6

I was studying rhotacism and I came across the word corpora (plural of corpus). I would reconstruct the proto-italic form as *korpoza, but I saw the entry on Wiktionary and it says that the actual reconstruction is *korpezā.

Is this reconstruction accurate? If it is, what causes this vowel alternation, considering the singular form *korpOs and it's later result corpOra?

1
  • 9
    To whoever close-voted: this question is not about single-language grammar or usage. Questions about diachronic sound changes are on-topic here, even if they only deal with a single language, and this is an excellent question. Aug 10 at 6:45
8

The e in the oblique stem seems to go back to Proto-Indo-European: compare the Germanic cognate, nom sg *hrefaz, nom pl *hrifi.

Even if the PIt form had been **korpozā, -e- would be the expected development within Latin, due to medial vowel reduction. The -o- results from the o vowel in the nom sg spreading to other forms by analogy. Since this was analogy rather than a regular sound change, we see regularized words like Old Latin corpos, corporis next to unregularized ones like latos, lateris. Finally, regular sound change turned o in final syllables into u, giving the nom sg corpus.

3
  • That's what I thought when I compared to *hrifizō too. Thanks :) Aug 10 at 5:10
  • Do we know if this "e to o" analogy happened before of after the rhotacism process? Was it *korpeza > *korpera > corpora or *korpeza > *korpoza > corpora? Aug 10 at 5:16
  • @ErgativeMan I don't know off the top of my head, but both processes were happening within the timeframe of attested written Latin, so there's likely evidence somewhere.
    – Draconis
    Aug 10 at 5:17
1

This word corpus ~ corpor- belongs to the same type as genus ~ gener-.
PIE neuters with an alternation *g^enos ~ *g^enes-.
As regards your question about relative dating, I would say that schwatization of unstressed medial vowels in Latin (> e/i) is older than rhotacism. So I would say that the path *korpeza > *korpera > (late leveling) corpora seems more likely than the path *korpeza > *korpoza > corpora, as the second path conflicts with schwatization of unstressed medial vowels in Latin. Vowel e in *korpeza is the regular reflex of an unstressed medial vowel in Latin.

1
  • 1
    How does the second path (by which I’m guessing you mean the ‘other’ path, that is, *korpezā > *korpera > corpora) conflict with schwatisation? Analogical restitution of -o- can happen at any stage, regardless of the expected form of the vowel at the time. Aug 10 at 9:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.