# Neapolitan: gruosso/grossa/gruosse/grosse



## Testing1234567

The last two forms are particularly fascinating, since the environment of "o/uo" is completely the same.

I know what I ask is quite impossible, but I would like a step-by-step explanation/educated guess as detailed as possible (to replace the "*xxx*"s), as to how the following 4 changes happened:

Latin GROSSVM > Vulgar Latin [ˈgrɔs.sʊ̃] > *xxx* > Neapolitan [ˈgrwɔs.sə]
Latin GROSSAM > Vulgar Latin [ˈgrɔs.sã] > *xxx* > Neapolitan [ˈgrɔs.sə]
Latin GROSSŌS > Vulgar Latin [ˈgrɔs.sos] > *xxx* > Neapolitan [ˈgrwɔs.sə]
Latin GROSSĀS > Vulgar Latin [ˈgrɔs.sas] > *xxx* > Neapolitan [ˈgrɔs.sə]


----------



## Nino83

Hi, Testing.


Testing1234567 said:


> Latin GROSSŌS > Vulgar Latin [ˈgrɔs.sos] > *xxx* > Neapolitan [ˈgrwɔs.sə]
> Latin GROSSĀS > Vulgar Latin [ˈgrɔs.sas] > *xxx* > Neapolitan [ˈgrɔs.sə]


Neapolitan is an Italo-Dalmatian Romance language and it has *vocalic* plurals (like Italian and Romanian).
So, they are: _grossi_ and _grosse_.
Neapolitan language has the so called _metafonesi sannita_, which is a form of metaphony for _i_ and _u_. All the words that in Latin ended with a final _i_ or _u_ undergo metaphony in Neapolitan. So, before final _i_ and _u_ we have:
/è/ > /é/ > /jé/ => cierto, cèrta, cierti, cèrte => ['ʧjertə 'ʧɛrtə 'ʧjertə 'ʧɛrtə]
/é/ > /i/ => sicco, sécca, sicchi, sécche => ['sikkə 'sekkə 'sikkə 'sekkə]
/ò/ > /ó/ > /wó/ => gruosso, gròssa, gruossi, gròsse => ['grwossə 'grɔssə 'grwossə 'grɔssə]
/ó/ > /u/ => curto, córta, curti, córte => ['kurtə 'kortə 'kurtə 'kortə]

_Metafonesi sannita_ derives from _metafonesi sabina_ (of _dialetti mediani_, north of the Neapolitan linguistic area and south of the Central and Roman linguistic area).
/è/ > /é/ => cértu, cèrta, cérti, cèrte => ['ʧertu 'ʧɛrta 'ʧerti 'ʧɛrte]
/é/ > /i/ => siccu, sécca, sicchi, sécche => ['sikku 'sekka 'sikki 'sekke]
/ò/ > /ó/ => gróssu, gròssa, gróssi, gròsse => ['grossu 'grɔssa 'grossi 'grɔsse]
/ó/ > /u/ => curtu, córta, curti, córte => ['kurtu 'korta 'kurti 'korte]

Also in Portuguese there is metaphony for Latin final unstressed _u_, but it influences only /ò/.
/ò/ > /ó/ => nóvo, nòva, nòvos, nòvas ['novu 'nɔva 'nɔvus 'nɔvas]


----------



## Testing1234567

Nino83 said:


> Neapolitan is an Italo-Dalmatian Romance language and it has *vocalic* plurals (like Italian and Romanian).
> So, they are: _grossi_ and _grosse_.



In Romance plurals - Wikipedia, arguments for GROSSĀS being the etymon are found.

For examples in other languages, one can go to Andalusian Spanish, where "las casas" [las ˈkasas] has become [læ̞(k) ˈkæ̞sæ̞], similar to how *-as* could become *-e* in Italian (although this is hardly a proof, and the proposal for Italian is more like *-as* > *-ai* > *-e*, so this example is largely irrelevant).

However, GROSSĀS being the etymon does not affect your steps.

In case you mean that it should be _grossi_ not _gruosse_, please note that Wiktionary uses _gruosse_ as the masculine plural. I'm quite curious as to what happened to the _-i_ there.


----------



## Nino83

Testing1234567 said:


> In case you mean that it should be _grossi_ not _gruosse_, please note that Wiktionary uses _gruosse_ as the masculine plural.


Yes. I mean that the plurals ['grwossə 'grɔssə] derive from _grossi_ and _grossae_ (according to the nominative theory, which is the traditional one and it is considered to be the most solid), nominative plural. It can explain also the phenomenon of metaphony, which is considered to be very old (since it is present also in Portuguese, Asturiano-Leonese).
Anyway you're free to follow the accusative theory of the Romance plurals in the Eastern part of the Romance linguistic area.
Your Neapolitan spelling (with "e") is right.

There are other threads about the origin of the Romance vocalic plurals:
Italian and Romanian plural


----------



## Testing1234567

So can I summarize as this?

Latin GROSSVM > Vulgar Latin [ˈgrɔs.sʊ̃] > [ˈgrɔs.so] > [ˈgros.so] > [ˈgrwos.so] > Neapolitan [ˈgrwɔs.sə]
Latin GROSSAM > Vulgar Latin [ˈgrɔs.sã] > [ˈgrɔs.sa] > [ˈgrɔs.sa] > [ˈgrɔs.sa] > Neapolitan [ˈgrɔs.sə]
Latin GROSSĪ > Vulgar Latin [ˈgrɔs.si] > [ˈgrɔs.si] > [ˈgros.si] > [ˈgrwos.si] > Neapolitan [ˈgrwɔs.sə]
Latin GROSSAE > Vulgar Latin [ˈgrɔs.sɛ] > [ˈgrɔs.sɛ] > [ˈgrɔs.sɛ] > [ˈgrɔs.sɛ] > Neapolitan [ˈgrɔs.sə]
The /i/ > /ə/ is still quite odd. Can you explain it? Also, I'm not sure about the development of /ɛ/.


----------



## Nino83

Testing1234567 said:


> Latin GROSSVM > Vulgar Latin [ˈgrɔs.sʊ̃] > [ˈgrɔs.so] > [ˈgros.so] > [ˈgrwos.so] > Neapolitan [ˈgrwɔs.sə]


Neapolitan languages (like _dialetti mediani_) mantain the distinction between Latin final unstressed /ǔ/ and /ō/. 
Neapolitan:
pǒrtǔ(m) (port) > ['p*wo*rt*ə*]
pǒrtō (I bring) > ['p*ɔ*rt*ə*]
Dialetti mediani:
pǒrtu(m) (port) > ['p*o*rt*u*]
pǒrtō (I bring) > ['p*ɔ*rt*o*]
So it is:
Latin GROSSVM > Vulgar Latin [ˈgrɔs.sʊ̃] > [ˈgrɔs.su] > [ˈgros.su] > [ˈgrwos.su] > Neapolitan [ˈgrwɔs.sə]


Testing1234567 said:


> The /i/ > /ə/ is still quite odd. Can you explain it? Also, I'm not sure about the development of /ɛ/.


In Neapolitan languages the final unstressed vowels are reduced to schwa. In pretonic position you find only /a, i, u/ while /e/ is reduced to schwa.


----------



## Testing1234567

Nino83 said:


> Latin GROSSVM > Vulgar Latin [ˈgrɔs.sʊ̃] > [ˈgrɔs.su] > [ˈgros.su] > [ˈgrwos.su] > Neapolitan [ˈgrwɔs.sə]


Then why is it written with an "*o*"?



Nino83 said:


> In Neapolitan languages the final unstressed vowels are reduced to schwa. In pretonic position you find only /a, i, u/ while /e/ is reduced to schwa.


So is my final line correct?


----------



## Nino83

Testing1234567 said:


> Then why is it written with an "*o*"?


I don't know, but probably they followed the literary tradition based on the spelling of the standard Italian language. In Neapolitan the reduction of the final unstressed vowels to schwa happened very early so it is possible that when the first writings in Neapolitan language were written the final unstressed vowels were just pronounced with a schwa.


Testing1234567 said:


> So is my final line correct?


Yes, it is.


----------



## Testing1234567

Nino83 said:


> In Neapolitan the reduction of the final unstressed vowels to schwa happened very early


But we know that the reduction must take place after the metaphony, which must take place after the split inside Italo-Dalmatian. Or:

Italo-Dalmatian split > metaphony > reduction to schwa


----------



## Nino83

Testing1234567 said:


> Italo-Dalmatian split > metaphony > reduction to schwa


The reduction to schwa is, surely, the most recent change. 
Metaphony could be very old, since it is present in Portuguese, Astur-Leones, Gallo-Italic (only for _i_), Old Romanesco and south peninsular Italy (Neapolitan), Sardinian. In areas where there was a different substratum (Tuscany, Etruscan) or superstratum (Sicily and extreme south peninsular Italy, Greek), there is no metaphony. So, it is not clear how much old is metaphony. 
More info in: Phonological processes by Michele Lo Porcaro in The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages: Volume 1, Structures (in English)


----------



## Nino83

Testing1234567 said:


> So is my final line correct?


Sorry, I didn't pay attention to the last line. 
Latin GROSSAE > Vulgar Latin [ˈgrɔs.sɛ] > [ˈgrɔs.s*e*] > [ˈgrɔs.s*e*] > [ˈgrɔs.s*e*] > Neapolitan [ˈgrɔs.sə] 
In Vulgar Latin, after the replacement of the pitch accent with the dynamic accent the unstressed vowels were reduced to 5 /a, e, i, o, u/.


----------



## Testing1234567

Why is the masculine plural form written with a final -e?


----------



## Nino83

Testing1234567 said:


> Why is the masculine plural form written with a final -e?


Probably for the same reason why the masculine singular form is written with "o", i.e at the time of the first writing the final unstressed vowels were just reduced to schwa. 
The Neapolitan orthography is a mix of tradition and innovation.


----------



## Nino83

Another little note. The Neapolitan diphthongs are [je] and [wo] (as it is written in my comment #2), not [jɛ] and [wɔ]. 
The process is the following (as written in #2): 
[ɛ] > [e] > [je] 
[ɔ] > [o] > [wo] 
which is different from the one present in open syllables in Italian and French:
[ɛ] > [jɛ] 
[ɔ] > [wɔ] (then [wɛ] > [œ] in French)


----------



## Pugnator

I think all those replies have taken a wrong path, here happened a well know linguistic phenomenon called metaphony, a lot of Neapolitan words have a vowel mutation in their female form, so  at example we have "Gr*uo*sso" (Big) at male while "Gr*o*ssa" at female, r*u*sso (red) at male while r*o*ssa at female(Little trivia, "russo" in Neapolitan mean red but could also mean Russian, but if you mean Russian the female form is russa, NOT rossa) , Ch*i*sto (this) at male form while Ch*e*sta at the female etch. etch. So, here explained the difference between "Gruosso/grossa". Now, the plural of female adjective and nouns usually end in -e, so for this we have "gross*e*" but also the plural male form usually end in -e  so for this we have "gruoss*e*". I hope to have cleared any doubt.


----------



## danielstan

Same linguistic phenomenon happened in Romanian, on a very large scale:
"gros" (thick, masculine)   ['gros]
"groasă" (thick, feminine) ['grwa.sə]

The vowel from the second syllable has influenced the pronunciation of the vowel from the first syllable (in bisyllabic words).
In fact there is a theory of anticipation, where the speaker, unconsciously, modifies the pronunciation of the vowel in the 1st syllable anticipating the vowel from the 2nd.

Examples from Romanian:
"fiert" (boiled, masculine) / "fiartă" (boiled, feminine)
"mână" (hand, feminine singular) / "mâini" (hand, feminine plural)
"sec" (empty, masculine) / "seacă" (empty, feminine)


----------

