Print

Print


Scratch all that!  The Latin word had /k/ after all, not /g/!

So _aguë_ /ˈagwɪ/ it is, though I'm still nopt wild about the 
diaeresis...  I ought to go to bed! :-)

Jau vieu del piá e dell'aguë, e nau del vi, maogriad che sau 
confusiad!

/bpj

Den 2018-02-10 kl. 23:30, skrev BPJ:
> Den 2018-02-09 kl. 09:35, skrev Raymond Brown:
>> The loss of most final vowels except [a] -> [ə] is early in
>> Proto-French.
>>
>> The loss of [ɣ] precedes the loss of final schwa by several
>> centuries.
>> [ɣ] was lost sometime in the Proto-French period.  We would expect
>> AQUA
>> to have become /ewə/ which is attested.  But an intervocalic /w/
>> is odd;
>> it was resolved in some areas by becoming /v/, i.e. _eve_.  In
>> others it
>> became the same as the triphthong formed from /e/ followed by a 'dark
>> l', i.e.  the one written _eau_, e.g. belle ~ beau. So we find
>> _eaue_.
> 
> I just realized that AQUA must become [ˈawɪ] in Rhodrese. The question then
> how it is spelled! The digraph _ue_ is normally /ø/, so _aue_ might suggest
> /aˈø/. The question is which of _auhe_ and _auë_? Medieval scribes -- if
> they cared about the ambiguity at all, which isn't at all certain since
> there would be no word /aˈø/, but OTOH _aue_ /ˈave/ *was* a word in Latin
> which may have mattered to them -- would probably have spelled it _auhe_
> since they didn't use diacritics, but sixteenth or eighteenth century
> pundits may have been of a different mind. I don't like any of the two!
> 
> Jau vieu del piá e dell'auhe.
> 
> Jau vieu del piá e dell'auë.
> 
> I'm beginning to wonder whether it can be _ave_ [ˈavɪ]...
> 
> 
> /bpj
> 


-- 
Mind the reply-to!