Italian-Rumanian Long Forms as against Spanish and French Short Forms

Author(s): Ephraim Cross

Source: PMLA, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Sep., 1937), pp. 625-630
Published by: Modern Language Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/458664
Accessed: 10-06-2017 06:35 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PMLA

This content downloaded from 140.206.154.232 on Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:35:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 XL

ITALIAN-RUMANIAN LONG FORMS AS AGAINST

SPANISH AND FRENCH SHORT FORMS

T HE purpose of this paper is to indicate that the cle

tendency of popular Latin speech of all periods to
accented vocalic phonemes, particularly in the interior
continued existence from earliest times up to the separ
of the Romance languages, and that the divarication
Western Romance rests on obstructions interposed in g
Latin had ceased to be a living language. While some La
scholars have observed elements that call into question
the orthodox statement of conditions,1 we nevertheless have been con-
fronted with no clear, unequivocal exposition of the actual situation and
no accumulation of evidence that would challenge the correctness of the
accepted account.
The inscriptions, in so far as they give us casual glimpses of the popu-
lar speech, show that the popular Latin speech of all regions was uniform
in respect to syncopation.2 With such tendency and distribution estab-
lished as a fact, the situation presented to us in the divergence of Italian,
Rumanian, and Eastern Rhaeto-Romance on the one hand, and French,
Spanish, and Western Rhaeto-Romance on the other, may therefore be
due to events that took place in the independent evolution of these in-
dividual languages. It is true that a complete examination of this phe-
nomenon must take account of the possibility that there may have been
interference with the popular habits in the Latin of the various regions
and must also avoid the allegation that the popular speech had at all
moments exclusively syncopated forms. In addition, perhaps some rec-
ognition may have to be given to the tempo as well as the social stratum
of speech. The popular speech may have been fundamentally no less
conservative than the learned speech. However, the popular tongue is
subject to greater strain than the deliberate, leisurely literary language.
Vocalic syncope was a phenomenon known to primitive Italic. It is
important to note in passing that the exact circumstances attending
syncopation are by no means known, nor satisfactorily worked out. This
is true of Primitive Italic, Early Latin, Popular Latin of the classical
period, Late Latin, and Early Romance.3 Our inadequate knowledge of

1 See C. H. Grandgent, From Latin to Italian (Cambridge, 1927), p. 54. Therein condi-
tions in Italian are termed a "compromise."
2 E. Cross, Syncope and Kindred Phenomena in Latin Inscriptions (New York, 1930).
8 See Stolz-Schmalz, Lateinische Grammatik, 5th ed. (Munich, 1928), p. 91, and the
Romance works cited in the present study.

625

This content downloaded from 140.206.154.232 on Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:35:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
626 Italo-Rumanian Long Forms

the conditions underlying syncope as it is found to exist in the Romance

languages was expressed by Meyer-Libe:4 "Die in Betracht kommenden
Gesetze sind noch nicht alle klargelegt." But he goes on to point out that
certain consonantal surroundings seem to induce syncopation. Some key
examples of syncope either in Primitive Italic or in separate Italic lan-
guages may be briefly cited:
reccidi for re-cecidi;5 ferre for ferere; ancipes from ambi+; quindecim from
quinque+decem [haplology]; offcina beside opificina; postus, positus; iurgo be-
side iurigo; supra beside superi; disciplina beside discipulus; gemellus for
*gemenelos; Falernus from *Falizinos.

In final syllables we have ars, pars, mors, mens, for *artis, *partis, etc.
As is well known, the Oscan-Umbrian branch shows extensive syncope:6
0. actud ("agito"); hurz "hortus"); U. fiktu ("figito").
The phenomenon of syncope is, of course, bound up with the nature
and position of the accent. While we know directly very little about the
nature (and not too much, always, about the position) of the Latin ac-
cent, the testimony of the Romance languages indicates rather indubi-
tably that at least for very late times, and also for the popular speech of
classical times, the Latin accent was a relatively strong stress accent.
Bearing in mind that a regional comparison of inscriptions demon-
strates that there is no direct evidence that the Latin of one region syn-
copated more than another, we must realize that the theory of a diver-
gence within Latin itself is based solely upon the conditions we envisage
in the Romance languages and dialects.
I do not assume the existence of a Primitive Romance speech, as do
Bourciez7 and others, because the hypothesizing of such a stage is en-
tirely unnecessary. Its existence has never been proved and is, I might
further suggest, irrelevant. My immediate undertaking is to show that
the long forms of Italian or Rumanian, equally with those of Spanish
and French, are largely of secondary nature and owe their existence to
the force of a learned propulsion. In other words, the speech of the East-
ern regions went back to long forms under the predominance of some
sort of cultured influence, in many cases under a sort of re-formation,
or in certain instances under the operation of anaptyxis superimposed
upon forms already syncopated. Directing our attention to the ever-
present learned influence, Meillet writes: "Les emprunts des langues ro-
manes au latin n'ont jamais cesse."8 With the possible exception of
4 Einfiihrung in das Studium der rom. Spr. (Heidelberg, 1920), p. 154.
6 Stolz-Schmalz, op. cit., p. 92.
6 C. D. Buck, A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian (Boston, 1904), p. 8.
7E. Bourciez, Eltments de linguistiquc romane (Paris, 1923), pp. 129 ff.
8 A. Meillet, Linguistique historique et linguistique gtntrale. (Paris, 1926), p. 319.

This content downloaded from 140.206.154.232 on Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:35:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ephraim Cross 627

Rumanian, the great learned influence was that of written Latin. Latin
was the language of religion and science. But there is another element
aside from that of mere borrowing; and that is an impulse issuing from
both the living and dead state of educated Latin and transmitted to the
forms of the popular Latin speech and of Romance itself so as to shape
these forms to a mold running contrary to, or exerting an arresting force
on, the popular tendency. The long forms of literary Latin served as a
means of building a cultured speech pattern.
As my examples will indicate, many forms used to bolster up the
theory of a fundamental divergence in the Romance languages are based
on questionable etymologies. Neo-Latin lexicology shows many learned
or literary elements. Successive borrowings have produced Romance
doublets. Lastly, analogy has interfered with the normal development of
some forms. In short, we frequently find not only generally, but even
within the separate Romance languages, both a short form and a long
form existing side by side: It. bacchio and bacolo. Others are cited in the
course of this article. Also, in many instances, the resultant distribution
is not the one expected in support of the asserted grand divisions of
Romance: pulex > Rumanian purece, Italian pulce; masculus > Rumanian
mascur, Italian maschio. That is, Italian uses the short form like French
and Spanish, but Rumanian uses the long form. Again, while polypus>
Italian polpo, Spanish pulpo, the form pieuvre indicates that the long
form is the basis of the French resultant. Furthermore, the vocalism
points to a double borrowing from Greek into Latin.9
A number of doublets in the separate Romance languages rest on
borrowings that occurred after a specialization of meaning of the popular
form. So separare, becoming sevrer ("wean"), was replaced by the bor-
rowed separer. However, the variant forms both in Romance generally
and in the individual languages are not always so clear-cut and evident.
Forces acting simultaneously making for the preservation of long forms
and the production of short forms, and even the introduction of anaptyc-
tic forms, have greatly complicated our problem.
There was general syncopation in the Classical Latin period, conspicu-
ously in the cases of /+vowel+consonant, r+vowel+consonant, and
s+vowel+ consonant.10
At this point I cite such Latin-Romance forms-i.e., occurring in both
Latin and Romance-as have been syncopated in attested Latin or in
Romance survivals. The necessary implication and inference is that in
the syncopal treatment of these words the two traditional divisions of
the Romance languages show no difference. I exclude almost all com-
9 W. Meyer-Liibke, Einfiihrung, ?132.
10 Grundriss der rom. Philologie, ed. by G. Griber (Strassburg, 1904-06), I, 469.

This content downloaded from 140.206.154.232 on Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:35:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
628 Italo-Rumanian Long Forms

pound verbs, reconstructed or assumed forms, words that contain a pre-

vocalic i or e in the unaccented posttonic syllable, such as allium, apium,
angustia, animalia, and hordeum. The development of a yod in these
cases is not, for the purposes of this study, a fair test of the workings of
syncopation. For the most part, the type 1~ is used, but some other words
having more than three syllables, with the accent on the antepenult and
some scattered examples exhibiting 'v (loss of pretonic postsecondary-
accented syllable) are included. With the indicated exclusions we still
have a very useful collection as follows:

acucula (late Latin), adulter, aesculus, alter, anaticula [for the suffix], angulus
(Rum.), apicula [suffix], asper, auricula, avica, avunculus, baculum, barbulus,
bibere (It. also short), bonitas, calamus, calidus, cancer, canicula, capulum, car-
bunculus, carricare, catulus, cerniculum, cingula, circulus, civitas, clavicula, co-
agulum, cognitus, colaphus, comes, (com)positus, computare, consocer (Rum. short),
cooperculum, copula, cornicula, corniculum, craticula in It. verb incatricchiare,
crotalum (so in Modern Greek)-in It. crocchiare, cunula, cycnus (short and long),
debita, dexter, dicere, digitus, domnus-a, ducere (old It. durre), dum interim, ebu-
lum, eremus (so in Modern Greek); erigere (Old It. ergere), examen (shortened
It.), exponere (short in It.), exporrigere (in It.), fabula, facere, farrago, fenuculum,
ferula, fibula, fidelitas, filex, fistulare, frigidus, genuculum, gerulus, graculus, hor-
ridus, ilex, insubulum, insula (It. is learned), iaculum, iuniperus, iuvenis (short
Rum.), laridum, lenticula, macula, manicula, manipulus (special form manuculus
in It.), maritima (loca)-It. merenmma, masculus, merula, musculus (Rum. usual
-It. learned) nebula (reconstructed *nibulus), octoginta (reduced in It., long in
Old Spanish), oculus, panucula (contamination but syncopated), pariculus-a
(deriv. of par-It. parecchi, etc.), peditum, peduculus, persica, polypus, ponere,
papulus (It. short), p6pulus has inscr. short form poplus,1' porrigere, positus
(It. postierla rests on posterula), presbyter (short in Rum.), pulex, quadragesima,
quadraginta, quinquaginta, radicula, ranucula, renunculus (short in Rum.), rotu-
lus, sabulum, salix, sarculum, scopulus, separare (alt. short form in It.), septua-
ginta, sexaginta, silex, situla, socer (It. long and Rum. short), solidus, sorex (It.
sorcio), (sorce exists), spatula (long and short It.), speculum (spiculum >spiclunm
in Lat. but Ital. has spigolo), spinula, stabulum, stipula, strigilis (subducere > It.
soddurre), [subula] (another suffix-short in It.), tabula, tegula, torculzum, toxicum
(short and long in It.), trahere, tribulum, triginta, ungula, ventriculus, veritas,
verticulus, veteranus (short in Rum. and Italian dialects), vetulus, viginti, vilitas,
vinculum, viridis, viticula, vitigenus (short in It., doubtless influenced by another
suffix).

While these examples show the largest categories to be made up of forms

ending in lo/a and culo/a, about 36 and 26 instances, respectively, never-
theless other examples of the loss of vowel between g+l, l+c, I+d,
t+m, l+p, I+t, m+t, mp+t, r+c, r-d, r+g, r+l, r+m, also offer a
11 C.I.L., vi, no. 372.

This content downloaded from 140.206.154.232 on Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:35:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ephraim Cross 629

large class-about 24-and loss of vowel between b+l, c+r, p+r, t+r,
and t+l offer ca. 12. T'lo has been replaced by c'lo in catulus, vetulus, etc.
The universality of the reduction of the suffix culo and the loss of the
vocalic phoneme preceding the suffix lo justifies us in enunciating a law,
even for Italian. It follows, then, that these words, where they have suf-
fered no reduction of consonantal phoneme+vocalic phoneme+lo in
the separate Romance languages, must be considered learned, or in
certain less integral instances, at least semi-learned:
ab oculis, accola, albula, amygdala, ansula, assula, attilus, bacula, barbula, caupu-
lus, cingulum, cymbalurm, dactylus (has change of suffix in It.), diabolus, fabula,
facula (shows conflict), fistula (It. verb isfischiare),flammula, flocculus, glandula,
hamila, hdrmala (Greek), insula, lumbulus, mespilus, micula (derivative in It.),
nubilus, nucula (Tuscan nocchia), picula, pompilus, p6pulus, querquedula, re-
molum, saetula, scandula, singulus, spiculum, tabula, titulus, tremulus.

Of the history of many of these unsyncopated forms we know quite

little. Also, where no Italian forms are cited in works of reference we
frequently have both long and short forms in various Italian dialects.
Lastly, in numerous instances, short forms in the dialects can be cited
to counterbalance long forms in the standard literary language of Italy.
Words such as aurifex, iungula, and others offer us variants that invite
careful examination. Fabula and tabula each present both long and short
forms under such circumstances as to indicate that the long forms are to
be classed as learned, like French fable and table.
The verbs bibere, dicere, ducere, facere, ponere, and trahere, together
with their compounds, have been shortened in both East and West. It
is significant that in Spanish these verb forms were taken out of the Latin
third conjugation, but dicere, ducere, facere, and ponere suffered shorten-
ing of their infinitive stems in the future (and conditional). Though
Italian bere may be considered an instance of haplology, the vital point
is that we have a reduced form of bibere. While the infinitive ending of
the third conjugation, ere, has been kept in Italian, I note that the most
considerable movement has been away from the third conjugation. Not
counting the verbs just mentioned, 53 infinitives have moved from the
third conjugation and only 23 into it from other conjugations.
Italian, allegedly preferring long forms, has nevertheless shortened
the following Latin words, with the resultants indicated:
cicer-cece (Long in It. dialects), consuetudo-costume, culmen-colmo, insimul-
insieme, lepus-lepre, lumen-lume, marmor-marmo, nomen-nome (with long forms
in Sardinian and Spanish!),12 pantex-pancia, parabola-parola, piper-pepe (South-

12 See R, Men&ndez-Pidal, Manual de gramdtica hist6rica espanola, 5th ed. (Madrid,

1929), ?59,

This content downloaded from 140.206.154.232 on Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:35:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
630 Italo-Rumanian Long Forms

em?),13 quomodo-como(e), semen-seme, stamen-stame, stramen-strame, tarmes-

tarma, trames-trame, vermis-verme (made long in late-Latin times-morphological
question), vimen-vime.

The numerals, also, were reduced, as was evident from our first-cited list.
Rumanian treated in like fashion the following words from the group
just recorded: culmen, lumen, nomen, quomodo, vermis. Socer, having
both long and short forms in Latin, was made long in Italian, but in
Rumanian the short form is used. Rumanian spre (super) in numerals
and despre (de super) and the frequent loss of pretonic vowels,-veteranus-
bdtrfn, monumentum-mormtnt prove that syncope of the type under dis-
cussion is not by any means contrary to the genius of the language.
In the case of Italian, it is to be further noted that the language not
only shows no repugnance to syncope, but actually offers numerous syn-
copations throughout its recorded history. In many instances, the mod-
ern language has long forms, whereas the older speech was characterized
by short forms. We still have such reductions as andro, avrb, potrb,
verrb, etc. Of course, many forms cited as belonging to standard literary
Italian may have originated in a dialect or dialects that did not enter
into the make-up of that official language. The distribution of long and
short forms in Italy, which does not seem to me to spring from a "North-
South" line, prevents us from being too positive about a determination
of the phonological characteristics of Italian. A short form at Piacenza
against a long form at Mantua might well reflect the learned conditions
prevailing in the latter city, once so important culturally.
Enough evidence has been adduced to invalidate an East-West classi-
fication which has hitherto been used to delineate an allegedly inherent
phonological distinction between the two divisions of Romance. From
the phonetic we must pass to an intimate study of the cultural condi-
tions underlying each speech in a subsequent study.
EPHRAIM CROSS
The College of the City of New York

1 Meyer-Liibke, Rom. Etymol. Worterbuch (Heidelberg, 1924, and 1935 ed.), sub voce.

This content downloaded from 140.206.154.232 on Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:35:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms