Part 12

2. In the dialects of Béarn and Catalonia the original _a_ remains in some parts of the preterit.

176. A final -c, which developed in the strong _-ui_ preterits (§ 184), often became attached to the 3d pers. sg. of weak preterits of the fourth conjugation: floríc, fugíc, iauzíc, partíc.[126] It was sometimes extended to other weak preterits: chantęc, entendęc, nasquęc,[127] paręc.[128] We find also a 3d pers. pl. cazęgron, etc., and even a 1st pers. sg. ameguí, etc. In some western dialects the final -c was adopted by the whole first conjugation: donęc, portęc, etc.

177. Some strong preterits occasionally assumed weak endings:--

(1) In the 1st pers. sg. several verbs in -s sometimes either added an -í or shifted the stress to an originally unaccented final -i (cf. §§ 172, 173): dis dissí, pris presí, quis quesí, respos respozí. A few verbs in -c did the same: aic aiguí, bẹc beguí, conọc conoguí, saup saubí, vinc venguí, vǫlc volguí. An ending -guí being thus established, this syllable was sometimes added to preterits not of the -c class: costrenguí, destrenguí, prenguí, remanguí, restrenguí, traguí.

(2) In the 3d pers. sg. weak endings are rare: ac aguęt, vẹnc venguęt.

(3) In the 3d pers. pl. the weak ending is not uncommon in -s preterits: diron dissęron, düistrent düissęron, mẹsdren mezęron, prẹson presęron, remastrent remazęron, traissęron. We probably have to deal here, as in (1), with a shift of accent--_dīxĕrunt_ ＞ ✱dísseron ＞ dissęron, etc.: see § 49, (2). The same thing may be true of such a form as aguęron, beside ágron, from ✱_áβwerunt_ = _habuĕrunt_; such a form as visquęron, on the other hand, is doubtless imitative.

STRONG PRETERITS.

178. (1) The reduplicative perfects were discarded in Vulgar Latin, with the exception of _dĕdi_ (and its compounds) and _stĕti_, whose reduplicative character was no longer apparent. _Cecĭdī_ became ✱_cadui_ or ✱_cadéi_; the rest either disappeared or passed into the _-sī_ class: _cucŭrrī_ ＞ ✱_cŭrsī_, _momŏrdī_ ＞ ✱_mŏrsī_, _pepĕndī_ ＞ ✱_pē(n)sī_, _pupŭgī_ ＞ ✱_punxī_, _tetĕndī_ ＞ ✱_tē(n)sī_, _tetĕgī_ ＞ ✱_taxī_ ✱_tanxī_.

(2) The _-i_ perfects were greatly reduced in number in Vulgar Latin. Some disappeared (_ēgī_), some became weak (_fūgī_ ＞ ✱_fugīī_ ＞ fügí); others passed into the _-sī_ or the _-uī_ class: _prehĕndī_ ＞ ✱_prē(n)sī_ ＞ pris; _bĭbit_ ＞ ✱_bĭbuit_ ＞ bẹc, _vēnit_ ＞ ✱_vēnuit_ ＞ vẹnc. In Provençal only three _-ī_ verbs remained: _fēcī_ ＞ fis, _fuī_ ＞ füi, _vīdī_ ＞ vi.

(3) Of the _-sī_ class (including _-ssī_ and _-xī_) over twenty verbs were preserved in Vulgar Latin (_dīxī_, _excŭssī_, _mīsī_, _traxī_, etc.), and about the same number passed into this class from others (_absco(n)sī_, ✱_fraxī_ ✱_sŭrsī_, etc.): cf. (1) and (2) above. In Provençal nearly half the verbs of the second and third conjugations have _-sī_ preterits: _rema(n)sī_ ＞ remas, ✱_respō(n)sī_ ＞ respọs[129].

(4) The _-uī_ class held its own very well in Vulgar Latin (_placuī_, etc.) and received some additions (_natus sum_ ＞ ✱_nacuī_, _sustŭlī_ ＞ ✱_tŏluī_, _vēnī_ ＞ ✱_vēnuī_, _vīcī_ ＞ ✱_vĭncuī_, _vīxī_ ＞ ✱_vīscuī_, etc.)[130]. To this class belonged, in Vulgar Latin (and, according to Meyer-Lübke[131], in classic Latin also), all perfects in _-vī_, this ending being pronounced -wŭī, later -wwị or -βwị: _cognōvī_ ＞ ✱_conōvuī_ ＞ conọc, _crēvit_ ＞ ✱_crēvuit_ ＞ crẹc, _mōvī_ ＞ ✱_mŏvuī_ ＞ mǫc. Cf. § 148. In Provençal not far from half the verbs of the second and third conjugations have _-uī_ preterits. For a combination of a -c ＜ _-uī_ stem with a weak ending, see § 175, (3). For the extension of -c ＜ _-uī_ to other conjugations, see § 176.

179. In the 1st pers. pl. the accent was shifted to the ending, to make this form correspond to the 2d pers. sg. and pl.: _fēcĭmus_ ＞ ✱_fēcĭ́mu’_ ＞ fezẹm (cf. _fecĭstī_ ＞ fezist, _fecĭstis_ ＞ fezẹtz), ✱_prē(n)sĭmus_ ＞ ✱_presĭ́mu’_ ＞ prezẹm, _debŭĭmus_ ＞ _deβwĭ́mu’_ ＞ deguẹm. Exceptions are _fŭĭmus_ ＞ fọm, _vīdĭmus_ ＞ vim; in these verbs the 2d pers. forms also are monosyllabic (füst, fọtz; vist, vitz).

180. We find in some verbs an irregular 3d pers. pl. without -r-, made by adding -on or -en to the 3d pers. sg., the final consonant of which is voiced in all verbs in which it is voiced in the other persons of the plural: (aucire) aucis, aucíson; (plánher) plais, pláisson; (prenre) prẹs, prẹson; (remanre) remas, remáson; (venir) vẹnc, vẹnguen; (volẹr) vǫlc, vǫlgon.

1. _Prenre_ has _preiron_ (beside _preson_ _preseron_), probably through the analogy of _feiron_ ＜ _fēcĕrunt_. _Mairon_, from _maner_, is perhaps to be explained in the same way.

181. (1) Through the change of -e- to -i- by the influence of a final -ī, as described in § 173, (1), a distinction was established between the first and the third person singular of some preterits: _crēvī_ ＞ cric, _crēvit_ ＞ crẹc; _fēcī_ ＞ fis, _fēcit_ ＞ fẹs; ✱_prē(n)sī_ ＞ pris, ✱_prē(n)sit_ ＞ prẹs; _tĕnuī_ ✱_tēnuī_[132] ＞ tinc, _tĕnuit_ ✱_tēnuit_ ＞ tẹnc; _vēnī_ ✱_vēnuī_[132] ＞ vinc, _vēnit_ ✱_vēnuit_ ＞ vẹnc. Mẹtre, also, has mis, mẹs, which may come from ✱_mĭssī_ ✱_mĭssit_ (cf. _mĭssum_) = _mīsī_, _mīsit_; or perhaps mis comes from _mīsī_ and mẹs is analogical. Through the analogy of such forms, quęrre has quis, quẹs. In the preterit of podẹr, both _pŏtuī_ and _pŏtuit_ would regularly have given pǫc puǫc puęc (§ 37), but pǫc was kept for the 3d person, and puǫc puęc was used for the 1st. The preterit of volẹr differentiates the two persons similarly--vuęlc, vǫlc; here the diphthong (perhaps under the influence of puęc) is borrowed from the present, where we have ✱_vŏleo_ ＞ vuęlh, ✱_vŏlet_ ＞ vǫl (§ 37). Avẹr, likewise, borrows a distinction from the present: aic, ac reproduce the vowels of ai, a; aic + aguí ＞ aiguí.

(2) For -í as a characteristic of the first person, see § 177, (1).

(3) For -c as a distinctive mark of the third person, see § 176.

182. The three -ī perfects developed in Provençal as follows:--

(1) _Facĕre_ ＞ faire (✱_fare_ ＞ far) has:

_fēcī_ ＞ fis, fezí _fēĭmus_ ✱_fēcĭ́mu’_ ＞ fezẹm _fēcĭ́stī_ ＞ fezíst fezís _fēcĭstis_ ＞ fezẹtz fezẹs _fēcit_ ＞ fẹtz fẹs _fēcĕrunt_ ＞ fẹiron fẹiro

1. We do not find, in the 1st pers. sg., as we should expect (§ 65, C´), _fitz_ beside _fis_; doubtless the form came early under the influence of _mis_, _pris_, _quis_, etc. For _fezí_, see § 177, (1). There is also a form _fi_, due, perhaps, to the analogy of _vi_ ＜ _vīdī_; corresponding to _fi_ are 3d pers. sg. _fe_, and pl. _fem_, _fes_, _feron_. A rare _figuí_ is evidently made on the model of _aiguí_, etc. In the 3d pers. sg. we find also _fei_, which seems to be patterned after _feiron_ or after the present _fai_.

(2) _Esse_ (＞ ✱_ĕssĕre_ ＞ ęsser ęstre) had originally a long _u_ in the perfect. In literary Latin the _u_ was shortened, but the popular speech seems to have kept _ū_ beside _ŭ_. The Provençal 1st and 2d pers. sg. apparently come from _fūī_, ✱_fūstī_ = _fuĭstī_ (although Pr. füi might be taken from _fŭī_), while the other forms presuppose _ŭ_:

_fūī_ ＞ füi _fŭĭmus_ ✱_fŭmu’_ ＞ fọm _fūĭstī_ ✱_fūstī_ ＞ füst füs _fŭĭstis_ ✱_fŭstis_ ＞ fọtz fọs _fŭit_ ✱_fŭt_ ＞ fọ, fọn, fọnc _fŭĕrunt_ ✱_fŭrunt_ ＞ fọron fọro, fọren

1. A rare _fo_ in the 1st pers. sg. seems to be simply borrowed from the 3d. In the 3d pers. sg., _fon_ beside _fo_ is due to the analogy of _-on_ _-o_ in the 3d pers. pl., and, in general, of such double forms as _bon_ _bo_, _mon_ _mo_, _son_ _so_, _ton_ _to_: cf. § 63, (5). _Fonc_ shows the influence of _tenc_, _venc_.

(3) _Vidēre_ ＞ vezẹr has:

_vīdī_ ＞✱viði ✱við vi, vic _vīdĭmus_ ✱_vīdĭmu’_ ＞✱viðmu ✱viim vim _vīdĭstī_ ＞vist vis _vīdĭstis_ ＞vitz vis _vīdit_ ＞✱við vi, vit, vic _vīdĕrunt_ ＞✱viðrun viron viro

1. The 1st pers. sg. _vic_ is patterned upon _aic_ ＜ _habuī_, _cric_ ＜ _crēvi_, etc. The 2d pers. forms are irregular, as we should expect ✱_vezist_, ✱_vezetz_: evidently the 2d pers. followed the analogy of the 1st and 3d. In the 3d pers. sg., _vit_ and _vic_ follow the model of _partit_, _partic_, etc.: see § 173, (3), and § 176.

183. In the -sī perfect the 3d pers. pl. presented difficulties. If the -e- of the penult fell, an s or z and an r were brought together. Most dialects apparently preserved the -e-, and shifted the accent to it (aucizęron, condüissęron, dissęron, prezęron, remazęron, traissęron), or else borrowed outright the weak ending (respondęron): cf. § 49, (2), and § 177, (3). Dialects which lost the -e- too early to follow this method, generally suppressed the sibilant (aucíron, diron, mẹron from mẹtre, remáron), or omitted the -r- and formed the 3d pers. pl. directly from the 3d pers. sg. (aucízon, pláisson, prẹzon, remázon: § 180), or else imitated a preterit of another class (mairon from manẹr, prẹiron from prenre, doubtless patterned after fẹiron ＜ _fēcĕrunt_); some borderland dialects kept the sibilant and the r, and developed a dental between them (düystrent ＜ _dūxĕrunt_, mẹsdren ＜ _mīsĕrunt_ + ✱_mĭssĕrunt_: § 70, Sr, Zr).

As examples of the _-sī_ perfect we may take the preterit of dire ＜ _dīcĕre_ and penre prenre ＜ _pr(eh)ĕndĕre_:--

(1) _dīxī_ ＞ dis, dissí _dīxĭmus_ ✱_dīxĭ́mu’_ ＞ dissẹm _dīxĭstī_ ＞ dissíst _dīxĭstis_ ＞ dissẹtz dissẹs _dīxit_ ＞ dis _dīxĕrunt_ ＞ dissęron, diron diro

(2) ✱_prē(n)sī_ ＞ pris, prẹs, presí ✱_prē(n)sĭmus_ ✱_prēsĭ́mu’_ ＞ presẹm ✱_prē(n)sĭstī_ ＞ presíst ✱_prē(n)sĭstis_ ＞ presẹtz presẹs ✱_prē(n)sit_ ＞ prẹs ✱_prē(n)sĕrunt_ ＞ presęron, prẹson, prẹiron

(3) Escriure ＜ _scrībĕre_ has, beside escris ＜ _scrīpsī_, a preterit escrius (cf. p. p. escriut escrit escrich), in which the u is probably due to the influence of the infinitive.

(4) For dissí, presí, quesí, respozí, see § 177, (1). For pris prẹs, etc., see § 173, (1).

184. In the -uī perfect the development depends somewhat upon the consonant preceding the _u_. The treatment of the various cons. + w groups, which was discussed in § 72, may be illustrated by _ha_bu_it_ ＞ ac[133], _crēvit_ ✱_crē_vu_it_ ＞ crẹc[134]; _nŏ_cu_it_ ＞ nǫc[135]; _sēdit_ ✱_sĕ_du_it_ ＞ sęc, _pŏ_tu_it_ ＞ pǫc; _va_lu_it_ ＞ valc[136], _tĕnuit_ ✱_tē_nu_it_ ＞ tẹnc[137], _mĕ_ru_it_ ＞ męrc; _sa_pu_it_ ＞ saup[138]: the noteworthy features are the change of _u_ to -c (through w, gw, g), the absorption of the preceding consonant unless it be a liquid, a nasal, or a _p_, the preservation of the liquid or nasal, and the metathesis of the _p_.

Avẹr ＜ _habēre_, podẹr ＜ ✱_pŏtēre_ _pŏsse_, volẹr ＜ ✱_vŏlēre_ _vĕlle_, sabẹr ＜ ✱_sapēre_ _sapĕre_ will serve as examples (for the accentuation of the 3d pers. pl., see § 16, 2):--

(1) _habuī_ ＞ac, aguí, aic, aiguí _habuĭmus_ ✱_aβwĭ́mu’_ ＞ aguẹm _habuĭstī_ ＞aguíst _habuĭstis_ ＞aguẹtz aguẹs _habuit_ ＞ac _habuĕrunt_ ＞ágron ágro, aguęron

1. For _aguí_ (_beguí_, _conoguí_), see § 177, (1). For _aic_, _aiguí_, (_cric_), see § 181, (1). For _aguęron_ (_visquęron_), see § 177, (3).

(2) _pŏtuī_ ＞ pǫc puǫc puęc _potuĭmus_ ✱_potwĭ́mu’_ ＞ poguẹm _potuĭstī_ ＞ poguíst _potuĭstis_ ＞ poguẹtz poguẹs _pŏtuit_ ＞ pǫc, pǫt _potuĕrunt_ ＞ pǫgron pǫgro

1. For _puoc_, see § 181, (1). _Pot_ is apparently due to the combined influence of weak preterits and the parts of _poder_ in which the dental is preserved.

(3) _vŏluī_ ＞ vǫlc, vuęlc, volguí _voluĭmus_ ✱_volwĭ́mu’_ ＞ volguẹm _voluĭstī_ ＞ volguíst _voluĭstis_ ＞ volguẹtz volguẹs _vŏluit_ ＞ vǫlc _voluĕrunt_ ＞ vǫlgron vǫlgro

1. For _vuelc_ (_tinc_, _vinc_), see § 181, (1); for _volguí_ (_venguí_), § 177, (1).

(4) _sapuī_ ＞ saup, saubí _sapuĭmus_ ✱_sapwĭ́mu’_ ＞ saubẹm _sapuĭstī_ ＞ saubíst _sapuĭstis_ ＞ saubẹtz saubẹs _sapuit_ ＞ saup _sapuĕrunt_ ＞ sáubron sáubro, sáupron

1. For _saubí_, see § 177, (1). For _sáupron_ (_sáupra_, _saupés_, _saupút_), see § 65, P, 3; cf. § 148, (2).

OLD CONDITIONAL.

185. The old conditional came from the Latin pluperfect indicative, which had been supplanted in its pluperfect sense by a compound form, and was gradually restricted in its use to the functions of a preterit, a perfect conditional, and a simple conditional: see § 141, (2). In Provençal it had only the conditional meaning; and as the new conditional rendered it superfluous, it fell into disuse (with the exception of ágra and fọra) in the 13th and 14th centuries: see § 142, (2).

186. In the fourth conjugation the old conditional comes from the contracted form of the pluperfect (_audīram_ ＜ _audīvĕram_). Weak verbs of the third conjugation constructed a similar form (✱_vendęram_). First conjugation verbs started with the contracted pluperfect (_amāram_ ＜ _amāvĕram_), but in Provençal substituted ę for á, as in the preterit: § 175, (4). The Provençal types of the old conditional of weak verbs are, therefore, represented by: amęra, vendęra, auzíra. The inflection is as follows:--

amęra amerám amęras amerátz amęra amęran auzíra auzirám auzíras auzirátz auzíra auzíran

187. Strong verbs of the _-ī_ and the _-uī_ classes regularly took their old conditional directly from the Latin pluperfect: _fēcĕram_ ＞ fẹira, _fŭĕram_ ＞ fọra, _vīdĕram_ ＞ vira; _habŭĕram_ ✱_áβwĕram_ (§ 16, 2) ＞ ágra, _pŏtŭĕram_ ＞ pǫgra, _vŏlŭĕram_ ＞ vǫlgra, _sapŭĕram_ ＞ sáubra sáupra (§ 65, P, 3). Of course the Latin pluperfect, and therefore the Provençal conditional, followed the shift of the perfect if it changed from one class to another: _vēnī_ ＞ ✱_vēnuī_, hence ✱_vēnŭĕram_ ＞ vẹngra. The inflection is as follows:--

fọra forám ágra agrám fọras forátz forás ágras agrátz agrás fọra fọran ágra ágran

1. _Faire_ has _féra_ (cf. _feron_) beside _féira_.

2. For _sáupra_, cf. § 148, (2), and § 184, (4), 1, and § 192.

3. _Devér_ has beside _dégra_ a form _déura_, evidently influenced by the new conditional, _deuría_.

4. _Páisser_, _plazér_ have beside _págra_, _plágra_ the forms _paisséra_, _plazéra_.

188. Strong verbs of the _-sī_ class regularly form their old conditional on the same plan as the 3d pers. pl. of the preterit (§ 183): (_dīxĕram_) díra, cf. díron; (✱_prēsĕram_) prẹira, cf. prẹiron; (_arsĕram_) arsęra, cf. arsęron.

189. It will be noted that in all verbs, weak and strong, the old conditional may be constructed from the 3d pers. pl. of the preterit by changing -on to -a.

IMPERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE.

190. The Provençal imperfect subjunctive came from the Latin pluperfect subjunctive, which in Vulgar Latin assumed the functions of the imperfect and generally displaced it, its own place having been taken by a compound form: see § 141, (2).

191. For weak verbs the basis was the contracted form of the first and fourth conjugations (_amāssem_ ＜ _amāvĭssem_, _audīssem_ ＜ _audīvĭssem_); weak verbs of third conjugation had a similar analogical form (✱_vēndęssem_). First conjugation verbs substituted ę for á, as in the perfect and the old conditional: § 175, (4); § 186. The Provençal types are: amęs, vendęs, auzís. The inflection is:

amęs amessẹm auzís auzissẹm amęsses amessẹtz -ẹs auzísses auzissẹtz -ẹs amęs amęssen -on -o auzís auzíssen -on -o

192. Strong verbs regularly made their imperfect directly from the Vulgar Latin form of the pluperfect: _fecĭssem_ ＞ fezẹs, _fŭĭssem_ ✱_fŭssem_ ＞ fọs, _vidĭssem_ ＞ vezẹs, _venĭssem_ ✱_venuĭssem_ ＞ venguẹs; _dixĭssem_ ＞ dissẹs, ✱_pre(n)sĭssem_ ＞ prezẹs; _habuĭssem_ ＞ aguẹs, _potuĭssem_ ＞ poguẹs, _voluĭssem_ ＞ volguẹs, _sapuĭssem_ ＞ saubẹs saupẹs (§ 65, P, 3). The inflection is:--

fọs fossẹm aguẹs aguessẹm, acsẹm fọsses fossẹtz -ẹs aguẹsses aguessẹtz -ẹs, acsẹtz -ẹs fọs fọssen -on -o aguẹs aguẹssen -on -o

1. The syncopated forms in the 1st and 2d pers. pl. are common to the _-uī_ class: _decsém_, _iacsém_, _pocsém_, _saupsém_.

2. In the 3d pers. pl. _-an_ sometimes takes the place of _-en_ or _-on_: _mezéssan_, _saubéssan_. This ending is doubtless borrowed from the present subjunctive and the old conditional.

3. _Vezér_ has _vis_ beside _vezés_. From _faire_ we find in the 3d pers. pl. _fésson_.

4. _Metre_ has _mezés_, due, no doubt, to the analogy of _mes_ and of _prezés_.

193. Some dialects have an ending -a, -as, -a, -ám, -átz, an, borrowed from the present subjunctive and the old conditional, but added to the stem of the imperfect subjunctive: chantęssa, vendęssa, floríssa; fọssa.

FOOTNOTES

[1] There should now be added: J. B. Beck, _Die Melodien der Troubadours_, 1908.

[2] See B. Schädel in _Rom._, XXXVII, 140.

[3] See E. Bourciez, _Les Mots espagnols comparés aux mots gascons_.

[4] See C. Chabaneau, _la Langue et la littérature du Limousin_, in the _Revue des langues romanes_, XXXV, 379.

[5] See G. Paris, _Origines de la poésie lyrique en France au moyen âge_.

[6] This h (coming from f) is peculiar to Gascon; the other dialects have no h.

[7] _G_, _b_, _d_ are sounded k, p, t only at the end of a word or before a final s.

[8] _G_, _b_, _d_ are sounded k, p, t only at the end of a word or before a final s.

[9] Rr is generally distinguished from r, but there are a few examples of their confusion in rhyme.

[10] Ts is usually written _c_ at the beginning of a word, _z_ or _tz_ at the end.

[11] _G_ has the sound of tš only at the end of a word or combined with final _z_.

[12] Cf. French.

[13] Cf. Spanish.

[14] For some exceptions see _Rom._, XXXII, 591; P. Marchot, _Phon._, p. 9.

[15] Cf. R. Karch, _Die nordfranzösischen Elemente im Altprovenzalischen_, 1901.

[16] See § 175, (4).

[17] There is no diphthong in the preterit ending -ęc: cazęc, etc.

[18] This view is a modification of the theory developed by C. Voretzsch in his admirable treatise, _Zur Geschichte der Diphthongierung im Altprovenzalischen_, Halle, 1900. That ę is not affected by an i in the following syllable is shown by such words as empęri, evangęli, saltęri, which must have been adopted fairly early. The same thing is true of ǫ: apostǫli, ǫli, etc.

[19] The diphthong of ǫ occurs, however, in this text, v. 203, in _uel_ ＜ _ŏculi_.

[20] _Derrier_ (_derer_, _dereer_), beside _dereire_, is manifestly due to the influence of _primier_. To the influence of the same ending _-ier_, as in _carr(i)eira_, is to be ascribed the diphthong in _cad(i)eira_ ＜ _cathĕdra_.

[21] The things just said of ę are true of ǫ: there is no breaking before u ＜ l (tǫut = tǫlt) nor before ts, dz, s, z (_nŏcet_ ＞ nǫtz, ✱_nŏptias_ ＞ nǫssas).

[22] The conditions are not quite the same as for e: an ę does not break before a labial (nęps) nor before n´ (vęnha). Breaking before g and k seems more general for ǫ than for ę.

[23] So the second person forms _cuebres_, _uebres_, _uefres_, and the third person forms _cuebre_, _uebre_, _uefre_; cf. cǫbron, ǫbri, etc.

[24] For a discussion of the date, see K. Nyrop, _Grammaire historique de la langue française_ (Copenhagen, 1899-1903), I, § 187.

[25] For the accent, see § 16, 1.

[26] Spelled _drictus_: see Schuchardt, _Vokalismus des Vulgärlateins_, II, 422.

[27] The period of the fall of the intertonic vowel covers, in part, the period of the voicing of intervocalic surds (§ 65); sometimes the vowel fell too soon for the surd to be voiced, sometimes it did not. The relation of the fall of unstressed vowels to the development of intervocalic consonants, in French, has been examined by L. Clédat in the _Revue de philologie française_, in a series of articles beginning XVII, 122. Cf. P. Marchot, _Phon._, pp. 84-90.

[28] Cf. H. Wendel, _Die Entwicklung der Nachtonvokale aus dem Lateinischen ins Provenzalische_, 1906.

[29] _Domnus_ may be the older form.

[30] The change of accent, in this verb and others, was due to the analogy of the first and fourth conjugations (cantęron, sentíron) and to the influence of the second person plural (dissętz).

[31] The feminine forms _cobéza_, _tebéza_, etc., show a change of accent.

[32] In most of the modern dialects (but not in Gascony and lower Languedoc) this a has become o: _rosa_ ＞ _roso_. But in the Limousin dialects and some others -as ＞ -a: _rosas_ ＞ _rosa_.

[33] The _tg_ in this word is probably due to the influence of _iutiar_ ＜ _jūdĭcāre_.

[34] The forms with _r_ may be due to dissimilation or to the influence of _clergue_.

[35] Alvernia is attested: cf. _Zs._, XXVI, 123. The usual form is _Arvernicum_.

[36] Compare, in English, the _c_ of _coo_ and the _k_ of _key_.

[37] Compare the old-fashioned pronunciation of words like _card_, _kind_.

[38] For final _-ci_, _-gi_ in plurals, see § 92, (2).

[39] Before this, _frīgĭdus_ had become frįgdus in Italy and Gaul.

[40] It is natural to suppose that the n, in falling, nasalized the vowel; but no trace of this nasality remains.

[41] _Fes_, _nut_, which quite supplanted the regular forms, perhaps show the influence of _res_, _mut_.

[42] By analogy of such double forms, n is sometimes added to a few words ending in a vowel: _fŭit_ ＞ _fo_ _fon_, _prō_ ＞ _pro_ _pron_.

[43] Cf. § 63, (4).

[44] Also _auvir_, probably a northern local development of _auir_; and _aurir_, doubtless from _auzir_ in a dialect that confuses r and z. See R, 2 and S, 2.

[45] Cf. § 63, (3).

[46] The i from ð fuses with the preceding i.

[47] _Trachor_ has been influenced by _trach_, past participle of _traire_.

[48] Intervocalic c and g have been studied by H. Sabersky, _Zur provenzalischen Lautlehre_, 1888, pp. 8-19.

[49] _Mica_ _micha_ are from ✱_micca_ = _mīca_ + _cīccum_.

[50] Original Latin g seems more prone to fall than g ＜ c.

[51] For the reduction of _au_ to _a_ see § 41.

[52] _Clerc_ is from ✱_clĕrcum_, which must have existed contemporaneously with _clĕrĭcum_.

[53] Possibly it comes from N. Greek σράδη: cf. _Romanische Forschungen_, XV, 880.

[54] See _Zs._, XXXII, 434.

[55] _Magis_ was probably reduced to _mais_ in Vulgar Latin.

[56] _Legir_ may have been reconstructed on the basis of _leg_ ＜ _lĕgit_.

[57] For the groups ending in y, cf. L. J. Juroszek, _Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der jotazierten Konsonanten in Frankreich_, in _Zs._, XXVII, 550 ff. The groups ending in y and those containing c or g have been studied by H. Sabersky, _Zur provenzalischen Lautlehre_, 1888.

[58] S is generally written _ss_ between vowels, to distinguish it from _s_ = _z_.

[59] Most of the words in this category are semi-learned: cf. _fabla_ and _faula_. See § 55, B.

[60] See § 47, (2).

[61] See § 47, (2).

[62] Also _faur_: cf. § 52, (1), 1.

[63] _Sozer_ ＜ _sŏcĕrum_: cf. § 49, (1).

[64] For the vowel of nęr nięr, see § 25, 1, (_e_).

[65] _Enteir_, _neir_ seem to have lost final e under the influence of numerous adjectives in _-er_ _-ier_ _-ieir_ ＜ _-arium_.

[66] In the modern dialects the d is probably commoner than it was in the old literary language; it occurs in Bordeaux, Languedoc, and Provence.

[67] _Ratie_ is perhaps French.

[68] After o, the u disappears.

[69] _Glai_ is due perhaps to the analogy of _ney_ (§ 65, β, 3), perhaps to such double forms as _fatz fai_ = _facit_.

[70] _Seti_ (pronounced with two syllables) seems to be an improperly constructed post-verbal noun from _assetiar_. For _metgue_, etc., see § 65, G, (3).

[71] Apparently _maniar_, _escomeniar_ developed in the region where g became y before a: cf. § 65, G, (1).

[72] The r remained palatal long enough to cause breaking: cf. §§ 30, 37.