[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Thanks so much for this! Scotto -----Original Message----- From: romconlang@yahoogroups.com [mailto:romconlang@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Benct Philip Jonsson Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:10 AM To: romconlang@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [romconlang] (Long) Re: Etymology of Ibero-Romance "Pequeño" and Cognates Since the issue has recently come up both in a private correspondence and on this list I looked up my old notes concerning that mysterious Romance root for 'small, little'. The most likely story goes something like this: 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]. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]