial rhotic 161–2

northern and I-prosthesis 137–45

rhotic strengthening 175

and U-prosthesis 195, 225

Jungemann, F.H. 163n, 176

Keating, P. et al. 171

Kenstowicz, M. 16–17

Kiss, S. 44n

Kramer, J. 184

Kurolywicz, J. 48n, 50

La Noue, O. 161

La Scala, F.J. 34

La Spezia-Rimini line and I-prosthesis

74–5

Ladefoged, P. and Maddieson, I. 176

Ladin area 136

Langobards (Lombards) 81

language contact 28–9, 187

langue d’oc (Occitan) and

I-prosthesis 130–5

langue d’oıl

and I-prosthesis 114–23

initial rhotic 161

and U-prosthesis 228

Languedocian 135

Latin 25, 235

Classical, syllable structure in 41–9

to French, change in formal

settings 116–17

geminate rhotic 172

influences on 67

loanwords in 115

rising-sonority onsets 213

syllabicity of [s] 68–9

syllables 49–52, 70

variation 29

written 31–3

Latinisms, Castilian 105–6

Lausberg, H. 67

Leben, W. 202n

legal charters 138

lenition and SPIV 206

Leopardi, verse of 93

letters

Bolognese 205

Tuscan 87–91

lexical alignment in language change 27

lexical forms vs proclitics 220–2

Libre de Evast e Blanquerna (Llull) 107,

221–2

Libro di Sidrac 80

Ligurian 133

linearization of syllabic consonants 6–7

literary language, Tuscan 84

Llull, R. 107, 221–2

Index 285

loanwords 10–11, 115

in French 119–20, 125

in Gascon from French 163, 186

from Greek 43, 72

in Italian 94

in Italo-Romance 154

in pre-Roman languages 179

Lodge, R.A. 30n, 87n, 121

Logudorese 96–7, 99

see also Sardinian

Lombard, A. 138

Lombards (Langobards) 81

Lombardy 142–4

Lopocaro, M. 100n, 153, 153n, 214n

Lorraine 126, 128

Lowenstamm, J. 24n

Lucchese dialects

evidence of Tuscan I-prosthesis 81

vowel quality 165–6, 167–8

Luchaire, A. 187

Machado, J.P. 155n

Mainoldi, P. 194

Malagoli dialect 194, 199, 231

and U-prosthesis 209

Malkiel, Y. 57n

Maneca, C. 34

Mantua 143

Manzoni, A. 93

Marchello-Nizia, C. 39n

Marotta, G. 44n, 70

Marseille 134

Martinet, A. 174n

Mateus, M.H. and d’Andrade, E. 12–13

maximal formal identity 72

McKenzie, K. 85

McMahon, A. 10n

medial vowels 9

medieval period 76

Merovingian period 113

Mesnil-Martinsart dialect 220

and U-prosthesis 210–11

Messina dialect 5–6

metathesis 1, 71n

Meyer-Lubke, W. 34, 150n

Migliorini, B. 93

Mihaila, G. 158

Millardet, G. 175

minimal saliency 16–17, 63

and U-prosthesis 224

Moll, F.B. 150n

Monferrato dialect, U-prosthesis 209

moraic thory, geminates in 177

Morelli, F. 50–1

Morosi, G. 133n

morphemes, word-initial 4

morpholexical factors in language

change 27

morphological basis to A-prosthesis 157

morphological boundaries,

reinterpretation 4–5

morphophonological factors in language

change 25–6

Mozarabic 102–3

Mushacke, W. 132

[n] deletion as explanation of

I-prosthesis 70

Nandris, O. 78

Nauton, P. 133

Navarrese, A-prosthesis 155

Nebrija, A. 106

neologisms 10–12

Neapolitan, A-prosthesis 153

newly appearing vowels 16–18

Nieri, I. 94, 157, 167–8

Nigra, C. 209, 213n

Nisard, C. 122

Norse, loanwords 115

Noske, R. 44n

Notre-Dame-de-Sanhilac dialect 135

Novellarese dialect

and SPIV 197

and U-prosthesis 194, 209

Nuorese 99

obligatory contour principle (OCP) 202

Occitan (langue d’oc) and

I-prosthesis 130–5

Old French 39

286 Index

Omeltchenko, S.W. 60–1

on-glides 5

A-prosthesis as 177

Onset Theorem 23–4n

onsets

heterosyllabic 50–1

word-initial

change 49–50

complexity 23–5

Latin 42–5

and U-prosthesis 212–20

word-medial, Latin 45

Optimality Theory (OT) 23–4, 35

Osprandus (Tuscan scribe) 83

Oxford Psalter 115

pagan inscriptions 60

palatal nasal in word-initial position and

A-prosthesis 180–2

palatalization and SPIV 206–7

Palsgrave, J. 118

Papahagi, T. 146n, 192

papyri 137–8

paragoge 1

Pariente, A. 44

Parisian and U-prosthesis vowel quality 226

Peer, O. 183, 230

Pei, M.A. 114

Peletier, J. 126

Pensado, C. 173

Petrarch 85, 92

phonetic approach to A-prosthesis 175–7

phonetic realization of pre-consonantal

<s> 118

phonological approach to

A-prosthesis 177–8

phonological bond between [s] and

voiceless plosive 72

phonological factors in language

change 20–5

phrase medial vowels 9

Piacenza 145

Picard varieties andU-prosthesis 226–7, 229

Piccitto, G. 153

Pidal, M. 155n

Piedmontese 139–41

and U-prosthesis 209

developments 231

falling sonority 216

sonority levels 213–14

vowel quality 225

Pieri, S. 165

Pirandello, L. 152

Pisa, I-prosthesis in 95

Pittau, M. 99

Pliny the Elder 57n

poetry see verse

Politzer, R.L. 33

Pontremoli dialect, U-prosthesis 209, 217

Portomarin 108

Portuguese 12–13, 109, 112

and A-prosthesis 155n

standard 110

and U-prosthesis 195

pre-consonantal <s>, phonetic

realization 118

prefixal vowels 73

prefixation 27

vs A-prosthesis 148

prosthesis in word-medial position 11

prepositional phrases, lexicalized 40

pre-Roman linguistic influence 67, 178–80

prestigious varieties 30

principle of minimal saliency see minimal

saliency

Prinz, O. 60, 62–3, 66–7, 79, 137

private letters

Bolognese 205

Tuscan 87–91

probabilistic approach to describing causes

of change 19

proclitic forms

Tuscan 86–7

and U-prosthesis 220–4

prosodic domains of U-prosthesis 208–12

prosthesis

common properties 234–7

definition 1–2

vs epenthesis 51

Provencal 135

Index 287

Psalter Commentary 127

Puglia, A-prosthesis 152

Pulon Matt 205

Pult, G. 231

quality of vowels see vowel quality

rafforzamento fonosintattico (RF) 172–3

Ranrupt dialect 129

reductive processes 1

regional differences in northern Italy 138–9

regression of A-prosthesis 182–8

see also abandonment of I-prosthesis

Reighard, J. 161

Renaissance period 106

restructuring of syllabic consonants 6–7

restructuring of syllable as explanation

of I-prosthesis 71

resyllabification 48

as explanation of I-prosthesis 69

RF (rafforzamento fonosintattico) 172–3

Rheto-Romance 93n

and A-prosthesis 150, 157

regression of 183–5

and I-prosthesis 135–7

initial rhotic 163

and U-prosthesis 195–6, 204, 210

and proclitics 223

rhoticity 218–19

rhotics

and A-prosthesis 159–63, 191

articulation problems 176–7

strengthening 171–5

Richter, E. 63

Rickard, P. 117n

rising-sonority onsets and

U-prosthesis 213

Rohlfs, G. 95, 153–4, 174n,

179n, 180, 218

Roine 139–40

Romania continua 29–30

and A-prosthesis 150

Romanian 6

evidence of I-prosthesis 78

and U-prosthesis 195, 222–3

Ronjat, J. 132n

Rose, Y. and Demuth, K. 64n, 166

Rosetti, A. 162, 191n, 192–3

Rossellones, U-prosthesis 222

rural vs urban development of

U-prosthesis 231

Russell-Gebbett, P. 102

[s] and voiceless plosive, phonological

bond 72

s impure 53–5, 67–8

s lıquida 68

s-palatalization and SPIV 206–7

Sainte-Jamme variety and U-prosthesis

vowel quality 225

San Nicola di Trullas 97

San Pietro di Silki 96–7

sandhi 26

Sanga, G. 92n

Sardinian 146

and A-prosthesis 151, 169

and I-prosthesis 96–100

vowel copying 164–5

Sarrieu, B. 66

Sassarese 99–100

see also Sardinian

Schadel, B. 187

Schiaparelli, L. 81

Schlosser, R. 192

Schneegans, H. 151–2

Schonthaler, W. 187

Schortz, M. 123

Schuchardt, H. 33, 62–3, 67

schwa

deletion 125–6, 211

in newly appearing prosthesis 17–18

strengthening 129–30

and U-prosthesis 224

scribes, Tuscan 82–3

segmental phonology and language

change 20

Seguy, J. 134

Sennori dialect 100

Sent variety and U-prosthesis

developments 231

288 Index

Sermone 142

Sermoni subalpine 139

Siadbei, T. 33

sibilants and stop segments 50–1

Sicilian, A-prosthesis 151–2

signatures 137–8

Slavic influence on Balkan-Romance 79

sociolinguistic factors in language

change 28–33

Sole, M.-J. 176

sonorant-initial onsets and

U-prosthesis 217–20

sonority hierarchy 21–2

sonority levels in onsets and

U-prosthesis 212–16

Sonority Sequencing Generalization (SSG)

see SSG

sources of data 34–5

Spanish 27

alternation 11–12

Latin American, trill production 176

speech communities, variation in 19

spelling pronunciation 31

SPIV (syncope of pre-tonic initial

vowels) 196–202

vs A-prosthesis 149

dating 205–8

surrounding consonants 202–4

Spoerri, T. 194

spoken language and I-prosthesis 144

sporadic changes 14–15

SSG (Sonority Sequencing

Generalization) 21–2, 50, 235–6

St Isidore 59

staged view of I-prosthesis 65–6

Standard French, effect on langue d’oc 134

strengthening of initial rhotic 159–63,

171–5

stress 2, 5

structuralist view

of A-prosthesis 176

of rhotic strengthening 171–5

substratum languages 28

suffricates 50

superstratum languages 28–9

Surmeiran proclitics and

U-prosthesis 223

Surselvan variety 5, 199

syllabic change, Latin 49–52

syllabic rhotics 218–19

syllabicity of [s] 68–9

syllabification

and U-prosthesis 228

of word boundaries 47–9

syllable simplification 70

syllable structure 20–3

Classical Latin 41–9

as explanation of I-prosthesis 71

synchronicity of prosthesis 8–14

syncope 1

syncope of pre-tonic initial vowels

see SPIV

Tabourot, E. 124–5n

Tardif, J. 114

Tekavcic, P. 49n, 70

Telmon, T. 34, 213n, 225

Temes 108

tensing 68

Terentianus, C. 57

Thesaur del hospital de Saint Sperit 132

Thomason, S.G. 179–80

Thomason, S.G. and Kaufman, T. 179–80

Thurot, C. 31n

Tjader, J.-O. 137

Toulouse 134

Touraine dialects and U-prosthesis vowel

quality 226–7

Travo 145

Trento 144

trill, phonetic problems 176

Turinese, proclitics vs lexical forms 220–1

Tuscan 138

and I-prosthesis 80–96

initial rhotic 162

medieval, ign-forms 180–2

vowel quality 165, 167

U-prosthesis

causation 228

Index 289

U-prosthesis (cont.)

chronology 204–8

developments 229–32

geography 195–6

overview 38

and proclitic forms 220–4

prosodic domains 208–12

structural preconditions 196–204

and vowel quality 224–7

and word-initial onset 212–20

unstressed vowels subsystem 15

Upper-Engadinish, falling sonority and

U-prosthesis 215

urban vs rural development of

U-prosthesis 231

uvularization of rhotic 161

Valsesia dialect (Piedmontese) 141

and SPIV 197, 202

and U-prosthesis 194

see also Piedmontese

Vanelli, L. 34, 221, 229

variable frequency of I-prosthesis in Tuscan

letters 90

Venetian texts 141–2

Vennemann, T. 22n, 48n

Vermandois variety and U-prosthesis

development 232

vernacular prose, Tuscan 85

vernacular usage of Ibero-Romance 104

Verner, K. 14n

verse 108

in langue d’oc 131

late medieval 116

Lombardy 143

Villacidro dialect 99

Villette variety, SPIV 197

Villon, F. 116

Vimeu dialect and U-prosthesis 211

Visigothic Spain 101

Viverone dialect (Piedmontese) 140–1

and SPIV 197

and U-prosthesis 209, 216

vowel copying 164–5

vowel deletion see abandonment of

I-prosthesis; abandonment of

schwa in French

vowel quality 15–18

and A-prosthesis 164–8

factors determining 17–18

in Ibero-Romance 107

in Piedmontese 139–40

and SPIV 198–201

and U-prosthesis 224–7

Wagner, M.L. 98–9

Walberg, E. 183, 194, 198, 230

Walloon dialects 112, 126–30

and U-prosthesis vowel quality 227

weakening

of prosthetic vowels 111

to schwa 129–30

Weinreich, U. 136n

Wheeler, M. 12, 150n

Wiese, R. 50

word boundaries

interplay between 25–6

syllabification 47–9

word-final consonants in

Rheto-Romance 135–6

word-initial morphemes 4

word-initial onsets

change 49–50

complexity 23–5

Latin 42–5

and U-prosthesis 212–20

word-initial palatal nasal and

A-prosthesis 180–2

word-initial syllables and

U-prosthesis 217–20

word-medial onsets, Latin 45

written language 31–3

Wuest, J. 156

Wunderli, P. 132n

Zamboni, A. et al. 185

Zirin, R.A. 48n

Zufferey, F. 132n

290 Index