also is found, parallel with the ḛi from ḛ, the ou from ǫ: Bolognese udóur, Ital. odore; famóus, Ital. famoso; lóuv, lŭpu. The system shows a repugnance throughout to ie for the short accented Latin e (as it occurs in Italian piede, &c.); in other words, this diphthong has died out, but in various fashions; Piedmontese and Lombard deç, dieci; Genoese dēže (in some corners of Liguria, however, occurs dieže); Bolognese diç, old Bolognese, diese. The greater part of the phenomena indicated above have “Gallic” counterparts too evident to require to be specially pointed out. One of the most important traces of Gallic or Celtic reaction is the reduction of the Latin accented a into e (ä, &c.), of which phenomenon, however, no certain indications have as yet been found in the Ligurian group. On the other hand it remains, in the case of very many of the Piedmontese dialects, in the é of the infinitives of the first conjugation: porté, portare, &c.; and numerous vestiges of it are still found in Lombardy (e.g. in Bassa Brianza: andae, andato; guardae, guardato; sae, sale; see Arch. i. 296-298, 536). Emilia also preserves it in very extensive use: Modenese andér, andare; arivéda, arrivata; peç, pace; Faenzan parlé, parlare and parlato; parléda, parlata; ches, caso; &c. The phenomenon, in company with other Gallo-Italian and more specially Emilian characteristics extends to the valley of the Metauro, and even passes to the opposite side of the Apennines, spreading on both banks of the head stream of the Tiber and through the valley of the Chiane: hence the types artrovér, ritrovare, portéto, portato, &c., of the Perugian and Aretine dialects (see infra C. 3, b). In the phenomenon of á passing into e (as indeed, the Gallo-Italic evolution of other Latin vowels) special distinctions would require to be drawn between bases in which a (not standing in position) precedes a non-nasal consonant (e.g. amáto), and those which have a before a nasal: and in the latter case there would be a non-positional subdivision (e.g. fáme, páne) and a positional one (e.g. quánto, amándo, cámpo); see Arch. i. 293 sqq. This leads us to the nasals, a category of sounds comprising other Gallo-Italic characteristics. There occurs more or less widely, throughout all the sections of the system, and in different gradations, that “velar” nasal in the end of a syllable (paṅ, maṅ ; ćáṅta, moṅt)[1] which may be weakened into a simple nasalizing of a vowel (pā, &c.) or even grow completely inaudible (Bergamese pa, pane; padrú, padrone; tep, tempo; met, mente; mut, monte; pût, ponte; púća, punta, i.e. “puncta”), where Celtic and especially Irish analogies and even the frequent use of t for nt, &c., in ancient Umbrian orthography occur to the mind. Then we have the faucal n by which the Ligurian and the Piedmontese (laṉ̇a lüṉ̇a, &c.) are connected with the group which we call Franco-Provençal (A. 1).—We pass on to the “Gallic” resolution of the nexus ct (e.g. facto, fajto, fajtjo. fait, fać ; tecto, tejto, tejtjo, teit, teć) which invariably occurs in the Piedmontese, the Ligurian and the Lombard: Pied, fáit, Lig. fajtu, faetu, Lombard fac; Pied. téit, Lig. téitu, Lom. tec; &c. Here it is to be observed that besides the Celtic analogy the Umbrian also helps us (adveitu = ad-vecto; &c.). The Piedmontese and Ligurian come close to each other, more especially by a curious resolution of the secondary hiatus (Gen. réiže, Piedm. ré̱js = *ra-íce, Ital. radice) by the regular dropping of the d both primary and secondary, a phenomenon common in French (as Piedmontese and Ligurian ríe, ridere; Piedmontese pué, potare; Genoese naeghe = náighe. nátiche, &c.). The Lombard type, or more correctly the type which has become the dominant one in Lombardy (Arch. i. 305-306, 310-311), is more sparing in this respect; and still more so is the Emilian. In the Piedmontese and in the Alpine dialects of Lombardy is also found that other purely Gallic resolution of the guttural between two vowels by which we have the types brája, mánia, over against the Ligurian brága, mánega, braca, manica. Among the phonetic phenomena peculiar to the Ligurian is a continual reduction (as also in Lombardy and part of Piedmont) of l between vowels into r and the subsequent dropping of this r at the end of words in the modern Genoese; just as happens also with the primary r: thus dū = durúr = dolore, &c. Characteristic of the Ligurian, but not without analogies in Upper Italy even (Arch., ii. 157-158, ix. 209, 255), is the resolution of pj, bj, fj into ć, ģ, š: ćü, più, plus; raģģa, rabbia, rabies; šû, fiore. Finally, the sounds š and ž have a very wide range in Ligurian (Arch. ii. 158-159), but are, however, etymologically, of different origin from the sounds š and ž in Lombard. The reduction of s into h occurs in the Bergamo dialects: hira, sera; groh, grosso; cahtél, castello (see also B.2).—A general phenomenon in Gallo-Italic phonetics which also comes to have an inflexional importance is that by which the unaccented final i has an influence on the accented vowel. This enters into a series of phenomena which even extends into southern Italy; but in the Gallo-Italic there are particular resolutions which agree well with the general connexions of this system. [We may briefly recall the following forms in the plural and 2nd person singular: old Piedmontese drayp pl. of drap, Ital. drappo; man, meyn, Ital. mano, -i; long, loyng, Ital. lungo, -ghi; Genoese, káṅ, kḛṅ, Ital. cane, -i; buṅ, buíṅ, Ital. buono, -i; Bolognese, fär, fîr, Ital. ferro, -i; peir, pîr, Ital. pero, -i. zôp, zûp, Ital. zoppo, -i; louv, lûv, Ital. lupo, -i; vedd, vî, Ital. io vedo, tu vedi; vojj, vû, Ital. io voglio, tu vuoi; Milanese quȩst, quist, Ital. questo, -i, and, in the Alps of Lombardy, pal, pȩl, Ital. palo, -i; rȩd, rid, Ital. rete, -i; co̱r, cör, Ital. cuore, -i; ǫrs, ürs, Ital. orso, -i; law, lȩw, Ital. io lavo, tu lavi; mȩt, mit, Ital. io metto, tu metti; mo̱w möw, Ital. io muovo, tu muovi; cǫr, cür, Ital. io corro, tu corri. [Vicentine pomo, pumi, Ital. pomo, -i; pero, piéri = *píri, Ital. pero, -i; v. Arch. i. 540-541; ix. 235 et seq., xiv. 329-330].—Among morphological peculiarities the first place may be given to the Bolognese sipa (seppa), because, thanks to Dante and others, it has acquired great literary celebrity. It really signifies “sia” (sim, sit), and is an analogical form fashioned on aepa, a legitimate continuation of the corresponding forms of the other auxiliary (habeam, habeat), which is still heard in ch’me aepa purtae, ch’lu aepa purtae, ch’io abbia portato, ch’egli abbia portato. Next may be noted the 3rd person singular in -p of the perfect of esse and of the first conjugation in the Forlì dialect (fop, fu; mandép, mandò; &c.). This also must be analogical, and due to a legitimate ep, ebbe (see Arch. ii. 401; and compare fobbe, fu, in the dialect of Camerino, in the province of Macerata, as well as the Spanish analogy of tuve estuve formed after hube). Characteristic of the Lombard dialect is the ending -i in the 1st person sing. pres. indic. (mi a po̱rti, Ital. io porto); and of Piedmontese, the -éjça, as indicating the subjunctive imperfect (portȩjça, Ital. portassi) the origin of which is to be sought in imperfects of the type staésse, faésse reduced normally to sté̱jç-, fé̱jç-. Lastly, in the domain of syntax, may be added the tendency to repeat the pronoun (e.g. ti te cántet of the Milanese, which really is tu tu cántas-tu, equivalent merely to “cantas”), a tendency at work in the Emilian and Lombard, but more particularly pronounced in the Piedmontese. With this the corresponding tendency of the Celtic languages has been more than once and with justice compared; here it may be added that the Milanese nün, apparently a single form for “noi,” is really a compound or reduplication in the manner of the ni-ni, its exact counterpart in the Celtic tongues. [From Lombardy, or more precisely, from the Lombardo-Alpine region extending from the western slopes of Monte Rosa to the St Gotthard, are derived the Gallo-Italian dialects, now largely, though not all to the same extent, Sicilianized, from the Sicilian communes of Sanfratello, Piazza-Armerina, Nicosia, Aidone, Novara and Sperlinga (v. Arch. glott. viii. 304-316, 406-422, xiv. 436-452; Romania, xxviii. 409-420; Memorie dell’ Istituto lombardo, xxi. 255 et seq.). The dialects of Gombitelli and Sillano in the Tuscan Apennines are connected with Emilia (Arch. glott. xii. 309-354). And from Liguria come those of Carloforte in Sardinia, as also those of Monaco, and of Mons, Escragnolles and Biot in the French departments of Var and Alpes Maritimes (Revue de linguistique, xiii. 308)]. The literary records for this group go back as far as the 12th century, if we are right in considering as Piedmontese the Gallo-Italian Sermons published and annotated by Foerster (Romanische Studien, iv. 1-92). But the documents published by A. Gaudenzi (Dial. di Bologna, 168-172) are certainly Piedmontese, or more precisely Canavese, and seem to belong to the 13th century. The Chieri texts date from 1321 (Miscellanea di filol. e linguistica, 345-355), and to the 14th century also belongs the Grisostomo (Arch. glott. vii. 1-120), which represents the old Piedmontese dialect of Pavia (Bollett. della Soc. pav. di Storia Patria, ii. 193 et seq.). The oldest Ligurian texts, if we except the “contrasto” in two languages of Rambaud de Vaqueiras (12th century v. Crescini, Manualetto provenzale, 2nd ed., 287-291), belong to the first decades of the 14th century (Arch. glott. xiv. 22 et seq., ii. 161-312, x. 109-140, viii. 1-97). Emilia has manuscripts going back to the first or second half of the 13th century, the Parlamenti of Guido Fava (see Gaudenzi, op. cit. 127-160) and the Regola dei servi published by G. Ferraro (Leghorn, 1875). An important Emilian text, published only in part, is the Mantuan version of the De proprietatibus rerum of Bartol. Anglico, made by Vivaldo Belcalzer in the early years of the 14th century (v. Cian. Giorn. stor. della letteratura italiana, supplement, No. 5, and cf. Rendiconti Istituto Lombardo, series ii. vol. xxxv. p. 957 et seq.). For Modena also there are numerous documents, starting from 1327. For western Lombardy the most ancient texts (13th century, second half) are the poetical compositions of Bonvesin de la Riva and Pietro da Bescapè, which have reached us only in the 14th-century copies. For eastern Lombardy we have, preserved in Venetian or Tuscan versions, and in MSS. of a later date, the works of Gerardo Patecchio, who lived at Cremona in the first half of the 13th century. Bergamasc literature is plentiful, but not before the 14th century (v. Studi medievali, i. 281-292; Giorn. stor. della lett. ital. xlvi. 351 et seq.).
2. Sardinian Dialects.[2]—These are three—the Logudorese or
- ↑ As a matter of fact the “velar” at the end of a word, when preceded by an accented vowel, is found also in Venetia and Istria. This fact, together with others (v. Kritischer Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der roman. Philol. vii. part i. 130), suggests that we ought to assume an earlier group in which Venetian and Gallo-Italian formed part of one and the same group. In this connexion too should be noted the atonic pronoun ghe (Ital. ci-a lui, a lei, a loro), which is found in Venetian, Lombard, North-Emilian and Ligurian.
- ↑ [The latest authorities for the Sardinian dialects are W. Meyer-Lübke and M. Bartoli, in the passages quoted by Guarnerio in his “Il sardo e il côrso in una nuova classificazione delle lingue romanze” (Arch. glott. xvi. 491-516). These scholars entirely dissociate Sardinian from the Italian system, considering it as forming in itself a Romance language, independent of the others; a view in which they are correct. The chief discriminating criterion is supplied by the treatment of the Latin -s, which is preserved in Sardinian, the Latin accusative form prevailing in the declension of the plural, as opposed to the nominative, which prevails in the Italian system. In this respect the Gallo-Italian dialects adhere to the latter system, rejecting the -s and retaining the nominative form. On the other hand, these facts form an important link between Sardinian and the Western Romance dialects, such as the Iberian, Gallic and Ladin; it is not, however, to be identified with any of them, but is distinguished from them by many strongly-marked characteristics peculiar to itself, chief among which is the treatment of the Latin accented vowels, for which see Ascoli in the text. As to the internal classification of the Sardinian dialects, Guarnerio assumes four types, the Campidanese, Logudorese, Gallurese and Sassarese. The separate individuality of the last of these is indicated chiefly by the treatment of the accented vowels (dḛźi, Ital. dieci; tḛla, Ital. tela; pȩlu, Ital. pelo; nǫbu, Ital. nuovo; fio̱ri, Ital. fiore; no̱źi, Ital. noce, as compared, e.g. with Gallurese dḛci, tḛla, pilu, nou, fiǫri, nući). Both Gallura and Sassari, however, reject the -s, and adopt the nominative form in the plural, thus proving that they are not entirely distinct from the Italian system.]
