Thanks for your help, all who replied. I like the "phantom" root "pikk" +
"innu" and have therefore derived the word "pichinh" [pik."inj]. I have
entered the following etymology: "obscure poss from pikk + innu"

I have to admit that I have never enjoyed a conlang project as much as this.
It is just flying off the keyboard like Regimonti did.

-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Eric Christopherson
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Pequeno (was Re: Pilovese in the Romance Language Family)

On Apr 3, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> You may have noticed that I avoided stating a personal opinion, but I
> actually believe there must have been a root *pik- in some substrate
> language **in Italy** which got picked up into Vulgar Latin in two
> different dialect forms */pikkin/ and */pik;k;in/, plus possibly an
> unsuffixed form */pikk/ which then spread across the empire with VL
> itself.

I think it's possible that the variation tt ~ kk ~ kk; ~ ts might have come
from "childish" pronunciations of the word; Grandgent's _Introduction to
Vulgar Latin_ has the same hypothesis to the variation -iclus ~ -ittus ~
-iccus. The semantics of those forms would seem to make them apt to be said
in baby talk.

(I remember that one time I had the same hyphothesis about the English words
little ~ lickle ~ ickle, and looked up their etymologies, but now I can't
find them... so I don't know if they are
relevant.)

> Both /i/s of the substrate form could apparently be perceived either
> long or short by Latin speakers. In Italian a change of suffix, or the
> addition of a Latin suffix on the unsuffixed form gave PICCULU.
> The identity of the substrate language is anybody's guess, as several
> non-Indo-European languages were spoken in Italy prior to Roman
> expansion. I'd bet on Etruscan, but I have no evidence for that hunch,
> other than it's being the most important of those languages to Roman
> history.
>
> 2008/4/3, Haggen Kennedy <[log in to unmask]>:
>> 	Hi. :)
>>
>> Scotto Hlad wrote:
>>> So then pequeno and poco come from the same root?
>>
>> 	Er... actually no, I don't believe it does. :/ See below.
>>
>>
>>> Pequeno is derived from pitzinus.
>>
>> 	I don't know in Spanish. In Portuguese, "pouco" comes from Latin
>> "paucus"; and "pequeno" is usually (there is still a little
>> dissension about it) ascribed to some sort of crossover between
>> Vulgar Latin "pitinnus" with the root "*pikk-" (present in Italian
>> 'piccolo', 'piccino'). If you read Corominas, he'll say that
>> "pequen-"
>> belongs to
>> the "la vasta colección de expresiones romances de la idea de
>> pequeñez (it. pìccolo, piccìno, fr. petit, sardo pithinnu, gascón
>> pouninn,
>> etc.)
>> constituídas todas ellas por una p inicial, seguida, por lo común, de
>> vocal aguda, otra oclusiva sorda y en la terminación -innu. En latín
>> vulgar se encuentra ya pitinnus, y en las formas hispánicas esta
>> variante se presenta combinada con la consoante interna del tipo
>> piccolo." (translating: pequen- belongs to the wide collection of
>> romance expressions of littleness (it. pìccolo, piccìno, fr. petit,
>> sardo pithinnu, gascón pouninn, etc.), constituted, all of them, of
>> an initial P, usually followed by an acute vowel, of another unvoiced
>> occlusive and of the ending -innu. In Vulgar Latin, there already
>> exists [the word] pitinnus, and, in the Hispanic model, this variant
>> presents itself combined with the inner consonant of the type
>> "piccolo".)
>>
>> 	Corominas is Spanish, but what he said is true for Portuguese as
>> well - the process he mentioned has existed in Portuguese since the
>> very origins of the language, in words like apequenado, empequenecer,
>> pequename, pequenete, pequenote etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
>>> Meyer-Lübke's "Romanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch"
>>> rejects a connexion with PAUCUS
>>
>> 	I personally agree.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Meyer-Lübkes conclusion is that the root of the Spanish _pequeño_ is
>>> unknown.
>>
>> 	As far as I know, there isn't a consensus yet, although most Romance

>> etymologists tend to agree that it comes from the source I mention in
>> the beginning of this e-mail. I actually agree with that view myself.
>>
>> Peace,
>> Ken :)
>>
>
>
> --
> / BP