Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T00:43:20.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Development of Latin -gn- in Southern Italy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Harry R. Keller Jr.
Harry R. Keller Jr.*
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

[The paper assembles from the AIS the material in support of the thesis that southern Italy originally had a labial treatment of the group -gn- in the form of ṷn or mn, and that the forms in jn represent an attempt to reproduce the northern and central Italian forms in ñ. The labial development is connected with that of Rumania.]

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 19 , Issue 3-Part1: July-September , September 1943, pp. 230 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © 1943 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 W. Meyer-Lübke, Italienische Grammatik, 130 (Leipzig, 1890).

2 G. Bertoni, Italia Dialettale 167 (Milan, 1916).

3 C. Merlo, Degli Esiti di Lat. -gn- nei dialetti dell'Italia centro-meridionale, MATorino 11.58.151 (1908). This article was intended to refute the arguments of M. Bartoli, Das Dalmatische 1. col. 280, who first suggested the relationship of the southern Italian labialization of -gn- with the Rumanian labialization.

4 G. Bertoni, op. cit. 167; C. Merlo, op. cit. 151 ff.; W. Meyer-Lübke, ZRPh. 39.257 ff.

5 M. Bartoli, Misc. Hortis 903 (Trieste, 1910) cf. M. Bartoli, Das Dalmatische, 1. col. 280. S. Puṣcariu, Études de Linguistique Roumaine 30 (Cluj-Bucharest, 1937), follows Bartoli's idea that there is a definite relation between the Rumanian and southern Italian phenomena.

6 M. Bartoli, Misc. Hortis 918 (Trieste, 1910): ‘Gli intacchi palatali gallo-romani, e più tardi pireneoalpini, in agnello, pregna, pugno, aguglia, lentiglia, pariglia, quagliare, teglia, vegliare passarono anche a Sud dell’ Appennino: cfr. D'Ovidio, AGlIt. 13.361sgg., ZRPh. 26.636. Giunti in Sardegna, dai continenti it. e ib., furono imitati con nğ, (ł)ǵ e sim. (cfr. ven. Italgia e sim.): angione ecc. V. Guarnerio, Meyer-Lübke, Wagner BZRPh. 12.45sgg., 59. Tramontano così le comete in *jone e sim.: *agnjone, *aculja ecc. E non servono leggi di protonia e postonia (ingegnosamente inventate del Subak, ZRPh. 33.669), nè qui nè altrove; non esiste ne questa nè altra legge fonetica, nè grammaticale nè lessicale.'

7 Cf. Lang. 18. 123 (fn. 15) (1942).

8 AIS 1574: nero; also AIS 929 and 520.

9 G. Rohlfs, Dizionario Dialettale delle Tre Calabre, 1.31 (Milan, 1932).

10 -gn- originally distinct from -nḽ- everywhere except in Gallo-Roman. In Sardinia -nḽ- forms and later -gn- forms received through Tuscany have the same form (AIS 1304 Lat. vinea compared with the -gn- treatment received through Tuscany as in AIS 1071).

10a R. A. Hall has suggested that the spread of -n(n)-, pushing back -ṷn-, may have been occasioned by the political connection in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

11 H. Lausberg, BZRPh. 90.§261.

12 W. Meyer-Lubke, ZRPh. 39.257 ff.

13 G. Rohlfs, ZRPh. 40.342 ff.

14 C. Merlo, RDR 1.246.

15 Stolz-Schmalz, Lateinische Grammatik 154, revised 6th ed. (Munich, 1928).

16 W. Meyer-Lübke, Gram. Rom. 1.438. In addition Rumanian has mn for bn, vn: pimniţa OBulg. pivinica, duhomnic OBulg. duhoviniku, Rimnic (place name) OBulg. rybniku. v. H. Titkin, Rumänisches Elementarbuch 53 (Heidelberg, 1905).

17 I wish to express my deep gratitude to my friends J. H. Bonfante and R. A. Hall Jr. for suggestions concerning the contents of this article and for assistance in the preparation of the map and ms.