Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:21:51.060Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Ephraim Cross
Ephraim Cross*
Affiliation:
The College of the City of New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this paper is to indicate that the clear and definite tendency of popular Latin speech of all periods to force out unaccented vocalic phonemes, particularly in the interior of words, had a continued existence from earliest times up to the separate development of the Romance languages, and that the divarication of Eastern and Western Romance rests on obstructions interposed in greater part after Latin had ceased to be a living language. While some Latin and Romance scholars have observed elements that call into question the exactness of the orthodox statement of conditions, we nevertheless have been confronted with no clear, unequivocal exposition of the actual situation and no accumulation of evidence that would challenge the correctness of the accepted account.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , September 1937 , pp. 625 - 630
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1937

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See C. H. Grandgent, From Latin to Italian (Cambridge, 1927), p. 54. Therein conditions in Italian are termed a “compromise.”

2 E. Cross, Syncope and Kindred Phenomena in Latin Inscriptions (New York, 1930).

3 See Stolz-Schmalz, Lateinische Grammatik, 5th ed. (Munich, 1928), p. 91, and the Romance works cited in the present study.

4 Einführung in das Studium der rom. Spr. (Heidelberg, 1920), p. 154.

5 Stolz-Schmalz, op. cit., p. 92.

6 C. D. Buck, A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian (Boston, 1904), p. 8.

7 E. Bourciez, Eléments de linguistique romane (Paris, 1923), pp. 129 ff.

8 A. Meillet, Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. (Paris, 1926), p. 319.

9 W. Meyer-Lübke, Einführung, §132.

10 Grundriss der rom. Philologie, ed. by G. Gröber (Strassburg, 1904–06), i, 469.

11 C.I.L., vi, no. 372.

12 See R. Menéndez-Pidal, Manual de gramática histórica española, 5th ed. (Madrid, 1929), §59.

13 Meyer-Lübke, Rom. Etymol. Wörterbuch (Heidelberg, 1924, and 1935 ed.), sub voce.