¹ Cf. S. Pieri, AGl. 15.382 (1901); C. H. Grandgent, From Latin to Italian 112.

² I.e. -ks- > -šš- in pretonic position or after front vowels, but > -ss- between back vowels (W. Meyer-Lübke, Italienische Grammatik 130–1; Grammaire des langues romanes 1.§464). This formulation leaves too many unexplainable exceptions to be acceptable, as does also the somewhat similar formulation of -ks- > -šš- in pretonic position before a front vowel (C. Merlo, RIL II.48.98–104 [1915])—as recognized by Merlo himself (100) in view of a number of residual forms with -ss-.

³ W. Meyer-Lübke (tr. M. Bartoli and G. Braun), Grammatica storica della lingua italiana 103–4 (Torino, 1931). It must be pointed out that on this point, as in many other matters, this book represents the opinion of Bartoli, not of Meyer-Lübke (cf. ID 13.227 [1937]). Cf. also G. Bonfante, MLJ 26.157 (1942).

⁴ Grandgent, From Latin to Italian 112.

⁵ M. Pei, The Italian Language 55.

⁶ Cf. P. Savî-Lopez and M. Bartoli, Altitalienische Chrestomathie 182. For OLomb., cf. C. Salvioni, AGl. 12.384 (1890); for OGen., G. Flechia, AGl. 10.155 (1886).

⁷ For OFr., cf. E. Schwan and D. Behrens (tr. O. Bloch), Grammaire de l'ancien français 108 (Leipzig, 1932); K. Nyrop, Gramm. hist. de la langue française l.§406 (Copenhague, 1914); etc. For OProv., cf. C. H. Grandgent, An Outline of the Phonology and Morphology of Old Provençal 77 (Boston, 1905); for OSpan., cf. R. Menéndez Pidal, Manual de Gramática Histórica Española 118 (Madrid, 1910).

⁸ For the Po Valley development of š > s, cf. also G. Bertoni, Italia Dialettale 112 (Milano, 1916). In the AIS maps, the s-sound is represented in the Po valley both by s and by ṣ (an alveolar sound intermediate between s and š in acoustic effect). These two slightly different sounds are clearly variants of the same s-phoneme, as they also occur in roughly similar distribution in the NIt. developments of Latin s and ss (cf. for example AIS maps 90, 184, 643, etc.).

⁹ For OVen., cf. G. I. Ascoli, AGl. 3.256 (1878).

¹⁰ As in the case of -kt- (cf. W. Meyer-Lübke, ZRPh. 45.654 [1925]), it is open to question whether the Ladin and Friulian sections of the Rhaeto-Romance territory ever had palatalization of -ks- to -s-. For -kt-, a study of eight AIS maps (342 [notte], 864 [tetto], 904 [letto], 943 [stretta], 1018 [cotto], 1199 [latte], 1588 [detto], 1642 [aspetta]) reveals palatalized forms only in one word (nocte-) at four points in Tridentine Venetia (323, 325, 334, and 335). For -ks-, there are rather more palatalized forms in evidence, especially in the Dolomites; but, in all cases except those of tẹšr < texere and frášęn < fraxinu- (which may be due to ultra-correction), the words showing palatalization correspond to words with -šš- in standard Italian, and may be borrowings from the literary language. In Figure 2, we have represented Ladin and Friulian as not having palatalization originally, following Gartner, GGr.² 1.478–9.

¹¹ As is well known, Sicily and Southern Calabria are the regions of southern Italy most open to influence from the standard language, owing to a considerable extent to Italianization in recent times; cf. K. Jaberg, Aspects géographiques du langage 34, 59 (Paris, 1936).

¹² In connection with these words, it may be noted that at many points of central and southern Italy, the ash-tree is marked on AIS map 588 as unknown; and that the badger is not indigenous to central and southern Italy. In both of these words, therefore, we are dealing with terms not current in the local dialect, and hence more subject to false reconstruction phonetically. It will also be noticed that at three points in southern Tuscany and Latium (582, 612, 640) as well as in the larger area in southern Italy, the form táššo occurs alongside of lassare, i.e. in areas where local -ss- is in conflict with standard Italian -šš-.

¹³ Cf. Merlo, RIL II.48.100.

¹⁴ As established by Merlo (RIL II.48.91) for -ss-; cf. also AIS map 693 (tossire). Merlo refuses to apply the same formulation to -ks- because of the guttural element involved; but by the time of the palatalization of -ss- before í, -ks- must already have been assimilated to -ss- (a very early development, cf. fn. 19) in the region in question, and must therefore have undergone the same treatment as -ss-.

¹⁵ Cf. G. Bertoni, Italia dialettale 132. For attestation of lassare in OPerug., cf. A. Schiaffini, ID 4.102 (1928); in OAret., L. Röhrsheim, Die Sprache des Fra Guittone von Arezzo 89; in OSien., L. Hirsch, ZRPh. 10.432 (1886).

Dante has lassare in rhyme only (as indication of its being a more archaic form, used for the sake of the rhyme) in Inf. 3.100; 11.18; Par. 2.87; 14.107; elsewhere lasciare (i.e. the more recent and current form) in the Divine Comedy and the minor works (cf. Fay, Concordance of the Divina Commedia, and Sheldon and White, Concordanza delle opere italiane in prosa e del canzoniere di Dante Alighieri).

In the works of Dante's precursors, lassare is very frequent, e.g. in S. Alessio (Guerrieri e Crocetti, La Lirica predantesca 90), Frederick II (ibid. 146), Ugo da Persico (ibid. 233); lasciare, however, occurs even this early, e.g. in Giacomino Pugliese (ibid. 157, 158). The form lassiare in Pateg of Cremona (ibid. 229) probably represents the pronunciation [lašare]. Further OIt. examples of lassare, and not in rhyme, may be found in the Sienese poets Folgore da San Gemignano (ibid. 335) and Cecco Angiolieri (ibid. 361). As a literary form, convenient for use in rhyme, lassare survived until the 16th century (cf. Ariosto, Orlando Furioso 2.19.3; also in Tasso); see Tommaseo-Bellini s.v.

For much of the material and references in this note, as well as for very helpful criticism, I am indebted to Prof. G. Bonfante.

¹⁶ During the 16th century, the linguistic frontier between central and southern Italy, which had previously run well to the north of Rome, moved southward, with the extension of standard Italian characteristics to Roman speech, to include Rome within the limits of a number of phenomena typical of Tuscan as opposed to south Italian. This southward spread of Tuscan features is reflected in the wide band of isoglosses running north and south between Rome and Ancona (cf. map in G. Rohlfs, La struttura linguistica dell' Italia 8). For the extension of Tuscan speech to Rome in the Renaissance, cf. B. Migliorini, RLiR 9.370–82 (1933).

¹⁷ The Lombard influence on Tuscan, although not as extensive as that of Tuscan on Lombard, was nevertheless quite strong during the Middle Ages, enough so to give the standard language a number of forms and words clearly borrowed from Lombard; cf. Rohlfs, Struttura linguistica 15–6. French influence may also have played a part in the introduction of forms with palatalized developments.

¹⁸ For -kt-, cf. W. Meyer-Lübke, ZRPh. 45.642, 652–4 (1925); G. Bertoni, EncIt. 19.925.

¹⁹ Cf. E. Richter, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Romanismen; I. Chronologische Phonetik des Französischen bis zum Ende des 8.Jahrhunderts 122–4 (Halle, 1934; ZRPh. Bhft. §82). Richter puts the assimilation of -ks- to -ss- even earlier, in the 4th to 8th centuries a.u.c. (42–3); if we assume such an early date for this development, it must be understood as confined to Italy alone, since both the WRom. palatalization and the Rumanian labialization presume the guttural as a starting-point.