1

The metaphonic diphthongisation phenomenon is said to have occurred between the 6th and 8th century. But it must have happened before the loss of intervocalic "v", though I have only one example to support my claim and i'm not sure if it's indeed proof of it. nivem/*nivis -> *neave(s) -> nea. I can't find any info on this now, but I remember reading of a vulgar latin place name in the Balkan peninsula mentioned in a 6th or 7th century greek document that presented the loss of intervocalic "v". this is my attempt to recall the word: "ketate" ( <- civitatis ). This shows that "v" was already disappearing in Balkan proto-romance. Would this imply that the so called "umlaut" ( diphthongisation ) phenomenon happened even earlier? Well, there is also the famous "Torna, torna, fratre" episode dated to 587 that doesn't show any sign of diphthongisation in the word "torna" ( expected: toarna ).

the alternative form "neauă" could also be explained from the accusative "nivem". According to wikipedia there was an intermediary stage before the loss of intervocalic "v" where v -> w. Could this stage have been preserved in "neauă" but not in "nea" ( that could be a shortened form )?

I know that all of this is a gross oversimplification, misuse of linguistic tools, and possibly misinterpretation of historical linguistics.I am just an amateur with an interest in Romance languages. So my bad for that.

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

No, it's not. Rumanian didn't have metaphonic diphthongisation like that of South Italian; what it had was the reverse: all mid vowels (Latin ē, ĭ, ae, ĕ and the back ō, ŏ) diphthongised unless a [+high] vowel followed, e.g. nigrum, nigram > negru, neagră. Or the rule may have been the converse: diphthongise if followed by a [-high] vowel.

Theoretically, a way to decide this would be to look at words that were stressed and monosyllabic; however I can't seem to find any that ended in a mid vowel in the parent language. Probably the ones that existed in Latin were remodelled or discarded due to a general aversion to lexical-word-final stress, similar to many other Romance varieties.

nea is already explained from neauă < nivem in the same way as stea < steauă < stēllam (both forms currently exist). Therefore there's no need to postulate any unusual monosyllabic forms.

As for cetate 'castle, citadel', the deletion of /w/ in various environments and of various regularity started affecting Latin already during the middle Republic. We're looking at a sound change that's been going on for two and a half millenia and is still incomplete - this is also seen in the continued coexistence of /w/ and /w/-less forms.

Improve this answer
9
  • Romanian had a reverse metaphonic diphthongisation like German. Can you elaborate on how "stea" being explained from "steauă" helps your point in any way? Steauă is a new form made most likely by analogy with "neauă", as the archaic attested form is "steală" and "steauă" cant come directly from "stellam".
    – SarruKen
    Apr 24, 2022 at 22:13
  • @SarruKen I'm not aware of German undergoing a reverse metaphonic diphthongisation - could you elaborate? Do you agree with my description of metaphony in Romanian?—I don't see any analogy between steală and neauă - the loss of singleton /l/ in Romanian is known from elsewhere, while a parallel Latin form *st(r)ēla is found in Fr. Pt. Occ. and even Dalmatian.—Anyway this is irrelevant because I was talking about a further step from steauă to stea parallel to neauă > nea. It doesn't matter if steauă is original or analogical as long as both exemplify the same process of u-loss.
    – Unbrutal_Russian
    Apr 25, 2022 at 15:57
  • Anyway, it doesn't even have to be steauă - this was simply the closest-looking word I could find. It could be anything like neagră or albeală - all of these show that the diphthongisation happened in a penultimate syllable followed by La. /a/. Whether the consonant is /u/, /l/, /gr/ doesn't matter. To be completely honest I don't understand at all why you think the form nea points to any early loss of /v/ in that word, why you say the diphthongisation must have happened before the loss of /v/. Indeed, the suffix -eală seems to be Slavic and it happened even there.
    – Unbrutal_Russian
    Apr 25, 2022 at 16:05
  • My bad, I meant just reverse metaphony like that found in the history of the germanic languages, while the aspect of diphtongisation is particular to Romanian. I took the word "nea" as evidence for /v/ falling before the diphthongisation of /e/ in that word because that phenomenon could only happen if an open or mid vowel followed in the next syllable. My assumption was that in the absence of /v/ the word would become monosyllabic. But like I found later and included in OP, it is theorised that there was an intermediary stage in the process of losing the intervocalic /v/ where /v/ > /w/
    – SarruKen
    Apr 25, 2022 at 19:51
  • @SarruKen But if it was monosyllabic, it shouldn't have diphthongised because no vowel follows in the next syllable; moreover even open syllable diphtongisation doesn't affect final vowels in Romance. Therefore even if you had only the form nea you would have to postulate that it comes from the 2-syllable *neauă!*—/v/ > /w/ requires postulating /w/ > /v/ first, on no good evidence, because there are still dialects in the south of Italy with /w/. This is a great example where the Occam's razor should be applied. Or are there inherited, non-compound Rumanian words with intervocalic /v/?
    – Unbrutal_Russian
    Apr 25, 2022 at 20:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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