The Economy of Diphthongization in Early Romance

129 Pages·1968·10.862 MB·English

by  Luigi Romeo

THE ECONOMY OF DIPHTHONGIZATION
IN EARLY ROMANCE
JANUA LINGUARUM
STUDIA MEMORIAE
NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA
edenda curai
C. H. VAN SCHOONEVELD
INDIANA UNIVERSITY
SERIES PRACTICA
LV
1968
MOUTON
THE HAGUE • PARIS
THE ECONOMY OF
DIPHTHONGIZATION
IN EARLY ROMANCE
by
LUIGI ROMEO
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO
1968
MOUTON
THE HAGUE • PARIS
© Copyright 1968 in The Netherlands.
Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague.
No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm,
or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 68-15539
Printed in The Netherlands by Mouton & Co., Printers, The Hague.
TO FRANCES

PREFACE
Several seminars on general and Romance linguistics held by Professor Eugene
Dorfman at the University of Washington, during the years 1957-1960, dealt with the
relationship between linguistic theory of sound change and the organization of com-
parative data. In the application of the principles of linguistic economy to actual
problems of Romance linguistics, several projects were outlined on different aspects
of phonological investigation. The Romance vocalic systems and their dynamic
evolution seemed to offer a promising field for analysis.
The original version of The Economy of Diphthongization in Early Romance is the
thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in Romance Languages and Literature at the University of Washington,
1960. Between this date and the present, no important theories nor new documenta-
tion have been forwarded to eventually affect any theoretical or historical aspect of this
investigation. The present version, thus, contains only a few minor changes dictated by
a better presentation of the paradigmatic charts and by the correction of clerical errors.
It also includes an index of authors, one of technical terms and another of words.
A brief section of this dissertation, about one chapter, was published as "Structural
Pressures and Paradigmatic Diphthongization in East Romance", Word, XIX (April
1963), pp. 1-19. By the most amazing coincidence, there appeared at the same time
Maria Manoliu's "Note de fonologie romanicà diacronicà",1 Revista de filologie
romanicâ fi germanicâ, VII (1963), pp. 9-15. After a synthetic and critical
presentation of the original "Vulgar Latin" views held by A. G. Haudricourt and
A. G. Juilland in their Essai pour une histoire structurale du phonétisme français (Paris,
Klincksieck, 1949), passim, Manoliu proposes "la transformation d'y en o, en
roumain", independently of the influence of Classical Latin au, i.e., contrary to
Haudricourt's and Juilland's earlier theories. Translated into French [from which I
took the quotation given above] as "Notes de phonologie romane diachronique",
1 The content of the article is incorrectly indicated as "Early Rumanian diphthongs are studied in a
general Romance context by M. Manoliu ... and by L. Romeo ..." by R. R. Posner and J. A. Cremona
in the "Romance Linguistics" Section of The Year's Work in Romance Languages and Literature,
XXV (1963 [1965]), p. 17. Manoliu, as a matter of fact, did not study any "Early Rumanian diph-
thongs". Only the Latin au was considered within the framework of Romance (not Roumanian)
vowel systems. Throughout this work, I prefer the spelling of Roumanian with the -ou- in order to
avoid possible confusions.
g PREFACE
Revue de linguistique [from 1964 on = Revue romaine de linguistique], VIII (1963),
pp. 239-245, Manoliu's article offers grounds for excitement when her considerations
are compared with the corresponding sections of my dissertation (Copyright A 555764,
June 30,1961) that was available, as early as 1961, through University Microfilms, Inc.2
In connection with Manoliu's article, it is interesting to read N. C. W. Spence's
"Quantity and Quality in the Vowel-System of Vulgar Latin", Word, XXI (1965),
pp. 1-18, which presents an attempt to classify and critically analyze various hypotheses
accounting for the change of quantity to quality in "Vulgar Latin". Among the three
hypotheses, Spence finds it difficult, though not through any fault of his own, to
grasp the keen proposal of solution advanced by H. Weinrich (on the "linking" of
vowels and consonants), since Weinrich still thinks in terms of "long" consonants
whenever these are involved.3
The present work has been made possible through the kindness and the cooperation
of many people. Mrs. Margaret Trudo and Mrs. Ruth M. Kirk, of the Interlibrary
Loan Office of the University of Washington, have been extremely helpful, and Mrs.
Eve Casey deserves the utmost gratitude for her patience and skill in the typing of the
manuscript.
The publication of this work was partially supported by a Graduate School
Continuing Research Grant of the University of Colorado.
My indebtedness is expressed to Professors Howard L. Nostrand, William E.
Wilson, Carroll E. Reed, Lurline V. Simpson, Seymour S. Weiner, Victor Hanzeli,
and Thomas Sousa. Professor Iorgu Iordan, of the Linguistic Institute of Bucharest,
deserves special thanks for his generous help in bibliographical material. Finally,
Professor Eugene Dorfman is most of all thanked for his constant encouragement
and counsel, as well as for his help which went beyond the duties of his position as
thesis director and adviser.
Boulder, Colorado, June 21, 19654
2 "O-P Book" 61-1330. See Dissertation Abstracts, XXI (1960-1961), 3776.
8 H. Weinrich, Phonologische Studien zur romanischen Sprachgeschichte (Munster, Aschendorff,
[1958]), p. 18. The problem of the so-called "long" or "double" consonants has always obstructed
many diachronic investigations in the Romance languages. Its solution could be the "Rosetta stone"
to the whole problem of "quantity" versus quality, not only in Latin but in other Indo-European
languages such as Greek. This general linguistics aspect tells us, once more, that it is difficult, if not
impossible, to analyze sub-systems without viewing them at all times bound to and within the total
system. For a partial aspect of the pseudo-consonantal length, see L. Romeo, "On the Phonemic
Status of the so-Called 'Geminates' in Italian", Linguistics, 29 (1967), pp. 105-116.
4 The publication of O. Nadrij's Phonétique historique du roumain (Paris, Klincksieck, 1963), a copy
of which reached me after the revision of the present work in 1965, has not affected my views on the
unity of Romania as far as initial paradigmatic diphthongization is concerned. Nandriç's difficulty in
explaining the co-existence of diphthongal variants in Roumanian seems to reinforce my theories.
For a comparison between Nandriç's historical data and my theoretical speculations, see R. Posner,
"Rumanian and Romance Phonology", Romance Philology, XIX (1966), pp. 450-459. Boulder,
Colorado, May 14, 1967.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface 7
List of Abbreviations 11
List of Figures 13
Introduction 15
PART I: THE NATURE OF THE DIPHTHONG
I. Theories and Definitions 27
II. The Phonetics of the Dipththong 37
PART II: FUNCTION AND STRUCTURE IN THE VOCALIC SYSTEM
III. The Phonemics of the Diphthong 55
IV. Paradigmatic Diphthongization in General Romance 67
PART HI: THE ECONOMY OF DIPHTHONGIZATION IN EARLY ROMANCE
V. The Three-Degree Systems 79
VI. The Four-Degree Systems 89
Conclusion 108
Glossary Ill
Bibliography 113
Index of Authors 121
Index of Technical Terms 124
Index of Words 126