# History of the Italian Pl. 2. -te



## ahvalj

According to a now popular theory, the Early Romance _-ẹs_ has produced the Italian _-i:
canēs>canẹs>canẹʲ>cani
vidēs>vẹdẹs>vẹdẹʲ>vedi
vīdissēs>vẹdẹssẹs>vẹdẹssẹʲ>vedessi_ (with _ẹ_ in the root from the Infect stem).

However, the Pl. 2. ending _-tis>-tẹs_ is always _-te_ in Standard Italian:
_vidētis>vedete
vīdistis>vedeste
vidēte>vedete.
_
I don't know the details, but, being familiar with the usual etymological procedures, I am almost sure that the explanation is that _vīdistī_ and _vīdistis_ both produced Sg./Pl. 2. **_vedesti,_ and, since this was inconvenient, _-te_ was taken from the Imperative and eventually spread to all tenses. My question is: are there any attestations of this (or other, if I am mistaken) scenario, e. g. old texts, dialectal data etc.? Are there traces of the Pl. 2. _**-ti_ (_**vedeti, vedevati, vedreti_)?


----------



## fdb

-ate, -ete, -ite is from the Latin imperative in the same way that –iamo (in all four conjugations) is from the Latin subjunctive of the i-stem verbs. It is similar in Iranian languages: in the 2nd person plural present indicative Persian –ēd or Bactrian –ηδο come from the optative *-aita, not from the indicative *–aϑa. This is because in the 1st and 2nd person plural modal forms (“let us go”, “go!”) are of high-frequency in any spoken language.


----------



## Nino83

ahvalj said:


> According to a now popular theory, the Early Romance _-ẹs_ has produced the Italian _-i:_


I don't know if it is popular now, but I don't find it reliable. 
Rohlfs says that there are examples in medieval texts with the plural in "e", in _padovano_ "i dente, i pesce, i monte" in _pisano_ and _lucchese_ "gli amadore, imbasciatore" in _pistoiese_ "erede" in _umbro_ "ei peccatore, li piede" in _vicentino_ "i ordene, i rovere". 
It seems to me that the theory of analogy (with the plural of the masculine second declension in "o") is more solid.  

Rohlfs says: "La coincidenza con l'antico francese (li frere, li chien) e col romeno (viermii, oamenii, carbunii) c'induce a riportar molto indietro plurali come illi fratri, illi cani. Non è da escludere che l'antico plurale latino bovis, finis, omnis, mensis abbia concorso a questo sviluppo. Il tentativo del Reichenkron di spiegare il trapasso canes > cani come fenomeno fonetico normale (fonetica sintattica non può convincere in nessuno modo (cfr. Schürr, LB 1942, 31 sgg.)."


----------



## ahvalj

Nino83 said:


> I don't know if it is popular now, but I don't find it reliable.
> Rohlfs says that there are examples in medieval texts with the plural in "e", in _padovano_ "i dente, i pesce, i monte" in _pisano_ and _lucchese_ "gli amadore, imbasciatore" in _pistoiese_ "erede" in _umbro_ "ei peccatore, li piede" in _vicentino_ "i ordene, i rovere".
> It seems to me that the theory of analogy (with the plural of the masculine second declension in "o") is more solid.


And what about _amīcās>amiche?_


----------



## Nino83

ahvalj said:


> And what about _amīcās>amiche?_


And what about _amìco/amìci, opàco/opàchi, mèdico/mèdici_ and_ càrico/càrichi_?


----------



## ahvalj

Nino83 said:


> And what about _amìco/amìci, opàco/opàchi, mèdico/mèdici_ and_ càrico/càrichi_?


I learned about that theory here at Wordreference and then found this development mentioned in the Wikipedia and in some newer publications, that's why I am asking. The analogy is the traditional explanation, which I am used to. Yet, I decided that perhaps some newly discovered textual and dialectal evidence suggests that such a shift took place. Since Central Italian is a kind of mixed language (_fuoco : luogo_), I have supposed that this could be explained by the different development in different dialects, e. g. (purely hypothetically): _-s_ preserved in the Gaulish north, dropped in the Italic~Messapic~Greek south and turned into overt (_stai_) or short-lived (_amiche_) _ı̯_ in the center. What is the actual evidence?

P. S. Here e. g.:


> In unstressed syllables, the resulting diphthongs were simplified: _amīcās_ > /aˈmikai/ > _amiche_ /aˈmike/ "(female) friends", where nominative _amīcae_ should produce _**amice_ rather than _amiche_ (masculine _amīcī_ > _amici_ not _**amichi_).


Romance languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Nino83

ahvalj said:


> _-s_ preserved in the Gaulish north, dropped in the Italic~Messapic~Greek south and turned into overt (_stai_) or short-lived (_amiche_) _ı̯_ in the center.


In the "Gaulish north" probably there was no preservation of "s", they had vocalic plurals. This is sure for Emiliano-Romagnolo, where there is an extensive "-i metaphony" in the plural, the same for Venetian. Also in old Piedmontese and Lombard, there are _negro/nigri, pesce/pisci, rosso/russi_.
In the south the "s" wasn't dropped out, because there wasn't any "s". There is/was an "i".  Neapolitan _penso _[pɛnʦə] (I think) _piense_ [pjenʦə](you think) < _piensi < pènsi_, "-i metaphonesis", Sicilian _pensu_,[pɛnʦu] _pensi_ [pɛnʦi].


----------



## ahvalj

Could you write briefly what happens to _-s_ across the Italian territory and what is the source of _noi, stai, sei?_


----------



## Sardokan1.0

ahvalj said:


> And what about _amīcās>amiche?_



using the classical Latin pronounce the nominative "amicae" was pronounced "amikae or amike"

in Italian 99% of these pronounces has disappeared, just few words here and there preserve that pronounce, while in central-northern Sardinian language that pronounce is very common

example :

caelum = chelu
cera = chera
caena = chena
lucem = luche, lughe
pacem = pache, paghe

etc.etc.


----------



## Nino83

ahvalj said:


> Could you write briefly what happens to _-s_ across the Italian territory


If we speak of Italian languages, there is no language retaining "s" plural or "s" in verbal conjugation. 
Only Raetho-Romance and Sardinian retain final "s". 


ahvalj said:


> what is the source of _noi, stai, sei?_


In all Italian languages there is no final "s" in these words.
Nui, vui (Sicilian), nujə, vujə (Neapolitan), noi, voi (Romanesco, Tuscan), nüi, vüi (Piedmontese), nü, vü (Lombard), nu, vu (Venetian), no, vo (Emiliano-Romagnolo).


----------



## ahvalj

Yet, what is your conclusion? Did the final _-s_ disappear in _-ẹs_ without trace, and the modern _-i_ in Standard Italian _cani_ and _vedi _is analogous and _sei,_ _noi,_ _stai_ are separate cases? Or did it develop to _*ı̯,_ which then preserved in _sei_ but simplified in unstressed final syllables (the Wikipedia version)?


----------



## Nino83

ahvalj said:


> Yet, what is your conclusion?


As you said, the "phonetic" theory doesn't fit with "cantatis > cantate".
I think that in stressed monosyllables there was "s > i", so "nos > noi", while in plurals and in the verbal system, the final "i" was analogical.
The metaphony is a very old phenomenon, so I think that this final "i" was present very early and that it originated from the Latin nominative plural "i".
If it wasn't so, we would have metaphonetic plural only in those words of the second declension or, on the contrary, one should say that metaphony is a recent phenomenon, but we know it is present in Portuguese, Leonese, Asturian, some Gallo-Italian languages, Central Italian south of the Roma-Ancona line and in Neapolitan and Apulian languages.


----------



## ahvalj

Thanks.


----------



## Sardokan1.0

Nino83 said:


> As you said, the "phonetic" theory doesn't fit with "cantatis > cantate".
> I think that in stressed monosyllables there was "s > i", so "nos > noi", while in plurals and in the verbal system, the final "i" was analogical.
> The metaphony is a very old phenomenon, so I think that this final "i" was present very early and that it originate from the Latin nominative plural "i".



maybe at some point "cantatis" evolved to "cantates" and with centuries has lost the final S

in Sardinian we say "cantades" : voi cantate = bois cantades

about noi, could be a contracted form of "nobis"

in Sardinian is "nois" as we can see nobis=nois; just che B is missing

same thing for voi : vobis = bois (the V turned to B, the Betacism is very common in our language)


----------



## fdb

Nino83 said:


> As you said, the "phonetic" theory doesn't fit with "cantatis > cantate".



Nobody seems to like the imperative theory (no. 2).


----------



## ahvalj

I urge to follow Encolpius' suggestion and to turn to the old texts: they may show what were the actual forms.


----------



## Nino83

Sardokan1.0 said:


> maybe at some point "cantatis" evolved to "cantates" and with centuries has lost the final S


The point of the "accusative theory" is that "s" became "i". It was retained in stressed syllables (nos > noi) and coalesced with the preceeding vowel in unstressed syllables (canes > canei > cani). But it doesn't work with "-atis > -ates > -atei > -ati". Is it an "exception"? Why? They don't know. 


ahvalj said:


> Thanks.


You're welcome. Another thing. The later loss of metaphonetic plurals in some Gallo-Italian languages was probably due (according to Geoffrey Hull) to the fact that in these languages happened the vowel breaking in open syllables, for example "pède(m) > piède > pièd" and this created confusion with metaphonetic plurals like "pede/piedi". In fact metaphonetic plurals were retained in Emiliano-Romagnolo and Venetian (that didn't have vowel breaking in open syllables).


fdb said:


> Nobody seems to like the imperative theory (no. 2).


Yes, I wonder why Latin speakers would have done something so complicated when this ending was simple and equal for all conjugations.


----------



## Sardokan1.0

Nino83 said:


> The point of the "accusative theory" is that "s" became "i". It was retained in stressed syllables (nos > noi) and coalesced with the preceeding vowel in unstressed syllables (canes > canei > cani). But it doesn't work with "-atis > -ates > -atei > -ati". Is it an "exception"? Why? They don't know.
> 
> You're welcome. Another thing. The later loss of metaphonetic plurals in some Gallo-Italian languages was probably due (according to Geoffrey Hull) to the fact that in these languages happened the vowel breaking in open syllables, for example "pède(m) > piède > pièd" and this created confusion with metaphonetic plurals like "pede/piedi". In fact metaphonetic plurals were retained in Emiliano-Romagnolo and Venetian (that didn't have vowel breaking in open syllables).
> 
> Yes, I wonder why Latin speakers would have done something so complicated when this ending was simple and equal for all conjugations.




I don't know if "nos>noi" is really correct, in Sardinian we still use "nos" and also "bos" (vos) but they are clearly separated from "nois" and "bois"; nos and bos translate with the Italian "ci, vi"

example :

ci vediamo domani = nos bidimus a cras; I can also add the subject and it sounds like this : nois nos bidimus a cras
vi ho lasciato un messaggio = bos happo lassadu unu messazu


----------



## Nino83

Sardokan1.0 said:


> I don't know if "nos>noi" is really correct, in Sardinian we still use "nos" and also "bos"


Sardinian, like Western and Raetho Romance languages didn't lose final "s". 
These theories are about Eastern Romance languages (Italian and Romanian ones).


----------



## francisgranada

Sardokan1.0 said:


> maybe at some point "cantatis" evolved to "cantates" and with centuries has lost the final S ... in Sardinian we say "cantades" ...


In my opinion (or rather impression) this is not impossible. In other words, the question is whether the further development of the final _-es_ had to result _necessarily _in _-i (<ei) _or not.

In theory, I can imagine also:
_cantatis > *cantates > cantate  _(direct loss of the final _-s_)
_cantatis > *cantates > *cantatei > cantate  _(later loss of the final _-i _of _-ei_)
_cantatis > *cantates > *cantatei > *cantati > cantate  _(accepting the "accusative theory" + later _i>e_ ...)_ 
_
The existence of _cantades _in Sardinian and Ibero-Romance seems to support the existence of *_cantates _as a possible Romance proto-form. As to the necessity of the intermediate forms _*cantatei _(and/or _*cantati_)_,_ I am not convinced:

The words like  _dai < das; poi < post; sei < sex;_ etc ...  are all stressed and _monosyllabic,_ which could explain the different evolution. The origin of the _-i_ in plurals like _cani _is disputed, however even if we accepted _canes > *canei > cani,_ it is not the same situation as it is important to maintain the difference between the singular and plural (plus the possible influence of _-i _plurals like _amici_ is  also probable, independently on their origin).

So I have a question: Are there examples, *other* than _monosyllabic _words and the disputed _plural_, that confirm the evolution _-s > -i_ in Italian?


----------



## CapnPrep

francisgranada said:


> So I have a question: Are there examples, *other* than _monosyllabic _words and the disputed _plural_, that confirm the evolution _-s > -i_ in Italian?


It's all 2nd sing. conjugated verb forms (like _vedi_), not just monosyllabic verbs. (Of course with verbs you can always say that it was by analogy with some other class of verbs…)


----------



## Sardokan1.0

francisgranada said:


> So I have a question: Are there examples, *other* than _monosyllabic _words and the disputed _plural_, that confirm the evolution _-s > -i_ in Italian?



I don't think that Italian, even early Italian ever used plurals with S

on the other hand Sardinian language, that doesn't belong to the Italic Romance group has preserved all plurals endings with S (OS,ES, IS, AS), and also verbal conjugations remained almost identical to Latin


----------



## francisgranada

CapnPrep said:


> It's all 2nd sing. conjugated verb forms (like _vedi_), not just monosyllabic verbs.


Yes, I thought of this (I could have mentioned it in my previous post, sorry).  





> ( ... with verbs you can always say that it was by analogy with some other class of verbs…)


Of course ... but:

Why should _(tu) *amai _(<_ amas_) purely on a phonetic basis become _ami_ and not e.g. _*ame_? Or we have _amiamo_, _temiamo_, _partiamo _(a Tuscan "feature") instead of _amamo, tememo, partimo. _These forms are considered to come from the subjunctive, but is this explanation satisfactory enough? (one could expect also the opposite: the loss of the subjunctive forms ...)

What I want to say is that the process of the "regularization" of the conjugation and the application of various analogies with other (class of) verbs (or verbal forms) seem to me rather a complex and often hardly "decipherable" matter.   That's why I'd like to see some more "straightforward" and less "specific" examples for -_vowel_+_s > -i_ ...


----------



## ahvalj

All this discussion has one fatal flaw: it is not based on actual ancient textual evidence.


----------



## francisgranada

ahvalj said:


> All this discussion has one fatal flaw: it is not based on actual ancient textual evidence.


True ... Does such ancient textual evidence exist ?

An other observation/question: the 1st pers. pl. in Italian ends always in -_iamo_, which seems to be an example for a simple "disappearence" of the final _-s, _without altering the quality of the previous vowel. Why _cantiamo _and not e.g. *_cantiami _?   

I.e. _cantamus _> *_cantamoi _> *_cantami _> *_cantiami, _in analogy with the paradigm _canes > *canei > cani_; _amas > *amai > ami;_ etc ...


----------



## ahvalj

francisgranada said:


> An other observation/question: the 1st pers. pl. in Italian ends always in -_iamo_, which seems to be an example for a simple "disappearence" of the final _-s, _without altring the quality of previous vowel. I.e. why _cantiamo _and not e.g. _cantamus _> *_cantamoi _> *_cantami  _> *_cantiami _?


This change does not necessarily suppose the existence of an overt diphthong in polysyllabic words: this could have been a kind of glide (that's why I marked it with _ʲ_ in the original post), which may have fronted _a_ and _e_ but disappeared without traces after _o_. I don't support this theory: actually I don't know, this is just the most trivial explanation within the framework of the discussed scenario.

In principle, if not the development _s>j_ in monosyllabics, the easiest explanation would be the one that _a_ and _e_ became higher before _s,_ which then disappeared (cp. the same 10–15 centuries earlier: *_deices>dīcis, *vēndas>vēndis_).

On the other hand, _plus>piu._


francisgranada said:


> True ... Does such ancient textual evidence exist ?
> 
> An other observation/question: the 1st pers. pl. in Italian ends always in -_iamo_, which seems to be an example for a simple "disappearence" of the final _-s, _without altering the quality of the previous vowel. Why _cantiamo _and not e.g. *_cantiami _?
> 
> I.e. _cantamus _> *_cantamoi _> *_cantami _> *_cantiami, _in analogy with the paradigm _canes > *canei > cani_; _amas > *amai > ami;_ etc ...


_Minus>meno._


----------



## fdb

ahvalj said:


> All this discussion has one fatal flaw: it is not based on actual ancient textual evidence.



Rohlfs's analysis (mentioned in no. 3) is based precisely on late Latin and old Italian textual evidence.


----------



## ahvalj

fdb said:


> Rohlfs's analysis (mentioned in no. 3) is based precisely on late Latin and old Italian textual evidence.


Yes, thanks. I somehow didn't pay attention to the Old French situation that testifies the penetration of _-ī_ into the former third declension nouns: Nom. Pl. _chien<*canī, seigneur<*seniōrī, pere<*patrī _etc.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Sardokan1.0 said:


> maybe at some point "cantatis" evolved to "cantates" and with centuries has lost the final S
> 
> in Sardinian we say "cantades" : voi cantate = bois cantades
> 
> about noi, could be a contracted form of "nobis"
> 
> in Sardinian is "nois" as we can see nobis=nois; just che B is missing
> 
> same thing for voi : vobis = bois (the V turned to B, the Betacism is very common in our language)



Modern Spanish 2nd person plural present endings -ais, eis, -ís derive from -ades, -edes, -ides. Pretérito indefinido has -asteis and -isteis, but I don't know their origins.


----------



## francisgranada

ahvalj said:


> ... I somehow didn't pay attention to the Old French situation that testifies the penetration of _-ī_ into the former third declension nouns ...


I propose to exclude the plural of nouns/adjectives in _-i_, as the evolution of the declension has it'own complex "story" (discussed also in other threads), not necessarily coincident with that of the verbal ending _-te._

I think the monosyllabic words could be explained by the stress on the vowel preceding the final _-i _(<-s). Without trying to go into details, I find probable that the unstable glide _*ʲ* _became a stable _*j* _if preceded by a stressed vowel, while in cases where this glide was not part of a stressed syllable, it tended to disappear without traces.  This could explain the endings _-*te*_ (2nd pl.), _-*iamo*_ (1st pl.) and _-*a*_ (2nd sg. subjunctive). E.g. _(voi) teme*te*, (noi) tem*iamo*, (che tu) tem*a*_.

Perhaps the 2nd pers. sg. indicative like _(tu) canti, (tu) temi _is a bit problematic ... However the expected forms _*canta (<*cantas)_, _*teme (<*temes) _seem to me improbable or unstable  in the context of the generalization/regularization of the personal endings across different verbal classes, and at the same time also the evident tendency to maintain the clear formal distinction of the personal endings in indicative (among others, see also _io cantav*o*_ instead of the former _io cantav*a*). _


Angelo di fuoco said:


> ...  Pretérito indefinido has -asteis and -isteis, but I don't know their origins.


I think this is due to a later "regularization" by analogy with the present endings in _-ais/eis. _E.g. in Portuguese we still  have _-astes/-estes/-istes. _


----------



## Pugnator

ahvalj said:


> According to a now popular theory, the Early Romance _-ẹs_ has produced the Italian _-i:
> canēs>canẹs>canẹʲ>cani
> vidēs>vẹdẹs>vẹdẹʲ>vedi
> vīdissēs>vẹdẹssẹs>vẹdẹssẹʲ>vedessi_ (with _ẹ_ in the root from the Infect stem).
> 
> However, the Pl. 2. ending _-tis>-tẹs_ is always _-te_ in Standard Italian:
> _vidētis>vedete
> vīdistis>vedeste
> vidēte>vedete.
> _
> I don't know the details, but, being familiar with the usual etymological procedures, I am almost sure that the explanation is that _vīdistī_ and _vīdistis_ both produced Sg./Pl. 2. **_vedesti,_ and, since this was inconvenient, _-te_ was taken from the Imperative and eventually spread to all tenses. My question is: are there any attestations of this (or other, if I am mistaken) scenario, e. g. old texts, dialectal data etc.? Are there traces of the Pl. 2. _**-ti_ (_**vedeti, vedevati, vedreti_)?


Regarding name this theory is surely wrong. All the name (Well, almost, there are some exception) are formed on the singular accusative case of the word. It's wrong also the writing because the not attested form as canei should be write with * before the name.  Anyway I simple think regarding the verb that the ending -s fall because on Italian there can't be a consonant as final letter and the "i" became "e" as happened a lot of time whit the passage from Latin to Italian.


----------



## CapnPrep

Pugnator said:


> Regarding nouns this theory is surely wrong. All the nouns (Well, almost, there are some exception) are formed on the singular accusative case of the word.


OK, but the plural ending (which is what we are talking about here) does not come from the accusative singular.


Pugnator said:


> It's wrong also the writing because the not attested form as canei should be write with * before the name.


The intermediate forms are obviously phonetic representations, and all historical pronunciations can be assumed to be hypothetical. (If a pronunciation corresponds to an attested written form, this form can be cited.)


Pugnator said:


> Anyway I simple think regarding the verb that the ending -s fall because on Italian there can't be a consonant as final letter and the "i" became "e" as happened a lot of time whit the passage from Latin to Italian.


You mean _e_ became _i_. But what independent arguments do you have for proposing this as a regular sound change in absolute final position in (non-clitic) Italian words?


----------



## Pugnator

CapnPrep said:


> OK, but the plural ending (which is what we are talking about here) does not come from the accusative singular.


Nope, the plural ending are formed on Italian basing on the Italian singular that is based on Latin. You can see it  by the neuter (also if some neuter has double plural, one based on the Latin termination and one based on the normal formation).


CapnPrep said:


> The intermediate forms are obviously phonetic representations, and all historical pronunciations can be assumed to be hypothetical. (If a pronunciation corresponds to an attested written form, this form can be cited.)


If I remember well any hypothetical and reconstructed thing should have the * before it.


CapnPrep said:


> You mean _e_ became _i_. But what independent arguments do you have for proposing this as a regular sound change in absolute final position in (non-clitic) Italian words?


I meant i became e because I thought you asked how vides became vedi.


----------



## ahvalj

Pugnator said:


> It's wrong also the writing because the not attested form as canei should be write with * before the name.


I was actually asking whether these intermediate forms with _ʲ_ were attested and am still not quite sure that they are not.



francisgranada said:


> I propose to exclude the plural of nouns/adjectives in _-i_, as the evolution of the declension has it'own complex "story" (discussed also in other threads), not necessarily coincident with that of the verbal ending _-te._


This parallelism among reflexes in various unrelated parts of the speech is the main argument in favor of that theory. If each particular case can be explained by analogy, the idea of a common phonetic development behind all that loses its ground.



francisgranada said:


> I think the monosyllabic words could be explained by the stress on the vowel preceding the final _-i _(<-s). Without trying to go into details, I find probable that the unstable glide _*ʲ* _became a stable _*j* _if preceded by a stressed vowel, while in cases where this glide was not part of a stressed syllable, it tended to disappear without traces.  This could explain the endings _-*te*_ (2nd pl.), _-*iamo*_ (1st pl.) and _-*a*_ (2nd sg. subjunctive). E.g. _(voi) teme*te*, (noi) tem*iamo*, (che tu) tem*a*_.


This can as easily be explained through the scenario when _-s_ preserved for some time in monosyllabic words and later developed into an _j, _whereas in all other cases it was simply dropped (the traditional interpretation, cp. _*-z_ preserved in the German _der, wer _or_ *-d_ preserved in the English _what, that_ and German _was, das_ but lost elsewhere). To postulate _ʲ_ as an intermediate stage in all cases, we need either a direct attestation (e. g. _**rosai, **lopoi, **amai, **amatei_) or a manifestation in the form of a phonetic change caused by this _*ʲ_ (as would be _cani, vedi, **amati_).


----------



## Nino83

ahvalj said:


> I was actually asking whether these intermediate forms with _ʲ_ were attested


In the books I read there is no attested form of "aʲ, eʲ". This is a "great" problem for the "phonetic" theory.


ahvalj said:


> And what about _amīcās>amiche?_


After thinking about that, it is possible that the developement (monophthongization) of the /ae/ diphthong in stressed syllables was faster than it was in unstressed syllables.
Old Latin genitive/dative singular, nominative plural: amicas > amicai > amicae > amiche.
We have kailum (proto-Italic) > caelu(m) > cielo.
The accusative theory says that /ae/ > /e/ before /k/ palatalization. But who can say that /ae/ from original /ai/ and /ae/ from /a(i)s/ had the same temporal developement.
If I'm not wrong, in Romanian there is "amică/amice" [a'mikə a'miʧe] and "furnică/furnicei(Dat.s.)/furnici(Nom.pl.)" [fur'nikə fur'niʧei̯ fur'niʧi], with palatalization.
Probably in all Italo-Romance languages the final /ae/ became a monophthong after the palatalization of /k/. 
Is there any text where it is said that during the Roman Empire, the pronunciations of /ae/ in "caelum" and "amicae" were identical? 
It could be that the orthography of "caelum" was a little bit conservative, while that of "amicae" was reflecting the spoken pronunciation.


----------



## francisgranada

ahvalj said:


> If each particular case can be explained by analogy, the idea of a common phonetic development behind all that loses its ground.


 Not each ..., but the _analogy _has also to be taken in consideration (not only in Italian). For example, even if admitting that _amici, lupi, casi, etc..._ had/could come from the corresponding Latin nominative forms, the plural of the neuters like _ossi _(besides _ossa_)_, nomi, ori, etc..._ cannot be explained directly from _ossa, nomina, aura, _but the application of _-i_ (by _analogy_) as a general plural marker for all the Italian masculine (including Lat. neuter) nouns seems to be a logical/valid explanation. If so, then this could hypothetically explain other plurals as well, e.g. _spiriti, cani, padri, uomini, etc_ ... (Lat. _spiritus, canes, patres, homines_) without the necessity of applying any "phonetic" theory. 





> This parallelism among reflexes in various unrelated parts of the speech is the main argument in favor of that theory.


Of course. I proposed to exclude the plurals of nouns from our discussion because there is no 100% consensus about their origin (as far as I know), plus your question is about the 2nd pers. pl._* -te*_ and not about the general evolution of the Latin/Proto-Romance _*-s*_ in Italian.

Two observations that seem to support your "glide theory":

- I've noticed in Spanish (especially in some songs) a similar phenomenon, i.e. the final _-s_ pronounced as -_*ʲ*_ (or something like this). As far as I remember, a native Spaniard has reported something similar in this forum, as well (unfortunately I don't remember in which thread).

- We have also e.g. _canterai_ in Italian, i.e. not a monosyllabic word, but the stress is on the syllable -_ai_. Of course, this form could simply derive from _cantar_+_hai _(the already existing 2nd sg. of _avere._), however, as this compound future exists in other Romance languages too, in theory I can imagine also _canterai _< _cantar+*has.   _


----------



## ahvalj

francisgranada said:


> We have also e.g. _canterai_ in Italian, i.e. not a monosyllabic word, but the stress is on the syllable -_ai_. Of course, this form could simply derive from _cantar_+_hai _(the already existing 2nd sg. of _avere._). However, as this compound future exists in other Romance languages too, in theory I can imagine also _canterai _< _cantar+*has.   _


One could argue that the compound Future had merged its elements pretty late (cp. Portuguese _cantar-me-ás = me cantarás_), so this _as_ often remained a separate monosyllabic word in early Italian.


----------



## Sardokan1.0

francisgranada said:


> however, as this compound future exists in other Romance languages too



Sardinian still uses compound future, it works in this way : Indicative Present of "to have" + A/AD + Infinite of the other verb

For example : CANTARE

Eo happo a cantare
Tue has a cantare
Issu/Issa hat a cantare
Nois hamus a cantare
Bois hazis a cantare
Issos/Issas han a cantare


----------



## Pugnator

ahvalj said:


> One could argue that the compound Future had merged its elements pretty late (cp. Portuguese _cantar-me-ás = me cantarás_), so this _has_ often remained a separate monosyllabic word.


Romance future (future formed with root + "to have verb" is present on almost all (I think all but better put almost because I'm not sure) romance language and was formed very early so I don't think it was merged late. 
Example: (All mean I will eat)
Spanish : comeré (formed by comer + è from he "I have" )
Sicilian: (Simple future on Sicilian got extinct, other future never existed.  mancirò (formed by mancir + ò (from the contraption of "aiu" i've)
Neapolitan: (Rare, to replace it used often present + adverb of time or Is used Infinite of have + a + infinite, which is the same construct used for say "Must, have to etc. etc.) Magnarraggio  (Formed by magnar +r +r + aggio (Aggio mean I've)
Italian : Mangerò (it had this evolution mangiar + ho (mean I've) = mangiarò ---> mangerò 
French: mangerai (formed by manger + ai (ai mean I've)
Portuguese: comerei (formed by comer + ei (ei mean I've)
Occitan: manjarai (Formed by manjar  + ai (Ai mean I've).



Sardokan1.0 said:


> Sardinian still uses compound future, it works in this way : Indicative Present of "to have" + A/AD + Infinite of the other verb
> 
> For example : CANTARE
> 
> Eo happo a cantare
> Tue has a cantare
> Issu/Issa hat a cantare
> Nois hamus a cantare
> Bois hazis a cantare
> Issos/Issas han a cantare


Nerver existed a romance future or it got extinct like Sicilian?


----------



## francisgranada

ahvalj said:


> One could argue that the compound Future had merged its elements pretty late (cp. Portuguese), so this _has_ often remained a separate monosyllabic word.


Yes, of course. The question is, when did this future begin to be perceived  as "a verbal form" in Italo-Romance, i.e.  before or after the loss of the final _-s_?

See for example the 1st pl. _canteremo_. This form cannot be derivied directly from the Italian _cantar+(abb)iamo_, but rather from _cantar+(av)emo. _I.e. the "endings" of the future seem to correspond rather to the historically older forms of the endings of the verb _avere_. However, I think this is not necessarily relevant from the point of view of your original question ...


----------



## ahvalj

Pugnator said:


> Romance future (future formed with root + "to have verb" is present on almost all (I think all but better put almost because I'm not sure) romance language and was formed very early so I don't think it was merged late.
> Example: (All mean I will eat)
> Spanish : comeré (formed by comer + è from he "I have" )
> Sicilian: (Simple future on Sicilian got extinct, other future never existed.  mancirò (formed by mancir + ò (from the contraption of "aiu" i've)
> Neapolitan: (Rare, to replace it used often present + adverb of time or Is used Infinite of have + a + infinite, which is the same construct used for say "Must, have to etc. etc.) Magnarraggio  (Formed by magnar +r +r + aggio (Aggio mean I've)
> Italian : Mangerò (it had this evolution mangiar + ho (mean I've) = mangiarò ---> mangerò
> French: mangerai (formed by manger + ai (ai mean I've)
> Portuguese: comerei (formed by comer + ei (ei mean I've)
> Occitan: manjarai (Formed by manjar  + ai (Ai mean I've).


That's true: I meant that the auxiliary verb merged with the Infinitive after the change _as>ai_ had occurred in Italian. In Portuguese this merger is still incomplete, and as we have been shown, in Sardinian the auxiliary simply remains separate.


francisgranada said:


> Yes, of course. The question is, when did this future begin to be perceived  as "a verbal form" in Italian, i.e.  before or after the loss of the final _-s_?


Fredegar (Chronicle of Fredegar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) in the 7th century already knows _darás _— Vulgar Latin but this merger could have been dependent on the syntactic context.


----------



## francisgranada

ahvalj said:


> ... Fredegar (Chronicle of Fredegar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) in the 7th century already knows _darás ... _


Thanks, this is an interesting information for me.


----------



## Pugnator

francisgranada said:


> Yes, of course. The question is, when did this future begin to be perceived as "a verbal form" in Italian, i.e. before or after the loss of the final _-s_?


The final consonant was lose when the language was still latin, so surely after


----------



## ahvalj

Pugnator said:


> The final consonant was lose when the language was still latin, so surely after


I am not sure that _-s_ dropped in the educated Latin speech before the end of the Roman time.


----------



## Pugnator

ahvalj said:


> I am not sure that _-s_ dropped in the educated Latin speech before the end of the Roman time.


Not on educated but surely on vulgar latin and on various error of late latin. We can see it on wall writing of Pompei at example and we are just on the first century A.D


----------



## ahvalj

Pugnator said:


> Not on educated but surely on vulgar latin and on various error of late latin. We can see it on wall writing of Pompei at example and we are just on the first century A.D


Does _-s _disappear in Pompeian inscriptions? I am asking because I only know about _-t_.

Overall, it is debatable to which extent the phenomena that have entered the Romance languages go back to earlier colloquial Latin. Here  Latin: final M in monosyllables and its evolution I have cited Cicero on the drop of _-s_ in the pre-classical language: since this predated the Roman colonization, it means that this way of pronouncing had been eliminated before Latin was brought to Iberia, Gaul and Sardinia.


----------



## Sardokan1.0

Pugnator said:


> Nerver existed a romance future or it got extinct like Sicilian?



Never existed a simple future, it was always composed; also Conditional works in a similar way

Conditional Present = Subjunctive Present of "DARE" + INFINITE


Spoiler: Conditional Present of CANTARE



Eo dia cantare
Tue dias cantare
Issu/Issa diat cantare
Nois dièmus cantare
Bois dièdas cantare
Issos/Issas dian cantare


Conditional Past = Subjunctive Present of "DARE" + INFINITE of "TO HAVE" + PAST PARTICIPLE


Spoiler: Conditional Past of CANTARE



Eo dia hàere cantadu
Tue dias hàere cantadu
Issu/Issa diat hàere cantadu
Nois dièmus hàere cantadu
Bois dièdas hàere cantadu
Issos/Issas dian hàere cantadu


----------



## francisgranada

Pugnator said:


> The final consonant was lose when the language was still latin, so surely after


I'm not sure if I have understood correctly your answer ... However,  the loss of the final _*-s *_(in question) is limited mainly to the Italo-Romance languages and the Romanian.  In the majority of the Romance languages (Spanish, Portuguese, Galician, Aragonese, Asturian, Catalan, Provencal, French, Sardinian ...) the final _*-s*_ is maintained until the mondern times (of course, not e.g. in  the nominal forms that did not survive at all like e.g. the Latin genitive in _-is_).


----------



## Nino83

Hi, Francis. 
Seeing that metaphonetic plurals (for_ -i_ plurals) were present from Piedmont to Apulia, we can say that very different varieties of Romance languages, for example Gallo-Italian, Neapolitan and Romanian, have/had vocalic plurals.  
This makes me think that the loss of the final _-s_ and the choice of the nominative plural endings in Italy were present before the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the speech of the working class.


----------



## CapnPrep

ahvalj said:


> Does _-s _disappear in Pompeian inscriptions? I am asking because I only know about _-t_.


There are apparently a small number of examples (_Romulu_, _felicita)_, but not enough to indicate a pronunciation trait (unlike the very widespread cases of -_t_ drop). There are also examples of "extra" final _-s_ in the fem. sg. (_Liviaes_). (see here p. xxxi–xxxii)


----------



## ahvalj

CapnPrep said:


> There are apparently a small number of examples (_Romulu_, _felicita)_, but not enough to indicate a pronunciation trait (unlike the very widespread cases of -_t_ drop). There are also examples of "extra" final _-s_ in the fem. sg. (_Liviaes_). (see here p. xxxi–xxxii)


Thanks. That Gen. Sg. _-aes _(_Antiochus Liviaes se[rvus], Mena Liviaes l[ibertus]_) is nicely explained as a morphological phenomenon: a contamination of the Latin -_ae_ and the Oscan and Doric _-ās_ or Ionic _-ēs:_ _Liviae : Liviās~Λιβίᾱς~Λιβίης → Liviaes_.


----------



## Nino83

As far as I know Old Latin genitive, dative (sungular) and nominative (plural) was _as > ai̯s > ai̯ > ae̯_ so, probably, _aes_ was a possible alternative during some periods.


----------



## ahvalj

Nino83 said:


> As far as I know Old Latin genitive, dative (sungular) and nominative (plural) was _as > ai̯s > ai̯ > ae̯_ so, probably, _aes_ was a possible alternative during some periods.


These three endings have different origins and they only merged shortly before the classical period. 

Dat. Sg._ -ae_ is inherited _<*-āı̯<-*ehₐeı̯,_ it is found almost everywhere, e. g. in Oscan (_-aí_).

Nom. Pl. -_ae_ is a parallel but independent Latin (preclassical _-ai_) and Greek (_-αι_) innovation based on the thematic *-_oı̯_ (Greek _-οι,_ Old Latin _-oi,_ later _>-ei>-ẹ>-ī_) and the Nom./Acc. Du. _*-ai<*-ehₐihₑ_ (cp. _duae, ambae_). The original Latin ending was -_ās_ (preserved dialectally), which corresponded to the Oscan and Umbrian _-as._

Gen. Sg. -_ae_ comes from the disyllabic _-āī_ (still found in Plautus: _magnāī rēī publicāī grātiā _— Amphitryon), which represents the _-ī_ from the 2nd declension added to the _ā_-stem. It is attested only in Latin. The older form was again _-ās<-*ehₐes,_ still preserved in _pater familiās_ and in the language of the 3–2nd centuries B.C. as well as in the older inscriptions. Other Italic languages preserve _-as._


----------



## Nino83

Thank you, ahvalj. 
So it was not a phonological process_ s > i̯_ but there were multiple forms, some of these due to analogy. 
Good to know!


----------



## francisgranada

Nino83 said:


> ... This makes me think that the loss of the final _-s_ and the choice of the nominative plural endings in Italy were present before the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the speech of the working class.


Ok, however if we admit (in spite of some difficulties) that the vocalic plural endings in Italian (Romanian, Neapolitan, etc ...) are the continuation of the Latin plurals in _-i/-ae_, then the general loss  of of the final _-s_ and the choice of the nominative for the plural might have been two independent processes. 

Observation: As the singular of the modern Romance nouns and adjectives supposedly derive from the Latin accusative, the conservation or loss of the final _-s_ concerns practically only three cases:
- plural of nouns/adjectives _(< canes, patres, spiritus, tristes ...)_
- 2nd sg./pl. and 1st pl. _(< amas, ames, amatis, amastes, amamus ...)_
- limited (relatively small) number of other words, mainly adverbs _(< plus, minus, magis, ...) _and  loanwords/proper names.  

Question: Are there traces of the _parallel_ existence of plurals in _-i/e_ and _-s_ in the Romance languages in Italy, Sardinia, Iberian peninsula, etc... or the only attestations are some old French manuscripts (e.g. _Séquence de Sainte Eulalie _from the 9th century_,_ distinguishing the nominative and accusative plural) ?


----------



## ahvalj

francisgranada said:


> Question: Are there traces of the _parallel_ existence of plurals in _-i/e_ and _-s_ in the Romance languages in Italy, Sardinia, Iberian peninsula, etc... or the only attestations are some old French manuscripts (e.g. _Séquence de Sainte Eulalie _from the 9th century_,_ distinguishing the nominative and accusative plural) ?


The _regular_ Old French Nom. Pl. : Obl. Pl. _li mur : les murs_ (_<illī mūrī : illōs mūrōs_), _li_ _chien : les chiens_ (<_illī *canī : illōs canēs_) don't count?


----------



## francisgranada

ahvalj said:


> The _regular_ Old French Nom. Pl. : Obl. Pl. _li mur : les murs_ (_<illī mūrī : illōs mūrōs_), _li_ _chien : les chiens_ (<_illī *canī : illōs canēs_) don't count?


Of course, but your examples are _Old French_ ... My question was about possible sources from other regions/Romance languages. (Or I have misunderstood something ...)


----------



## ahvalj

An interesting moment that is sometimes mentioned in connection with the French situation. In Gaulish, the _o_-declension had the same endings as in Latin: Nom. Sg. _-os,_ Acc. Sg. _-om>-on,_ Nom. Pl. _-oi>ī,_ Acc. Pl. _-ūs_ (e. g. "bear": _*artos, *arton, *artī, *artūs : ursus, ursum, ursī, ursōs_), so the Latin declension was supported by the substrate one. In Celtiberian, both Nom. Pl. and Acc. Pl. seem to have merged in *_-ūs, _attested as _-us_ (Nom. Pl. _*-ōs>-ūs,_ Acc. Pl. _*-ons>*-ōs>-ūs_), so the Latin opposition _-ī : -ōs_ was alien to the speakers of Late Celtiberian (the situation in Indo-European but non-Celtic Lusitanian is uknown). Centuries later, we find the opposition _-ī : -ōs_ still alive in Gaul but lost in Spain/Portugal.

In the _ā_-stems, both Celtic languages didn't distinguish between the Nom. Pl. and Acc. Pl. forms, having merged both in *_-ās, _attested as _-as_ (_<-*ās_ in Nom. Pl. and _<*-ans_ in Acc. Pl.). Centuries later, the former Celtic speakers in either Gaul or Iberia didn't preserve this distinction in their Romance speech.


----------



## abracadabra!

Nino83 said:


> Yes, I wonder why Latin speakers would have done something so complicated when this ending was simple and equal for all conjugations.


I don't understand this argument of simplicity as equality. Speaking is as simple as breath. It's complicated only for the linguists. (Like breath is for the physiologists.) So what's the problem? If I often use the imperative form, then I may also, by sloppiness, use it in the non-imperative meaning. Maybe just because I think the difference is not important enough. If I often hear the imperative form and don't feel that its being imperative is important for that life of mine, then I may take it to have the general meaning. When I'm talking, I don't think at the moment that I break the beautiful schemas for the linguists and make their life complicated.


----------



## Nino83

abracadabra! said:


> I don't understand this argument of simplicity as equality.


I'm not a linguist.
I simply cited Rohlfs, who doesn't agree with the "accusative theory", i.e with the phonetic explanation of the Italian vocalic plurals.
Rohls writes simply that Latin _-tis_ became _-te_ in Central Italian languages.
It's a problem of the accusative theory to prove that the second plural inflection _-te_ comes from the plural imperative.


----------



## abracadabra!

Ah, sorry. No, I thought you referred to the verbs: the theory in the second post of the conversation. I'm not a linguist either. I was just curious about your argument.


----------



## Nino83

abracadabra! said:


> I thought you referred to the verbs: the theory in the second post of the conversation.


There is a connection. 
The "accusative theory" says that final unstressed _as _became_ e_ and _es _became_ i_, and that it was a general phonetic change. 
Then they have to explain how _tis_ (Vulgar Latin _te(s)_) became _te_.


----------



## abracadabra!

Wait. So, the phonetic theory has the problem to explain why we have "voi cantate" and not "voi cantati". Rohls says he doesn't think that can be explained within this theory. That much I follow. Then there is fdb's theory which might explain it. But who is the author of the statement that fdb's explanation is failed, because people don't do complicated things, as they prefer simple paradigms? (I quote by the 17th message; maybe I missed your point.) You or Rohls? If you, then my question was 'why'. (I don't insist on the answer of course, just state my case.) If Rohls, then I obviously can't reach him...


----------



## Nino83

abracadabra! said:


> because people don't do complicated things


If _-tis_ changed phonetically in _-te_, as the traditional theory says, we can say that _cantate < cantate(s) < cantatis_ is the normal evolution. There is no reason to think that it comes from the imperative mood. 
Older manuscripts (like those cited in #3) make Rohlfs think that the traditional theory is more solid.


----------



## abracadabra!

Thanks. Now I see your and Rohlfs' main point.


----------



## danielstan

Because Romanian has many common features with Italian, including some aspects discussed in this thread, I will make a summary of what Alexandru Rosetti (in my opinion, the best Romanian linguist) wrote on those topics. Many of his ideas are applicable to Italian, too.
As a remark - I have not found any Romanian linguists to sustain a phonetic evolution to justify the cases discussed here, i.e. the transformation _vowel + s > vowel + i_.
Another remark - Romanian language is less fortunate than Italian in matter of old texts: oldest surviving Romanian text is from 1521, thus useless in our discussion. Everything Romanian linguists are doing is not attested in old documents, but is inferred from comparisons between the Romanian dialects (Daco-Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian) and Italian center and southern dialects.

Vulgar Latin spoken in the Balkans has lost the final _-m_ and final _-s_, which lead to confusions between singular and plural in cases like _canem _(sg. accusative) vs. _canes _(pl.).
Hence the need to make distinction in some way, thus the regularization of masculine plurals ending in _*-i*_.
The source of *-i* ending masc. plurals could have been the plurals of the adjectives of the 2nd declension (_multus/multi_) or the plurals of the names of the 2nd declension (_servus/servi_).
(Alexandru Rosetti, _Istoria limbii române, 1986_ page 132)

The small numerals ending in *-i* are explained as getting a masculine plural marker (similar with Italian _sei_):
lat. _dos _> rom. _doi_
lat. _tres _> rom. _trei_
lat. _quinque _> rom. _cinci_
The above examples from Romanian clearly show there is no phonetic rule to justify such mutations.
(Alexandru Rosetti, _Istoria limbii române, 1986_ page 135)

The pronouns get at plural an *-i* ending as plural marker, too:
lat. _nos _> rom. _noi_
lat. _vos _> rom. _voi_
Fortunately the third person pronoun already had an _*-i*_ ending:
lat. _illi _> rom. _ei_
(Alexandru Rosetti, _Istoria limbii române, 1986_ page 136)

I am convinced that the supposed phonetic rule_ nos > noi _(and equivalents of it) could be rejected by examples (other than pronouns) where the final _-s_ has just disappeared without being transformed in *-i* (but I am not good at Latin to find them).


----------



## ahvalj

_forās_ > Romanian _fără,_ Piedmontese _fora,_ Sicilian _fora~fuora,_ Venetian _fora~fuora_


----------



## Nino83

I agree with Rohlfs, danielstan, Rosetti and the traditional theory.  
Also the formation of the second and third person singular of the present simple in Italian languages is more likely to be analogic.  
As Old French (for the article), Old Italian and Romanian spread of the -i plural in the third declension, the existence of different forms in various dialects like "i pesce, i monte" (similar to the Old French nominative plural "li frere, li chien") and the metaphonetic plurals (-i metaphony) for the nouns of the third declension in Gallo-Italian languages show us, the traditional theory has solid bases.


----------

