# Old Latin:  FHEFHAKED



## francisgranada

Hello,

The verbal form _FHEFHAKED _appears on the so called "Fibula praenestina", in an old Latin inscription. The entire inscription is _"MANIOS MED FHEFHAKED NUMASIOI"._

Well, the "Fibula praenestina" is/was considered by some linguists as a falsification. Neverthless, the form _FHEFHAKED  _reflects the existing IE phenomenon of reduplication of the first syllable of verbs in some tenses or aspects (present in other IE languages, as well).

I have two questions:
1. Why _*FH*E*FH*AKED _instead of _FEFAKED_?  What is the reason for the "aspirated_ FH_" in an original Latin word?
2. Does this_ FH _appear in other Latin written documents as well?

Thanks in advance


----------



## berndf

francisgranada said:


> What is the reason for the "aspirated_ FH_" in an original Latin word?


It is not an aspiration. <FH> is the old way to spell /f/ when <F> still meant /w/ (di-gamma).


----------



## ahvalj

francisgranada said:


> Does this_ FH _appear in other Latin written documents as well?


Also in Etruscan (where it comes from; Old Italic script - Wikipedia) and Venetic (Venetic language - Wikipedia).
_Φ_ meant [pʰ] and was therefore not suitable for [f].


----------



## Hulalessar

francisgranada said:


> Well, the "Fibula praenestina" is/was considered by some linguists as a falsification.



The latest scientific techniques have confirmed that the inscription is ancient and not a nineteenth century forgery.


----------



## francisgranada

ahvalj said:


> Also in Etruscan (where it comes from; Old Italic script - Wikipedia) and Venetic (Venetic language - Wikipedia).





berndf said:


> It is not an aspiration. <FH> is the old way to spell /f/ when <F> still meant /w/ (di-gamma).


I understand, but the letter *V* also had the value of /w/ (a semi-consonant) in Latin. So why FHEFHAKED and not e.g. VEVAKED? What would be the difference in the pronunciation in the period, when the "Fibula praenestina" is supposed to be created?


----------



## berndf

The sound is /f/ and not /w/ and <FH> represented the sound /f/. Why are you asking about VEVAKED? I don't understand.


----------



## francisgranada

berndf said:


> The sound is /f/ and not /w/ and <FH> represented the sound /f/. Why are you asking about VEVAKED? I don't understand.


Well, perhaps I didn't understand you ... You have written "<FH> is the old way to spell /f/ when <F> still meant /w/ (di-gamma)", which suggests as if FH were pronounced /w/ ... Now I see that I have misunderstood you, neverthless I don't understand why FH had to represent the sound F. Please, try to explain it a bit more clearly  ...


----------



## berndf

francisgranada said:


> which suggests as if FH were pronounced /w/


No, I said exactly the opposite: The sound /f/ was spelled <FH> because the spelling <F> at the time still meant the sound /w/.

Just I case, here a small reminder of symbols:
/.../ = sounds (phonemic)
[...] = sounds (phonetic)
<... > = spelling.


----------



## francisgranada

berndf said:


> No, I said exactly the opposite: ...


Ok, now I understand. Finally, even the form of the letter _F_ reminds the Greek di-gamma. What I still don't understand is why the solution <FH> (F+H) to represent the sound pronounced /f/ ...


----------



## berndf

francisgranada said:


> Ok, now I understand. Finally, even the form of the letter _F_ reminds the Greek di-gamma. What I still don't understand is why the solution <FH> (F+H) to represent the sound pronounced /f/ ...


Why not? The Phoenician and Greek alphabets, from which the Latin alphabet is derived, had no /f/ sound and, hence, didn't need a letter to represent it. Latin needed to come up with some way so represent this sound. Assigning special meanings to digraphs is a frequently used method. In English, e.g., <sh> represents a sound that didn't exist in Latin.


----------



## francisgranada

berndf said:


> Why not? ....


Ok, I've  thought that perhaps there's a "deeper" logic behind  ... 





> Assigning special meanings to digraphs is a frequently used method. In English, e.g., <sh> represents a sound that didn't exist in Latin.


Even more typical e.g. in Hungarian:  cs, sz, zs, ty, ny, gy, ly ...


----------



## entangledbank

Later Latin consistently used V for consonant [w], but it was also vowel [ u]. A spelling with VH could be read as a syllable in itself. Whereas the archaic F was only [w], so FH was unambiguously a consonant. I am reminded of Maori _wh_ [ɸ], which was evidently felt at the time (early 1800s when it was first written down) to be closer to English voiceless _wh_, though other Polynesian languages use the spelling _f_.

What I am unclear about is whether Latin ever used plain F for [w]. As far as I can recall it's only the fibula that has this derived use. Are there any other uses of F or FH in Latin before F was repurposed as [f]?


----------



## berndf

As @ahvalj has explained, we know this writing system from Etruscan and Vetetic texts. There are no other Latin inscriptions that old and reflecting this early stage of the Italic writing system.


----------



## danielstan

I read somewhere (I don't remember where) this inscription has a trait specific to Old Latin,
i.e. the duplication of the first syllable in perfect tense:
*FHE*FHAKED instead of FHAKED.

Did such feature survive in any irregular verbs in Classical Latin or in Romance languages?

I have an example in mind and I don't know if it can be explained by Old Latin:
the verb _do _(I sing.) which has a strange form in perfect tense: _dedi _(I sing.)

DIZIONARIO LATINO OLIVETTI - Declinatore/Coniugatore Latino


----------



## fdb

Perfect reduplication: regular in Greek and Sanskrit, sporadic in Latin.


----------



## ahvalj

_Wallace RE · 2008 · Zikh rasna: a manual of the Etruscan language and inscriptions: _21:








danielstan said:


> I read somewhere (I don't remember where) this inscription has a trait specific to Old Latin,
> i.e. the duplication of the first syllable in perfect tense:
> *FHE*FHAKED instead of FHAKED.
> 
> Did such feature survive in any irregular verbs in Classical Latin or in Romance languages?
> 
> I have an example in mind and I don't know if it can be explained by Old Latin:
> the verb _do _(I sing.) which has a strange form in perfect tense: _dedi _(I sing.)
> 
> DIZIONARIO LATINO OLIVETTI - Declinatore/Coniugatore Latino


Classical Latin examples of reduplicated perfects:
_cecidī_ (cado - Wiktionary)
_cecīdī_ (caedo - Wiktionary)
_cecinī_ (cano - Wiktionary)
_cucurrī_ (curro - Wiktionary)
_didicī_ (disco - Wiktionary)
_fefellī_ (fallo - Wiktionary)
_momordī_ (mordeo - Wiktionary)
_pepercī_ (parco - Wiktionary)
_pependī_ (pendo - Wiktionary)
_peperī_ (pario - Wiktionary)
_pepulī_ (pello - Wiktionary)
_spopondī_ (spondeo - Wiktionary)
_stetī_ (sto - Wiktionary)
_tetigī_ (tango - Wiktionary)
_totondī_ (tondeo - Wiktionary).​
There is a number of prefixed and compound verbs continuing the reduplicated _dedī_ and _-didī_ in Western and Central Romance, e. g. the Latin _vēndidī_ was restored back to _vēndedī,_ and this form became the source of the modern Italian _vendei; _likewise _perdidī>perdedī>perdei_.


----------

