[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
In Latin there was a word PU:TUS, meaning '(small)
boy'. In Vulgar Latin this word had a variant
*PUTTUS, since there was a general tendency for
V:C and VC: (long vowel + single consonant and
short vowel + long/double consonant) to alternate
with each other, and then by analogy or dialect
mixture a third variant *PU:TTUS with both the
stressed vowel and the following consonant
long[^note 1]: .
First of all the well-known Latin diminutive
ending -UL- was added to *PUTTUS, giving
*PUTTULUS, which soon was contracted to *PUTTLUS.
Now there was a very strong tendency in Vulgar
Latin for an /l/ which formed a cluster with
another consonant to become a palatal /L/ (like
the older pronunciation of Spanish _ll_ or
Italian _gli_). As we see from the various
reflexes of PLANTA in the Romance languges -- It.
_pianta_, Sp. _llanta_, Fr. _plante_, Ptg.
_chanta_ -- the consonant + [L] could change in
various ways: it could change into consonant +
/j/ (Italian) which could in turn change into
/tj/ and further into various reflexes of that
combination, or indeed revert to or remain
consonant + l (French).[^note 2].
Next the palatal(ized) combination [cL] changed
the preceding vowel /U/ into /I/. *PUTTULUS had
now become something which may be written
*PITTJLJUS. Now it is a well known fact that the
combination *TL, or rather its palatalized outcome
*TJLJ [cl] was felt to be especially difficult to
VL speakers: it usually changed to -- or was
indistinguishable from -- CL > *KJLJ [^note 3],
and Vulgar Latin speakers of central Italy, who
tended to preserve or restore the -ULUS ending, at
some point retrofitted *PITTJLJUS to *PICCULUS,
whenceItalian _piccolo_.
Since the diminutive ending -UL- lost its meaning
or vanished by sound change, and because people
still felt the need to reinforce the sense of
littleness, the thus obtained root variants
*PITL/*PITTJ/*PIKKJ/*PIKKL and even the further
back-formations *PITT and *PIKK, all meaning
'small' or 'small thing/being' could and usually
were refurbished with further diminutive endings,
giving the French variants and derivations _petit,
petiot, pichot, pichoun_, and Sard _pize.d.du_ <
*PITJELLU, but above all *PITTJI:NUS, and in
Iberia *PIKKINNUS [^note 4], although Rumanianalso
has the suffixless back-formation _pitu_.
The different reflexes show a wide variation in
the sounds corresponding to the final consonant of
the root: Sard _pizinnus_ [ts], Italian dialects
_pizzinnu_ [tts] and _piccinnu_ [ttS], French
_petit_ [tt] [^note 5], _pichot_ [tS] > [S], Sp.
_pequeño_, Ptg. _pequeno_ [kk], It. _piccolo_, no
doubt because this sound could be palatalized or
depalatalized, and then either to a
dental/alveolar or a velar, and lastly it could
even remain or be restored to a cluster. Last but
not least these palatalizations and back-
formations happened at different times and places,
and therefore gave different results. The absence
of [L] reflexes no doubt is because the consonant
was usually long or double. It has also been
thought that the frequent use of diminutives in
talk by and to babies has led to sometimes
anomalous sound developments. For this word if
anyone is prepared to believe that!
## NOTES
[^note 1]: The most well-known example of this is
the latin word for 'whole' TO:TUM. Spanish _todo_
is a regular reflex of the Classical form with V:C
while French _tout_ goes back to *TOTTUM while
Italian _tutto_ goes back to a mixed form
*TU:TTUM, which was due to the fact that 'long' O:
[o] and 'short' U [U] interchanged -- and indeed usually
merged -- in Vulgar Latin. Another example is the VL
diminutive ending *-ITTUM/*-I:TTUM, where French _-
et_ and Italian _-etto_ must go back to the form
with a short vowel while Spanish _-ito_ must go back
to a form with both a long vowel and a long
consonant. Logically a form *PU:TUM with a long
vowel and a short consonant must have existed, but I
don't know if it is anywhere attested; it is notable
that this form would have coincided with a common
variant of the past participle ending!
[^note 2]: The reflex [L] (which could develop on
to [j] and various further devlopments of that
sound, like Spanish [x]) is especially common
between two vowels, as seen in the reflexes of
SPEC(U)LUM: Portuguese _espelho_, Catalan
_espill_, Sard _ispiyu_, Spanish _espejo_, though
forms like Italian _specchio_ and Frulan _spieili_
also exist.
[^note 3]: Whence *VET(U)LUS > VECLUS (attested in
"Appendix Probi") > It. _vecchio_, Fr. _vieil_,
though Provencal _espitlori_, if indeed from
*SPEC(U)LORIUM, forms an interesting exception and
evidence that the development could go both back
and forth!
[^note 4]: The suffix variants *-I:NUS -and *-
INNUS are of course a further instance of V:C/VC:
variation!
[^note 5]: If the Vulgar Latin diminutive ending
*-ITTUS/*-I:TTUS is itself developed out of -IC(U)LUS/*-
ICC(U)LUS the word _petit_ shows the same type of
development double, and also illustrates that
at some times and places *TL and *CL indeed
merged as [cL].