No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2026
[In OFr. words of the type mencie < moneta, peroindre < poroindre the e is a weakening of the o when adjacent to a liquid or nasal which tended to be syllabic. This phenomenon was more frequent in eastern dialects. The progressive changes of an o in this position, to judge from modern dialect forms, must have been poroindre > peroindre or paroindre > proindre. The last form, with zero grade of the vowel, was seldom written in the older texts because of conservatism in spelling.]
1 PMLA 49.1004.
2 Von Wartburg in FEW.
3 R. Levy in Modern Philology 27.155. In this and in similar cases a word that is habitually proclitic has the same phonologic history as an unaccented initial syllable. With this in mind it is possible to add to the list en < on < homo, frequent in Old French, on being proclitic before a following verb.
4 While he is fully aware of the variants pouroindre, paroindre, peroindre, and proindre, Gunnar Tilander does not explain them as we do in the present article. He speaks of prefix change (pro to per) and of a loss of vowel similar to Anglo-Norman ferez > frez (Romania 56.271-5).
5 Nouveaux essais de philologie française 316-7 (Paris, 1905).
6 Mélanges d'étymologie française2 170-1 (Paris, 1927).
7 From Latin to Modem French with especial consideration of Anglo-Norman §490 (Manchester, 1934).
8 Ernout-Meillet, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine 275 (Paris, 1932). Subtus- was often substituted for sub- in all the compounds with sub-; e.g. souzduire, souzjourn, etc.
9 Zur Geschichte des franzosischen
(Upsala, 1896-1907).
10 The late Professor E. S. Sheldon of Harvard University was very emphatic in pointing this out to his classes. Consult also Tobler, Vom französischen Versbau5 p. 150 (Leipzig, 1910).
11 PMLA 49.999.
12 12th ed. §95A (Leipzig, 1925).
13 Some notice of the phenomenon should be expected in: Meyer-Lübke, Grammatik d. romanischen Sprachen (Leipzig, 1890-9) 1 §§369, 377, 383; Kr. Nyrop, Grammaire historique de la langue française3 (Copenhagen, 1914) 1. §§260-1; A. Dauzat, Histoire de la langue française (Paris, 1930) §§29-30; E. Bourciez, Précis de la phonétique française5 (Paris, 1921) §19.
14 See note 7; add also §1109.
15 Essais de philologie française 376 (Paris, 1897). The dialect dictionary by Contejean is no. 620 in the Von Wartburg Bibliographie des dictionnaires patois (Paris, 1934).
16 This is amply discussed by C. Beaulieux in his Histoire de l'orthographe française 1.43 ff. (Paris, 1927).
17 De lingua latina 6.68.
18 Meyer-Lübke, Grammatik 1.372.
19 A. Thomas, Essais 390 ff.
20 Zeitsch. f. rom. Phil. 28.94 ff.
21 Mélanges linguistiques offerts à M. J. Vendryes 203 ff. (Paris, 1925).
22 Romania 25.532.
23 A. Thomas believes in a form aniègue < domesticu in his Mélanges d'etymologie 18.
24 C. H. Grandgent, An Outline of the Phonology and Morphology of Old Provencal 25 (Boston, 1909).