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!