# Lack of diphthongization in the Romance Imperfect forms derived from eram



## ahvalj

The Imperfect forms of the Latin _sum_ contained a short _e,_ which in principle should have diphthongized in such languages as Romanian, Italian and Spanish. Nevertheless we find (Spanish) _eram>era, erās>eras, erat>era, erant>eran_ (as well as Praes. Sg. 3 _es_) instead of the expected phonetically regular _ **yera, **yeras, **yera, **yeran_ (and _**ye_), cp. _errar — yerro, yerras, yerra, erramos, erráis, yerran._ Is there any explanation for this?


----------



## danielstan

I notice a Russian (@ahvalj) very passionate on details regarding Romance languages... Nice to hear from you!

First of all I would like to know what phonetic rule do you know for the expected forms **yera and so?

I could give a short answer for Romanian:
- Romanian orthography is used to "re-Latinize" some words that have deviated from their Latin ancestors, especially due to (South)-Slavic influence.
So, Romanian orthography does not match all the time the pronunciation, and in this matter of _eram _I think the orthography is misleading - it is pronounced [je-ram].

Short history of Romanian orthography:
-------------------------------------------
In the Middle Ages the Cyrillic alphabet (of Bulgarian influence) was used for Romanian language.
Between 1848 - 1860 in Wallachia and Moldavia (united as Romania since 1859) there was in use a "transitional alphabet" which was still Cyrilic, but some letters were changed to Latin (among them: Latin_ i _instead of Cyrillic_ и_). The transition alphabet was introduced by young noblemen (_boyars_) who studied at Paris and were under the influence of the French revolution and nationalism ideas, but was received with resistance by the old _boyars _(nota bene: at that time the _boyars _and the clergy were the main social classes with some education, while the peasantry, = 80% of population, was illiterate).
In 1860 by law the Latin alphabet was put in use.
There were debates between Romanian intellectuals whether to use an "etymological" orthography (thus closer to Latin, as much as possible) or a "phonetic" orthography. The result is an imperfect phonetic orthography with frequent changes during centuries. One of the main problem is Romanian alphabet does not have 2 different characters for _short i _(_j_ in Serbo-Croatian alphabet) and normal _i _(_i_ in Italian or other Romance languages).
--------------------------------------------

Phonetic rules regarding the initial "e" in Romanian words inherited from Latin:
lat. _herba _> rom. _iarba _(pronounced [_jar-ba]_) (its reconstructed evolution would be: lat. _herba _> *_ierba _> *_iearba _(diphthongation of _e _in stressed syllable) > rom. _iarba_)
lat. _equa _> rom. _iapa _(pronounced [_ja-pa]_) (its reconstructed evolution would be: lat. _equa _> *_iepa _> *_ieapa _(diphthongation of _e _in stressed syllable) > rom. _iapa_)
lat. _esca _> rom. _iasca _(pronounced [_jas-ca]_) (its reconstructed evolution would be: lat. _esca _> *_iesca _> *_ieasca _(diphthongation of _e _in stressed syllable) > rom. _iasca_)
lat. _haedus _> rom. _ied _(pronounced [_jed]_)
lat. _heri _> rom. _ieri _(pronounced [jerj])
lat. _hedera _> rom. _iedera _(pronounced [_je-de-ra]_)
lat. _exire _> rom. a _ieși _/ _ieșire _ (pronounced [_je-și])_

Rosetti and other Romanian linguists say this phenomenon of _iotacism _is under the influence of a _iotacism _from Slavic languages (South Slavic in this case).

I will discuss further the problematic words in Romanian for the above rule:
lat. _ille _> rom. _el _( = "he")
lat. _ego _> rom. _eu _( = "I")
lat. _eram _> rom. _eram _( = "I was")

Romanians pronounce (in free speeches, on the street, not in formal ocasions):
_[jel] _for _el _( = "he")
_[jeu]_ for _eu _( = "I")
On TV or in political speeches the speaker makes effort to pronounce as spelled "_el_" and "_eu_".
As a funny note, sometimes I see my 8 years old son spelling some Romanian words in the manner he hears them and I remember him spelling "_iel_" for "_el_" (= "he") and "_ia_" for "_ea_" (= "she").

For "_era_"/"_eram_" is difficult for me to say if there is a _iotacism _in pronunciation, but I think that in familiar speeches there is such a pronunciation like [je-ra]/[je-ram].

Same goes for lat. _est _> rom. _este _(= "it is") pronounced as _[jes-te]_.

Rosetti and other linguists do acknowledge the pronunciation [jeu] and [jel] for what is spelled as "_eu_" and "_el_" in Romanian.

I also note that in familiar speeches Romanians often use the "non standard" form _io _(1 syllable, not like Italian _io _in 2 syllables) instead of "standard" _eu_.

Conclusions:
- I do acknowledge that Romanian "_eram_" is pronounced, at least in non formal speeches, as [je-ram], but the _iotacism _is of Slavic influence and has nothing to do with similar phonetic evolutions from other Romance languages.
- the Latinist movement in Romanian literature is probably responsible for the Romanian orthography which spells "_el_", "_eu_", "_eram"_


----------



## ahvalj

Yes, thank you, I had forgotten that Romanian develops a [j] before its initial _e_, so the Romanian evidence won't be relevant in this case (by the way, Bulgarian, in contrast, drops _j_ in this position, thus the Bulgarian initial and postvocalic letter _е/e_ stands for [e], not [je]). Otherwise, I meant the diphthongization _ę>ie_ in several Romance areas, which should have affected the above forms as well.


----------



## danielstan

Now we are on same page and I remember such examples from other Romance languages:
lat. _tempus _> sp. _tiempo_
lat. _caelum _> it. _cielo_, sp. _cielo_, fr. _ciel_
lat. _heri _> it. _ieri_, fr. _hier_

But in other cases the diphthongation did not happen:
lat. _tempus _> it. _tempo_, fr. _temps_

I wait for other Romance speakers to answer...

Out of topic:
I know the South Slavic languages have evolved in some oposite direction: Jekavian (West Balkans, i.e. Croatian and other ex-Yugoslav dialects) vs. Ekavian (most of Serbian and Bulgarian).
When I traveled in Croatia I pronounced once "dvesta grama" in order to get 200 grams of salami. The seller very promptly corrected me to "dvjesta grama". After some years I realized I pronounced in a "Serbian" way a "Croatian" word...


----------



## CapnPrep

You don't mention French (I guess since modern French no longer has these forms), but the etymological forms can be found in Old French, with and without dipthongization: _iere_/_ere_ (< eram), _ieres_/_eres_ (< eras), _ierent_/_erent_ (< erant), etc.

Pope notes that the vowel in the undiphthongized forms is close _ẹ_, not open _ę_, and suggests that it was "influenced by the radical of the pluperfect of the first conjugation (_rovẹret_, _amẹret_, etc.)" (p. 347). The Latin future forms also show double outcomes in Old French (before also falling out of use): _ier_/_er_ < ero, _iermes_/_ermes_ < erimus, etc. But in this case, Pope simply attributes the difference to stressed/unstressed pronunciation (p. 368).

What is the vowel in the Italian imperfect forms _ero_, _eri_, _era_, etc.?


----------



## ahvalj

danielstan said:


> Now we are on same page and I remember such examples from other Romance languages:
> lat. _tempus _> sp. _tiempo_
> lat. _caelum _> it. cielo, sp. cielo, fr. ciel
> lat. heri > it. ieri, fr. hier
> 
> But in other cases the diphthongation did not happen:
> lat. tempus > it. tempo, fr. temps
> 
> I wait for other Romance speakers to answer...


This diphthongization happened in open syllables in Italian and French and in both open and closed syllables in Spanish (_pierna, abierto, fiesta, miembro_).



danielstan said:


> Out of topic:
> I know the South Slavic languages have evolved in some oposite direction: Jekavian (West Balkans, i.e. Croatian and other ex-Yugoslav dialects) vs. Ekavian (most of Serbian and Bulgarian).
> When I traveled in Croatia I pronounced once "dvesta grama" in order to get 200 grams of salami. The seller promptly corrected me to "dvjesta grama". After some years I realized I pronounced in a "Serbian" way a "Croatian" word.


This affects the development of the late Common Slavic _ē_ (written as _ѣ_ in Cyrillic and _ě_ in the Roman script): in various Slavic languages its outcomes range from _a_ (Polish _miasto_ "city") to _i _(Ukrainian _misto_ idem).


----------



## ahvalj

CapnPrep said:


> You don't mention French (I guess since modern French no longer has these forms), but the etymological forms can be found in Old French, with and without dipthongization: _iere_/_ere_ (< eram), _ieres_/_eres_ (< eras), _ierent_/_erent_ (< erant), etc.
> 
> Pope notes that the vowel in the undiphthongized forms is close _ẹ_, not open _ę_, and suggests that it was "influenced by the radical of the pluperfect of the first conjugation (_rovẹret_, _amẹret_, etc.)" (p. 347). The Latin future forms also show double outcomes in Old French (before also falling out of use): _ier_/_er_ < ero, _iermes_/_ermes_ < erimus, etc. But in this case, Pope simply attributes the difference to stressed/unstressed pronunciation (p. 368).


Thank you. But what to do with Spanish, which is otherwise so prone to this kind of diphthongization and doesn't have an _ẹ_ in the Pluperfect (_rogara, amara_)?

P. S. I didn't know that any form of the Latin Future persisted in Romance. Do you know other traces of it?


----------



## CapnPrep

ahvalj said:


> But what to do with Spanish, which is otherwise so prone to this kind of diphthongization and doesn't have an _ẹ_ in the Pluperfect (_rogara, amara_)?


I think the standard way out is to use the other explanation: words that typically occur in proclitic or otherwise atonic positions fail to diphthongize. I guess that's plausible enough for _esse_/_ser_.


----------



## Swatters

There's a few dialects of Central Walloon that preserve the outcomes of _eram_, without diphtongization: 

Dj' êre
T' êres
Il êre
Dj' êrins
Vos êrîz
Il êrint

And a lot of others that have the diphtong in their reflex of *_essere _(>yèsse /jɛs/)

The atonic explanation seems likely. _Être _in Modern French is undergoing several phonetic developments that are otherwise only present in determiners and clitic pronouns.


----------



## Sardokan1.0

Thinking about E=IE, in Italian can be found some example here and there, while in Sardinian this phenomenon looks totally absent

Lat. _caelum _-> It. cielo, Sar. chelu (pronounce Kelu)
Lat. heri -> It. ieri, Sar. héris, d'héris
Lat. mel -> It. miele, Sar. mele (honey)
Lat. fel -> It. fiele, Sar. fele (bile)
Lat. fenum -> It. fieno, Sar. fenu (hay)

It. tu tieni, egli tiene, but the infinitive is "Tenére" -> Sar. tue ténes, issu ténet, infinitive "Ténere, Ténnere"
It. tu vieni, egli viene, Infinitive "Venire" -> Sar. tue bénis, issu bénit, Infinitive "Bénnere"


While Imperfect forms with Eram etc.etc. in Sardinian can be found in Subjunctive Imperfect quite similar to the Latin equivalent, while the Indicative Imperfect looks like a mix of Latin Indicative Imperfect and Perfect

*Subjunctive Imperfect of Essere*


Spoiler



Qui eo/deo essére
Qui tue esséres
Qui issu esséret
Qui nois esserémus
Qui bois esserédes
Qui issos esséren


*Indicative Imperfect of Essere*


Spoiler



Eo/deo fia/fio
Tue fisti
Issu fit
Nois fimis/fimus
Bois fizis/fitis
Issos fin


*Subjunctive Imperfect of Hàere (to have)*


Spoiler



Qui eo/deo haére
Qui tue haéres
Qui issu haéret
Qui nois haerémus
Qui bois haerédes
Qui issos haéren


*Indicative Imperfect of Hàere (to have)*


Spoiler



Eo/deo haía/haío
Tue haísti
Issu haíat
Nois haímis/haímus
Bois haízis/haítis
Issos haían


----------



## bearded

Sardokan1.0 said:


> Lat. _caelum _-> It. cielo


The Italian word 'cielo' is not a good example of diphthongization, as the i is not pronounced at all (except in some dialects like Neapolitan) and is just an orthographic sign enabling to distinguish _cielo=sky _from _celo=I hide _(from 'celare').


----------



## Nino83

Some verbs like _seguo, nego, lego, prego, premo, tremo_ don't have a diphthong, probably because of the influence of the arhizotonic forms (Rohlfs, § 85), other verbs, on the contrary, have a diphthong (_vieni/venite_).
In the case of the verb _essere_, in literal Tuscan and Florentine dialect (and standard Italian) there are arhizotonic forms, _erav*à*mo, erav*à*te_, while in other Tuscan dialects the forms are _*è*ramo, *è*rate_ (Rohlfs § 553), but there are no diphtongs in _èro, èri, èra_.
Also in the other Italian languages where the open /e/ was diphthongized in open syllables there are no diphthongs and no arhizotonic forms.
Piedmontese:
mi i j’era
ti it j’ere
chiel a l’era
nui i j’*e*ro
vujauti i j’*e*re
lur a j’ero
Milanese:
mi seri
ti te seret
lü a l’era
nüm a s*e*rum
vialter s*e*ret
lur a seren
Venetian:
xera
te xeri
el xera
x*è*rimo
x*e*ri
i xera
Colloquial Florentine: 
io e ero
te tu eri
lui e era
noi si era
voi vu eri
loro e èrano

So, the theory of the influence of the arhizotonic forms cannot explain the fact that there are no diphthongs in the imperfect indicative of the verb _essere_.


----------



## ahvalj

Thanks everybody. So, the most plausible scenario suggested in the replies is the generalization of the syntactically unstressed variants of this auxiliary verb in most idioms.


----------



## francisgranada

ahvalj said:


> ... Nevertheless we find (Spanish) _eram>era, erās>eras, erat>era, erant>eran_ (as well as Praes. Sg. 3 _es_) instead of the expected phonetically regular _ **yera, **yeras, **yera, **yeran_ (and _**ye_), ...


_Aragonese_:
Present: _soi, *yes*, *ye*, somos/semos, soz/sez, son_
Imperfect: *yera, yeras, yera, yeranos, yeraz, yeran*

_Asturian_:
Present: _soi, *yes, ye*, somos, sois, son_
Imperfect: _*yera, yeras, yera, yéramos, yerais, yeran
*_
(This is not an answer to your question, of course, but the illustration of the real existence of forms you have suggested - in some Ibero Romance languages)


CapnPrep said:


> I think the standard way out is to use the other explanation: words that typically occur in proclitic or otherwise atonic positions fail to diphthongize ...


Ok, but I am not convinced that the forms of the verb _ser, essere, etc. _(especially the polysyllabic ones of the imperfect) are to be considered "typically atonic"... Even if yes, then why not in Asturian and Aragonese ? 





bearded man said:


> The Italian word 'cielo' is not a good example of diphthongization, as the i is not pronounced at all (except in some dialects like Neapolitan) and is just an orthographic sign enabling to distinguish _cielo=sky _from _celo=I hide _(from 'celare').


In my opinion the "i" in _cielo _is not only "an orthographic sign enabling to distinguish _cielo=sky _from _celo"_ (I may be wrong, of course)_._


----------



## Nino83

I tend to agree with Francis.
The verb _essere/ser _is unstressed only when it is used as an auxiliar verb, it is stressed in copulative sentences and has the major sentence stress in questions like _dov'èri/donde èras? _
Other auxiliar verbs like _potere/volere _have diphtongs.
_Può/vuole fàrlo, puede hacérlo, il peut/veut le fàire._
These verbs are normally as stressed as the verb _essere _is.


----------



## ahvalj

The possible explanation could be that the divergent unstressed and stressed forms were generalized during the Middle Ages to either direction — and some idioms chose stressed variants, while others the unstressed ones. Unlike _yerro : erramos,_ which have different meanings, _yera : era_ had the same meaning and thus were more prone to leveling.


----------



## Nino83

Rolhfs says that there was another form for _sèi _(you are), attested in some documents, _sièi. 

_


----------



## Penyafort

francisgranada said:


> _Aragonese_:
> Present: _soi, *yes*, *ye*, somos/semos, soz/sez, son_
> Imperfect: *yera, yeras, yera, yeranos, yeraz, yeran*
> 
> _Asturian_:
> Present: _soi, *yes, ye*, somos, sois, son_
> Imperfect: _*yera, yeras, yera, yéramos, yerais, yeran
> *_
> (This is not an answer to your question, of course, but the illustration of the real existence of forms you have suggested - in some Ibero Romance languages)
> Ok, but I am not convinced that the forms of the verb _ser, essere, etc. _(especially the polysyllabic ones of the imperfect) are to be considered "typically atonic"... Even if yes, then why not in Asturian and Aragonese ? In my opinion the "i" in _cielo _is not only "an orthographic sign enabling to distinguish _cielo=sky _from _celo"_ (I may be wrong, of course)_._



As a general rule, Asturian diphthongizes more than Spanish does, and Aragonese more than Asturian, as you can see in those examples in which some yods prevent the Castilian forms from diphthongizing:

*nueche/nueite - noche - nueit
fueya - hoja - fuella*
_*güeyu - ojo - uello
ocho/oito - ocho - ueito
poyu - poyo - pueyo
tengo/teo - tengo - tiengo
vengo - vengo - viengo*_​
I'm tempted to think that the homonymy between _(y)_*era *and *hiera *might also have something to do, as the f-dropping happened quite early in spoken Castilian, while Aragonese and Asturian firmly retained initial f's, therefore not giving way to possible confusions between _yera _and _fiera_.


----------



## francisgranada

Penyafort said:


> As a general rule, Asturian diphthongizes more than Spanish does, and Aragonese more than Asturian ...


Yes, I've noticed it. Interestingly, e.g. _habiendo _is _abendo _in aragonese and I've encounterd also _cuemo _for _como, _but (if I am am not mistaken) in old Castilian and not in Aragonese nor Asturian. I am mentioning these examples only to illustratee that the process of  diphthongization was probably not so "straightforward" in the Ibero Romance languages as it might seem at the first glance ...  





> ...I'm tempted to think that the homonymy between _(y)_*era *and *hiera *might also have something to do, as the f-dropping happened quite early in spoken Castilian, while Aragonese and Asturian firmly retained initial f's, therefore not giving way to possible confusions between _yera _and _fiera_.


I don't believe because the word _fiera*_ and various forms of the imperfect of _ser_ are not  "competing" terms, neither in meaning/grammatical usage nor in frequency. There is a plenty of co-existing homonyms in (probably) every language. See e.g. _son_ ("they are" and "sound"), _era_ ("he was" and "period of time"), the verb _erar_; but also _hierro/yerro_  ("iron" and 1.sg. from _errar_), etc ... in Spanish.





Nino83 said:


> Rolhfs says that there was another form for _sèi _(you are), attested in some documents, _sièi. _


This is interesting. Though, perhaps, not  suprising as we have also _s*ie*te_ in the 2.pers.pl. A question a propos: from the point of view of the quality and position of the vowel "e" in _ero, eri, era, erano_, would the_ expected_ forms be also in Italian _iero, ieri, iera, ierano_*?*

*The adjective _fiera_, feminine of _fiero_, is _fiera_ (not *_hiera_) also in modern Spanish. Or do do thing of  something else?


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

danielstan said:


> Now we are on same page and I remember such examples from other Romance languages:
> lat. _tempus _> sp. _tiempo_
> lat. _caelum _> it. _cielo_, sp. _cielo_, fr. _ciel_
> lat. _heri _> it. _ieri_, fr. _hier_
> 
> But in other cases the diphthongation did not happen:
> lat. _tempus _> it. _tempo_, fr. _temps_
> 
> I wait for other Romance speakers to answer...



In Italian, the i in"cielo" is silent, it stays there to distinguish it from "celo" (I hide, I am hiding), although in Standard Italian both are pronounced the same way ("cèlo"). Ir most probably is pronounced in Neapolitan.
As other users mentioned before, in Italian there are no diphtongs in closed syllables, and I assume this is also the case for e + nasal consonant + C/CC.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

francisgranada said:


> Though, perhaps, not  suprising as we have also _s*ie*te_ in the 2.pers.pl. A question a propos: from the point of view of the quality and position of the vowel "e" in _ero, eri, era, erano_, would the_ expected_ forms be also in Italian _iero, ieri, iera, ierano_*?*



I think that in Italian there's another condition for the creation of a diphtong: a consonant before the vowel. We've had the example of Spanish "yerro", "hierro", "hierba" ("yerba"), yermo etc., but in Italian it's "erro", "ferro", "erba", "eremo" (not the same meaning as "yermo", but etymologically related).
The only real exception I can think of is "ieri".


----------



## ahvalj

Angelo di fuoco said:


> I think that in Italian there's another condition for the creation of a diphtong: a consonant before the vowel. We've had the example of Spanish "yerro", "hierro", "hierba" ("yerba"), yermo etc., but in Italian it's "erro", "ferro", "erba", "eremo" (not the same meaning as "yermo", but etymologically related).
> The only real exception I can think of is "ieri".


_Uomo_.

It seems that the scarcity of _ie-_ in Italian is connected with a very small number of bisyllabic words on _(h)e- _and _(h)ae- _in an open syllable in Latin:

_aedēs~aedis: _not inherited
_aequō:_ not inherited (_equare _is learned?)
_aequus:_ not inherited (_equo_ is learned?)
_aes: _not inherited
_aevum:_ not inherited (_evo_ is learned?)

_ea:_ not inherited
_edō:_ not inherited
_egō>io:_ with a non-standard development, but perhaps from _*iego
emō: _not inherited
_enim: _not inherited
_equus, equa:_ not inherited
_erus, era:_ not inherited

_haedus:_ not inherited

_herī>ieri_ from your example


----------



## Nino83

francisgranada said:


> from the point of view of the quality and position of the vowel "e" in _ero, eri, era, erano_, would the_ expected_ forms be also in Italian _iero, ieri, iera, ierano_*?*


Yes, it is an open "e" in a stressed open syllable.


----------



## danielstan

ahvalj said:


> _egō>io:_ with a non-standard development, but perhaps from _*iego_


Intervocalic _*g*_ has disappeared from Vulgar Latin, probably since the 3rd century AD. See:
Appendix Probi (3rd or 4th century AD): _calcostegis _non _calcosteis_
And some inscriptions (quoted by Rosetti):
_eo _( = _ego_, Corpus Inscr. Lat., VIII, 13.134; 31: Carthagina)
_Austa _( = _Augusta_, CIL, VIII, 9877; 5: Mauretania)
_trienta _( = _triginta_, CIL, XII, 5399: 4-5: Toulouse)
_vinti _( = _viginti_, CIL, VIII, 8573; 6: Mauretania)

Thus: Latin _ego _> VL *_eo _> It. _io_


----------



## Sardokan1.0

danielstan said:


> Intervocalic _*g*_ has disappeared from Vulgar Latin, probably since the 3rd century AD. See:
> Appendix Probi (3rd or 4th century AD): _calcostegis _non _calcosteis_
> And some inscriptions (quoted by Rosetti):
> _eo _( = _ego_, Corpus Inscr. Lat., VIII, 13.134; 31: Carthagina)
> _Austa _( = _Augusta_, CIL, VIII, 9877; 5: Mauretania)
> _trienta _( = _triginta_, CIL, XII, 5399: 4-5: Toulouse)
> _vinti _( = _viginti_, CIL, VIII, 8573; 6: Mauretania)
> 
> Thus: Latin _ego _> VL *_eo _> It. _io_



The identical phenomenon appears also in actual Sardinian, not in every case, but is very frequent



Spoiler



Ego -> _Eo, Deo, Deu, Dego, Jeo_
Augustus -> _Austu_
Augustinus -> _Austinu_
Triginta -> _Trinta_
Viginti -> _Vinti_
Regina -> _Reína_
Tegula -> _Téula_




The same exact phenomenon happens also for intervocalic *B *and *V *(less frequent than B)



Spoiler: B



Tabula -> _Taula_
Parabula -> _Paráula_
Nebula -> _Néula _(fog)
Nube(m) -> _Nue _(cloud)
Cubitus -> _Cúidu _(elbow)
Fabula -> _Fáula _(lie)
Sebum -> _Seu _(animal fat)
Iuba -> _Iua _(mane)
Ubi -> _In Ue, In Uve_ (where)
Nobis -> _Nois_
Vobis -> _Bois_





Spoiler: V



Rivus -> _Riu _(river)
Nive(m) -> _Nie _(snow)
Nave(m) -> _Nae_
Novus ->_ Nou_
Ovus ->_ Ou_
Clave(m) -> _Crae, Jae, Giae_ (key)
Clavus -> _Crau, Jau, Giau_ (nail)
Saliva -> _Salía_


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

ahvalj said:


> _Uomo_.



I was speaking only about (h)e->ie, not about (h)o->uo.



ahvalj said:


> It seems that the scarcity of _ie-_ in Italian is connected with a very small number of bisyllabic words on _(h)e- _and _(h)ae- _in an open syllable in Latin:
> 
> _aedēs~aedis: _not inherited
> _aequō:_ not inherited (_equare _is learned?)
> _aequus:_ not inherited (_equo_ is learned?)
> _aes: _not inherited
> _aevum:_ not inherited (_evo_ is learned?)



_Era (aera_, pl. of_ aes, aeris_) - late Latin.
_Equo_ exists, but it is surely learned (Treccani says "Latino" _tout court_).
I think evo has to be learned because in common use it appears only in Medio Evo, otherwise you use età, which derives from aevitas, -tatis.
You've also the male name Ezio (Aetius), not *Iezio, and Elio (Aelius), not *Ielio.



ahvalj said:


> _ea:_ not inherited
> _edō:_ not inherited
> _egō>io:_ with a non-standard development, but perhaps from _*iego
> emō: _not inherited
> _enim: _not inherited
> _equus, equa:_ not inherited
> _erus, era:_ not inherited
> 
> _haedus:_ not inherited
> 
> _herī>ieri_ from your example



Spanish has yegua, while Italian has giumenta.

I think we should distinguish between ae- and (h)e- derived words.



danielstan said:


> Intervocalic _*g*_ has disappeared from Vulgar Latin, probably since the 3rd century AD. See:
> Appendix Probi (3rd or 4th century AD): _calcostegis _non _calcosteis_
> And some inscriptions (quoted by Rosetti):
> _eo _( = _ego_, Corpus Inscr. Lat., VIII, 13.134; 31: Carthagina)
> _Austa _( = _Augusta_, CIL, VIII, 9877; 5: Mauretania)
> _trienta _( = _triginta_, CIL, XII, 5399: 4-5: Toulouse)
> _vinti _( = _viginti_, CIL, VIII, 8573; 6: Mauretania)
> 
> Thus: Latin _ego _> VL *_eo _> It. _io_



Modern French: août.
The decimal numerals (20, 30) in the Romance languages (maybe except Romanian, I don't know) have all lost the intervocalic g, there's no need to go back to Vulgar or Lat Latin.


----------



## danielstan

I went back to Vulgar Latin and I tried to estimate the disappearance of intervocalic _*g*_ since 3rd century AD (I guess it was a gradual disappearance) in order to contest the etymology proposed by
@ahvalj:
Lat. _ego _> *_iego _> It. _io_
Going back to Vulgar Latin shows the disappearance of intervocalic _g_ has happened before the Romance languages emerged (and is present in every Romance languages with few exceptions, e.g. Rom. _deget _< Lat. _digitus_).
While the diphthongization _e > ie _has happened in some Romance languages, not everywhere in the same manner, thus is centuries later, thus the supposed reconstructed form *_iego _is not probable to have existed.


----------



## ahvalj

Is this disappearance of _-g-_ a phonetic rule for Central Italian?

-_G-_ has survived in _all_ the verbs I have checked:
_legō>leggo, regō>reggo, 
plāgō>piago, vagō>vago,
fīgō>figgo, frīgō>friggo, ligō>lego,
rogō>rogo,
fugō>fugo_ (a learned word?),_ sūgō>suggo,_

and in_ all_ disyllabic nouns and adjectives:
_plāga>piaga, magus>mago_ (probably learned), _vagus>vago
strīga>striga
rogus>rogo
fuga>foga, rūga>ruga, jugum>giogo._


----------



## ahvalj

Angelo di fuoco said:


> _Era (aera_, pl. of_ aes, aeris_) - late Latin.


_Aes_ means "copper, money, payment", does the Italian _era_ mean something similar?



Angelo di fuoco said:


> You've also the male name Ezio (Aetius), not *Iezio, and Elio (Aelius), not *Ielio.


Are these inherited names, not those restored from the literature?



Angelo di fuoco said:


> Spanish has yegua, while Italian has giumenta.


From _jūmentum_ (iumentum - Wiktionary).



Angelo di fuoco said:


> I think we should distinguish between ae- and (h)e- derived words..


Do we have any examples of a different outcome of _ae_ vs. _ĕ_ in any Romance language? (The Italian _fieno_ vs. Spanish_ heno_ come from _faenum_ the former and dialectally monophthongized _fēnum_ the latter).


----------



## danielstan

ahvalj said:


> Is this disappearance of _-g-_ a phonetic rule for Central Italian?


Mea culpa.
Some examples you found in Italian have corespondance in Romanian, too:
_frigere > a frige
ligare > a lega 
rogare > a ruga
fugere > a fugi
sugere > a suge_
_strigare > a striga

jugum > jug_
_
legem > lege
regem > rege

_


----------



## Sardokan1.0

The situation


ahvalj said:


> Is this disappearance of _-g-_ a phonetic rule for Central Italian?
> 
> -_G-_ has survived in _all_ the verbs I have checked:
> _legō>leggo, regō>reggo,
> plāgō>piago, vagō>vago,
> fīgō>figgo, frīgō>friggo, ligō>lego,
> rogō>rogo,
> fugō>fugo_ (a learned word?),_ sūgō>suggo,_
> 
> and in_ all_ disyllabic nouns and adjectives:
> _plāga>piaga, magus>mago_ (probably learned), _vagus>vago
> strīga>striga
> rogus>rogo
> fuga>foga, rūga>ruga, jugum>giogo._




Looking closely, this disappearence doesn't look very common in Italian, speaking both Italian and Sardinian I find thas is really common in Sardinian, but it doesn't happens in every case, it seems a phenomenon "a macchia di leopardo", not every verb or noun loses the G (strangely)

_legō>leggo>leggio, regō>reggo>rezo,reggio (infinitive "rézere, reggere")_
_plāgō>piago>piago (rarely used), vagō>vago>vago
fīgō>figgo>ficco, frīgō>friggo>frio, (infinitive "fríere") ligō>lego>ligo
sūgō>suggo>suo (infinitive "súere")_

_plāga>piaga>piàe, magus>mago>magu, vagus>vago>vagu (rarely used)_
_strīga>strega>istría_
_jugum>giogo>juàle (from "jugalis, jugale")_


----------



## Pugnator

On ancient Italian there was "iero" "ieri" "iera" etc. etc.  but later it evolved into "ero" "eri" "era" etc. etc. On my native tongue, Neapolitan, it was always ero,eri,era etc. etc.


----------



## Forero

I believe _es_ in Spanish was once _yet_. My best guess is that _es_, _eres_, _eras_, etc., all once had the diphthong too but changed it back to simple _e_ later, perhaps by analogy with _eser_ or forms of _estar_.


----------



## Sardokan1.0

Corsican language, verb Esse :

Indicative present, 3rd singular person : *hè / ghjè*

*Indicative Imperfect*


Spoiler



era
eri
era
èramu
èrate
èranu



*but it's also used*


Spoiler



ghjera
ghjeri
ghjera
ghjèramu
ghjèrate
ghjèranu



A similar construction it's used in Sardinian using "Che" (Latin "Hicce"; in Italian "ci,ce"), it's very often associated with verb Essere

Italian, Corsican, Sardinian

Dov'è tuo padre?
Induve ghjè u to babbu?
In ue ch'est babbu tou?

Dove sei?  > In ue che ses?
Dove siamo? > In ue che semus?
Dove sono quei due? > In ue che sun cussos duos?
Dove lo mettiamo? > In ue che lu ponimus?


----------



## CapnPrep

ahvalj said:


> Do we have any examples of a different outcome of _ae_ vs. _ĕ_ in any Romance language? (The Italian _fieno_ vs. Spanish_ heno_ come from _faenum_ the former and dialectally monophthongized _fēnum_ the latter).


There are a few other examples:

saeta > sēta > Sp. _seda_, Fr. _soie_, It. _séta_

praeda > Sp. _prea_, Fr. _proie_ (cf It. _prèda_)

blaesus > OFr. _blois_ (cf It. _blèso_)

saepes > Sp. _sebe_, OFr. _soif _(vs It. _sièpe_)
As you suggested, the usual explanation is that monophthongization occurred early enough in such examples so that the resulting long vowel merged with _ē_ and thus went on to evolve like VL _ẹ_ (in the relevant regions).


----------



## danielstan

ahvalj said:


> Do we have any examples of a different outcome of _ae_ vs. _ĕ_ in any Romance language? (The Italian _fieno_ vs. Spanish_ heno_ come from _faenum_ the former and dialectally monophthongized _fēnum_ the latter).


Rom. _aer _< Lat _aer_, _aeris_

The Romanian dictionary (dexonline) gives the above etymology, but I am not sure if this word is inherited from Latin or relearned.

Also:
Rom. _vai _(interjection) < Lat. _vae_


----------



## ahvalj

danielstan said:


> Rom. _aer _< Lat _aer_, _aeris_
> 
> The Romanian dictionary (dexonline) gives the above etymology, but I am not sure if this word is inherited from Latin or relearned.
> 
> Also:
> Rom. _vai _(interjection) < Lat. _vae_


The Latin _āēr_ is disyllabic, it comes from the Greek _ʾᾱήρ_. In Romance it became trisyllabic, _áęre _(from the Accusative _āerem_), hence the existing forms. Since Romanian preserves _-e,_ _aer_ is most probably borrowed from Latin to replace _văzduh_.

_Vae_ as an interjection is not subject of standard phonetic laws (e. g. Slavic has _aı̯, eı̯, oı̯_ with the diphthongs that otherwise should have monophthongized 1500 years ago).


----------



## ahvalj

Forero said:


> I believe _es_ in Spanish was once _yet_. My best guess is that _es_, _eres_, _eras_, etc., all once had the diphthong too but changed it back to simple _e_ later, perhaps by analogy with _eser_ or forms of _estar_.


The question is whether the non-diphthongized forms _era _etc. existed in parallel since the very beginning, or they were re-created by analogy.


----------



## Nino83

ahvalj said:


> The question is whether the non-diphthongized forms _era _etc. existed in parallel since the very beginning, or they were re-created by analogy.





> L'antico toscano possedeva una forma fortemente accentata, _iera_, accanto al proclitico _era_, cfr. Dante _dov'*iera* la mia gentile donna ch'*era* stata mia difesa_ ("Vita Nuova", 9)


Source: Rohlfs §553 (Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti)

So, it seems to confirm what CapnPrep said in #8. There was, in Tuscan, a stressed form, _iera_, and an unstressed one, _era_. The latter prevailed.


----------



## ahvalj

Thank you. So, both French, Italian and Spanish (though so far not Castilian proper) are confirmed to possess (now or in the past) diphthongized forms. Romanian has _e-_ [je] in any case.


----------



## Nino83

Yes, and these forms were both present from the beginning.


CapnPrep said:


> Pope notes that the vowel in the undiphthongized forms is close _ẹ_, not open _ę_, and suggests that it was "influenced by the radical of the pluperfect of the first conjugation (_rovẹret_, _amẹret_, etc.)"
> What is the vowel in the Italian imperfect forms _ero_, _eri_, _era_, etc.?


In Italian there is an open "e", [ɛro, ɛri, ɛra], so it's probably the continuation of the Latin form _ęram, ęras, ęrat_. The vowel is open in other Italian languages (Sicilian _era_ [ɛra], _eri_ [ɛri], _era_ [ɛra]).


----------



## Penyafort

francisgranada said:


> Yes, I've noticed it. Interestingly, e.g. _habiendo _is _abendo _in aragonese and I've encounterd also _cuemo _for _como, _but (if I am am not mistaken) in old Castilian and not in Aragonese nor Asturian. I am mentioning these examples only to illustratee that the process of  diphthongization was probably not so "straightforward" in the Ibero Romance languages as it might seem at the first glance ...



I agree. Evolution in general is far from being 'straigtforward'. I'd say, though, that non-diphthongization in Aragonese gerunds might be a case of analogy, as happened with past forms.



francisgranada said:


> I don't believe because the word _fiera*_ and various forms of the imperfect of _ser_ are not  "competing" terms, neither in meaning/grammatical usage nor in frequency. There is a plenty of co-existing homonyms in (probably) every language. See e.g. _son_ ("they are" and "sound"), _era_ ("he was" and "period of time"), the verb _erar_; but also _hierro/yerro_  ("iron" and 1.sg. from _errar_), etc ... in Spanish.
> 
> *The adjective _fiera_, feminine of _fiero_, is _fiera_ (not *_hiera_) also in modern Spanish. Or do do thing of  something else?



Indeed. I was referring to _fiera _as a verbal form from _ferir_, though.



Forero said:


> I believe _es_ in Spanish was once _yet_.



If you're referring to the _get _in the _Glosas Emilianenses_, they were written in Old Aragonese, even if some books keep mistakenly calling them 'cradle of Spanish'.


----------



## Forero

Penyafort said:


> If you're referring to the _get _in the _Glosas Emilianenses_, they were written in Old Aragonese, even if some books keep mistakenly calling them 'cradle of Spanish'.


I think that's what I was referring to, but I forgot how it was spelled ("... qual dueno get ena honore, ..."). I think I must have read it in one of those books.

How do you decide whether something written a long time ago somewhere near La Rioja is Castillian or Aragonese?

And how could one ever prove that a form (e.g. _era_) was not used by anyone in a given place and time? All we have to go on are written records that survived long enough to come to our attention.


----------



## danielstan

Forero said:


> And how could one ever prove that a form (e.g. _era_) was not used by anyone in a given place and time? All we have to go on are written records that survived long enough to come to our attention.


One should look in a critical way to any written source and discover the cases where spelling is not equal to pronunciation.

I give some examples, not related to the issue in discussion (_era_):
- some Romance languages hept spelling a "_h_" in some words although the _h_ was not pronounced anymore since Late Latin time (some Latin scholars have left comments in their works of how the word _hominem _is pronounced _ominem_, without "aspiration")
E.g. Lat. _hominem _> Sp. _hombre_, Fr. _homme_
This spelling is probably an "etymological" spelling under the influence of the Medieval Latin used in Catholic Church and should not be considered a proof of the sound  in Romance languages.

- some Medieval texts are translations after the Bible and the translator follows sometimes too closely the original, resulting in grammatical constructions very unusual for the target language and also some spelling influenced by the original.
For example the Bibles translated from Greek has lead to such examples of curios spellings of the name of Jesus Christ or other biblical names.
One can deduce that some grammatical constructions are following the original, usually from the preface of a translated book, where the author speaks freely in his native language.


----------



## CapnPrep

Forero said:


> How do you decide whether something written a long time ago somewhere near La Rioja is Castillian or Aragonese?


You're right, it's not that simple, and one can identify a mix of pre-Castilian and pre-Aragonese traits (and probably some innovations didn't go anywhere and have no outcome in any modern dialect). But in this particular example, it is much more straightforward to link the form "get" in the Glosas to modern Aragonese _ye_ than to explain how it could represent a form that would eventually become Spanish _es_.


Forero said:


> And how could one ever prove that a form (e.g. _era_) was not used by anyone in a given place and time? All we have to go on are written records that survived long enough to come to our attention.


You are right again, but I don't think you will find a lot of serious philological work nowadays making such claims. (Sometimes people are sloppy and say things like "this form did not exist" and you have to figure out what they actually mean by that, but they certainly do not mean that they have proof that no speaker in that time and place used that form.)


----------



## Penyafort

Forero said:


> I think that's what I was referring to, but I forgot how it was spelled ("... qual dueno get ena honore, ..."). I think I must have read it in one of those books.
> 
> How do you decide whether something written a long time ago somewhere near La Rioja is Castillian or Aragonese?



It is not only that _get/ye_. The very same example shows _ena honore_, with that old contraction of the preposition and the article. I would not go as far as to include the feminine gender and preservation of the -e in _honore, _because it could be found in Old Castilian too. But if we read the whole long sentence, several other features point to the Aragonese character of it. 

Historically, too, the Monastery belonged to the southern area of the Kingdom of Navarre, in which the languages used at the time were Navarro-Aragonese and Basque, the two used in the Glosas. The Castilianization of the area would be produced in the course of the following centuries.


----------

