ITALIAN LANGUAGE.
[1]
The Italian language is the language of culture in the whole of the present kingdom of Italy, in some parts of Switzerland (the canton of Ticino and part of the Grisons), in some parts of the Austrian territory (the districts of Trent and Gorz, Istria along with Trieste, and the Dalmatian coast), and in the islands of Corsica
[2]
and Malta. In the Ionian Islands, likewise, in the maritime cities of the Levant, in Egypt, and more particularly in Tunis, this literary language is extensively maintained through the numerous Italian colonies and the ancient traditions of trade.
The Italian language has its native seat and living source in
Middle Italy, or more precisely Tuscany and indeed Florence.
For real linguistic unity is far from existing in Italy; in some
respects the variety is less, in others more observable than in
other countries which equally boast a political and literary unity.
Thus, for example, Italy affords no linguistic contrast so violent
as that presented by Great Britain with its English dialects
alongside of the Celtic dialects of Ireland, Scotland and Wales,
or by France with the French dialects alongside of the Celtic
dialects of Brittany, not to speak of the Basque of the Pyrenees
and other heterogeneous elements. The presence of not a few
Slavs stretching into the district of Udine (Friuli), of Albanian,
Greek and Slav settlers in the southern provinces, with the
Catalans of Alghero (Sardinia, v.
Arch. glott.
ix. 261 et seq.), a
few Germans at Monte Rosa and in some corners of Venetia,
and a remnant or two of other comparatively modern immigrations
is not sufficient to produce any such strong contrast in the
conditions of the national speech. But, on the other hand, the
Neo-Latin dialects which live on side by side in Italy differ from
each other much more markedly than, for example, the English
dialects or the Spanish; and it must be added that, in Upper
Italy especially, the familiar use of the dialects is tenaciously
retained even by the most cultivated classes of the population.
In the present rapid sketch of the forms of speech which occur
in modern Italy, before considering the Tuscan or Italian
par
excellence
, the language which has come to be the noble organ of
modern national culture, it will be convenient to discuss (A)
dialects connected in a greater or less degree with Neo-Latin
systems that are not peculiar to Italy;
[3]
(B) dialects which are
detached from the true and proper Italian system, but form no
integral part of any foreign Neo-Latin system; and (C) dialects
which diverge more or less from the true Italian and Tuscan type,
but which at the same time can be conjoined with the Tuscan
as forming part of a special system of Neo-Latin dialects.
A.
Dialects which depend in a greater or less degree on Neo-Latin systems not peculiar to Italy.
1.
Franco-Provencal and Provencal Dialects.
?(
a
)
Franco-Provencal
(see Ascoli,
Arch. glott.
iii. 61-120; Suchier, in
Grundriss der romanischen
Philologie
, 2nd ed., i. 755, &c.; Nigra,
Arch. glott.
iii. 1 sqq.;
Salvioni,
Rendic. istit. lomb.
, s. ii. vol. xxxvii. 1043 sqq.; Cerlogne,
Dictionnaire du patois valdotain
(Aosta, 1907). These occupy at
the present time very limited areas at the extreme north-west of
the kingdom of Italy. The system stretches from the borders of
Savoy and Valais into the upper basin of the Dora Baltea and into
the head-valleys of the Orco, of the northern Stura, and of the Dora
Riparia. As this portion is cut off by the Alps from the rest of the
system, the type is badly preserved; in the valleys of the Stura
and the Dora Riparia, indeed, it is passing away and everywhere
yielding to the Piedmontese. The most salient characteristic of the
Franco-Provencal is the phonetic phenomenon by which the Latin
a
, whether as an accented or as an unaccented final, is reduced to a
thin vowel (
?
,
i
) when it follows a sound which is or has been palatal,
but on the contrary is kept intact when it follows a sound of another
sort. The following are examples from the Italian side of these Alps:
Aosta
:
travalji
, Fr. travailler;
zar?i
, Fr. charger;
enteru?i
, Fr.
interroger;
z?vra
, Fr. chevre;
zir
, Fr. cher;
gljac?
, Fr. glace;
vazze
, Fr. vache; alongside of
sa
, Fr. sel;
ma?
, Fr. main;
epousa
,
Fr. epouse;
erba
, Fr. herbe.
Val. Soana
:
taljer
, Fr. tailler;
co?i-sse
, Fr. se coucher;
?i?
, Fr. chien;
?ivra
, Fr. chevre;
va??i
, Fr.
vache;
man?i
, Fr. manche; alongside of
alar
, Fr. aller;
porta
,
Fr. porte;
amara
, Fr. amere;
neva
, Fr. neuve.
Chiamorio
(Val di
Lanzo):
la spranssi dla vendeta
, sperantia de illa vindicta.
Viu
:
pansci
, pancia.
Usseglio
:
la muragli
, muraille. A morphological
characteristic is the preservation of that paradigm which is legitimately
traced back to the Latin pluperfect indicative, although
possibly it may arise from a fusion of this pluperfect with the imperfect
subjunctive (amaram, amarem, alongside of habueram,
haberem), having in Franco-Provencal as well as in Provencal
and in the continental Italian dialects in which it will be met with
further on (C. 3,
b
; cf. B. 2) the function of the conditional.
Val
Soana
:
portaro
,
portare
,
portaret
;
portaront
;
Aosta
:
avre
= Prov.
agra
,
haberet (see
Arch.
iii. 31
n
). The final
t
in the third persons of this
paradigm in the Val Soana dialect is, or was, constant in the whole
conjugation, and becomes in its turn a particular characteristic in
this section of the Franco-Provencal.
Val Soana
:
eret
, Lat. erat;
sejt
, sit;
portet
,
portavet
;
port?nt
,
portav?nt
;
Chiamorio
:
jeret
,
erat;
ant dit
, habent dictum;
ejssount fet
, habuissent factum;
Viu
:
che s’minget
, Ital. che si mangi:
Gravere
(Val di Susa):
at pensa
, ha pensato;
avat
, habebat;
Giaglione
(sources of the
Dora Riparia);
maciavont
, mangiavano.?From the valleys, where,
as has just been said, the type is disappearing, a few examples of what
is still genuine Franco-Provencal may be subjoined:
?ivreri
(the
name of a mountain between the Stura and the Dora Riparia), which,
according to the regular course of evolution, presupposes a Latin
Capraria
(cf.
maneri
, maniera, even in the Chiamorio dialect);
?arasti
(
ciarasti
), carestia, in the Viu dialect; and
?inta
, cantare,
in that of Usseglio. From
Chiamorio
,
li tens
, i tempi, and
chejches
birbes
, alcune (qualche) birbe, are worthy of mention on account of the
final
s
. [In this connexion should also be mentioned the Franco-Provencal
colonies of Transalpine origin, Faeto and Celle, in Apulia
(
v.
Morosi,
Archivio glottologico
, xii. 33-75), the linguistic relations of
which are clearly shown by such examples as
talij
, Ital. tagliare;
banij
, Ital. bagnare; side by side with
?ant?
, Ital. cantare;
lu?
,
Ital. levare.]
(
b
)
Provencal
(see
La Lettura
i. 716-717,
Romanische Forschungen
xxiii. 525-539).?Farther south, but still in the same western
extremity of Piedmont, phenomena continuous with those of the
Maritime Alps supply the means of passing from the Franco-Provencal
to the Provencal proper, precisely as the same transition takes place
beyond the Cottian Alps in Dauphine almost in the same latitude.
On the Italian side of the Cottian and the Maritime Alps the Franco-Provencal
and the Provencal are connected with each other by the
continuity of the phenomenon
?
(a pure explosive) from the Latin
c
before
a
. At
Oulx
(sources of the Dora Riparia), which seems,
however, to have a rather mixed dialect, there also occurs the
important Franco-Provencal phenomenon of the surd interdental
(English
th
in
thief
) instead of the surd sibilant (for example
ithi
= Fr.
ici). At the same time
agu
= avuto, takes us to the Provencal. [If,
in addition to the Provencal characteristic of which
ag?
is an example,
we consider those characteristics also Provencal, such as the
o
for
a
final unaccented, the preservation of the Latin diphthong
au
,
p
between vowels preserved as
b
, we shall find that they occur,
together or separately, in all the Alpine varieties of Piedmont, from
the upper valleys of the Dora Riparia and Clusone to the Colle di
Tenda. Thus at
Fenestrelle
(upper valley of the Clusone):
agu
,
vengu
, Ital. venuto;
pauc
, Lat.
paucu
, Ital. poco;
ariba
(Lat.
r?pa)
, Ital. arrivare;
truba
, Ital. trovare;
ciabrin
, Ital. capretto;
at
Oulx
(source of the Dora Riparia):
agu
,
vengu
;
uno gran famino
e venuo
, Ital. una gran fame e venuta; at
Giaglione
:
auvou
, Ital.
odo (Lat.
audio
);
arriba
,
resebu
, Ital. ricevuto (Lat.
recipere
); at
Oncino
(source of the Po):
agu
,
vengu
;
ero en campagno
, Ital.
“era in campagna”;
donavo
, Ital. dava;
paure
, Lat.
pauper
,
Ital. povero;
truba
,
ciabri
; at
Sanpeyre
(valley of the Varaita):
agu
,
volgu
, Ital. voluto;
pressioso
, Ital. preziosa;
fasio
, Ital.
faceva;
trobar
; at
Acceglio
(valley of the Macra):
venghess
,
Ital. venisse;
virro
, Ital. ghiera;
chesto allegrio
, Ital. questa allegria;
ero
, Ital. era;
troba
; at
Castelmagno
(valley of the Grana):
gu
,
vengu
;
rabbio
, Ital. rabbia;
trubar
; at
Vinadio
(valley of the
southern Stura);
agu
,
beigu
, Ital. bevuto;
cadeno
, Ital. catena;
mang?o
, Ital. manica;
?anto
, Ital. canta;
pau
,
auvi
, Ital. udito;
?abe
, Ital. sapete;
trobar
; at
Valdieri
and
Roaschia
(valley of the
Gesso):
purgu
, Ital. potuto;
pjagu
, Ital. piaciuto;
corrog?
, Ital.
corso;
pau
;
arriba
,
ciabri
; at
Limone
(Colle di Tenda):
agu
,
vengu
;
saber
, Ital. sapere;
aruba
,
trubava
. Provencal also, though
of a character rather Transalpine (like that of Dauphine) than native,
are the dialects of the Vaudois population above Pinerolo (
v.
Morosi,
Arch. glott.
xi. 309-416), and their colonies of Guardia in Calabria
(
ib.
xi. 381-393) and of Neu-Hengstett and Pinache-Serres in
Wurttemberg (
ib.
xi. 393-398). The Vaudois literary language, in
which is written the
Nobla Leyczon
, has, however, no direct connexion
with any of the spoken dialects; it is a literary language,
and is connected with literary Provencal, the language of the
troubadours
;
see W. Foerster,
Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen
(1888)
Nos. 20-21.]
2.
Ladin Dialects
(Ascoli,
Arch. glott.
i., iv. 342 sqq., vii. 406 sqq.;
Gartner,
Ratoromanische Grammatik
(Heilbronn, 1883), and in
Grundriss der romanischen Philologie
, 2nd ed., i. 608 sqq.; Salvioni,
Arch. glott.
xvi. 219 sqq.).?The purest of the Ladin dialects occur
on the northern versant of the Alps in the Grisons (Switzerland),
and they form the western section of the system. To this section
also belongs both politically and in the matter of dialect the valley
of Munster (Monastero); it sends its waters to the Adige, and might
indeed consequently be geographically considered Italian, but it
slopes towards the north. In the central section of the Ladin zone
there are two other valleys which likewise drain into tributaries of
the Adige, but are also turned towards the north,?the valleys of
the Gardena and Gadera, in which occurs the purest Ladin now
extant in the central section. The valleys of Munster, the Gardena
and the Gadera may thus be regarded as inter-Alpine, and the question
may be left open whether or not they should be included even
geographically in Italy. There remain, however, within what are
strictly Italian limits, the valleys of the Noce, the Avisio, the Cordevole,
and the Boite, and the upper basin of the Piave (Comelico),
in which are preserved Ladin dialects, more or less pure, belonging
to the central section of the Ladin zone or belt. To Italy belongs,
further, the whole eastern section of the zone composed of the Friulian
territories. It is by far the most populous, containing about 500,000
inhabitants. The Friulian region is bounded on the north by the
Carnic Alps, south by the Adriatic, and west by the eastern rim of the
upper basin of the Piave and the Livenza; while on the east it
stretches into the eastern versant of the basin of the Isonzo, and,
further the ancient dialect of Trieste was itself Ladin (
Arch. glott.
x. 447 et seq.). The Ladin element is further found in greater or less
degree throughout an altogether Cis-Alpine “amphizone,” which
begins at the western slopes of Monte Rosa, and is to be noticed
more particularly in the upper valley of the Ticino and the upper
valley of the Liro and of the Mera on the Lombardy versant, and
in the Val Fiorentina and central Cadore on the Venetian versant.
The Ladin element is clearly observable in the most ancient examples
of the dialects of the Venetian estuary (
Arch.
i. 448-473). The main
characteristics by which the Ladin type is determined may be
summarized as follows: (1) the guttural of the formulae
c
+
a
and
g
+
a
passes into a palatal; (2) the
l
of the formulae
pl
,
cl
, &c., is
preserved; (3) the
s
of the ancient terminations is preserved; (4)
the accented
e
in position breaks into a diphthong; (5) the accented
o
in position breaks into a diphthong; (6) the form of the diphthong
which comes from short accented
o
or from the
o
of position is
ue
(whence
ue
,
o
); (7) long accented
e
and short accented
i
break into a
diphthong, the purest form of which is sounded
ei
; (8) the accented
a
tends, within certain limits, to change into
e
, especially if preceded
by a palatal sound; (9) the long accented
u
is represented by
u
.
These characteristics are all foreign to true and genuine Italian.
?arn
, carne;
spelun?a
, spelunca;
clefs
, claves;
fuormas
, formae;
infiern
, infernu;
ordi
, hordeu;
mod
, modu;
plain
, plenu;
pail
,
pilu;
quael
, quale;
pur
, puru?may be taken as examples from the
Upper Engadine (western section of the zone). The following are
examples from the central and eastern sections on the Italian
versant:?
a. Central Section
.?
Basin of the Noce
: examples of the dialect
of Fondo:
?avel
, capillu;
pes?ador
, piscatore;
pluevia
, pluvia
(plovia);
pluma
(dial. of Val de Rumo:
plovia
,
plumo
);
vecla
,
vetula;
?antes
, cantas. The dialects of this basin are disappearing.?
Basin
of the Avisio
: examples of the dialect of the Val di Fassa:
?arn
, carne;
?e?er
, cadere (cad-jere);
va?a
, vacca;
for?a
, furca;
gle?ia
(
ge?ia
), ecclesia;
oeglje
(
oeje
), oculi;
?ans
, canes;
rames
, rami;
teila
, tela;
neif
, nive;
coessa
, coxa. The dialects of this basin
which are farther west than Fassa are gradually being merged in the
Veneto-Tridentine dialects.?
Basin of the Cordevole
: here the
district of Livinal-Lungo (Buchenstein) is Austrian politically, and
that of Rocca d’ Agordo and Laste is Italian. Examples of the dialect
of Livinal-Lungo:
?arie
, Ital. caricare;
?ante
, cantatus;
ogle
,
oculu;
?ans
, canes;
?aveis
, capilli;
vierm
, verme;
f?oc
, focu;
ave?
,
habere;
nei
, nive.?
Basin of the Boite
: here the district of
Ampezzo (Heiden) is politically Austrian, that of Oltrechiusa
Italian. Examples of the dialect of Ampezzo are
?asa
, casa;
?andera
,
candela;
for?es
, furcae, pl.;
sentes
, sentis. It is a decadent form.?
Upper
Basin of the Piave
: dialect of the Comelico:
?esa
, casa;
?en
(can), cane;
?alje
, caligariu;
bos
, boves;
noevo
, novu;
loego
,
locu.
b. Eastern Section or Friulian Region
.?Here there still exists a
flourishing “Ladinity,” but at the same time it tends towards
Italian, particularly in the want both of the
e
from
a
and of the
u
(and consequently of the
o
). Examples of the Udine variety:
?arr
,
carro;
?aval
, caballu;
?astiel
, castellu;
for?e
, furca;
clar
, claru;
glac
, glacie;
plan
, planu;
colors
, colores;
lungs
, longi, pl.;
devis
,
debes;
vidiel
, vitello;
fieste
, festa;
puess
, possum;
cuett
, coctu;
uardi
, hordeu.?The most ancient specimens of the Friulian dialect
belong to the 14th century (see
Arch.
iv. 188 sqq.).
B.
Dialects which are detached from the true and proper Italian
system
,
but form no integral part of any foreign Neo-Latin system.
1. Here first of all is the extensive system of the dialects usually
called
Gallo-Italian
, although that designation cannot be considered
sufficiently distinctive, since it would be equally applicable to the
Franco-Provencal (A. 1) and the Ladin (A. 2). The system is subdivided
into four great groups?(
a
) the
Ligurian
, (
b
) the
Piedmontese
,
(
c
) the
Lombard
and (
d
) the
Emilian
?the name furnishing
on the whole sufficient indication of the localization and limits.?These
groups, considered more particularly in their more pronounced
varieties, differ greatly from each other; and, in regard to the
Ligurian, it was even denied that it belongs to this system at all
(see
Arch.
ii. III sqq.).?Characteristic of the Piedmontese, the
Lombard and the Emilian is the continual elision of the unaccented
final vowels except
a
(
e.g.
Turinese
oj
, oculu; Milanese
v?c
, voce;
Bolognese
vid
, Ital. vite), but the Ligurian does not keep them
company (
e.g.
Genoese
o??u
, oculu;
v??e
, voce). In the Piedmontese
and Emilian there is further a tendency to eliminate the protonic
vowels?a tendency much more pronounced in the second of these
groups than in the first (
e.g.
Pied,
dne
, danaro;
v?in
, vicino;
fno?
,
finocchio; Bolognese
?pra
, disperato). This phenomenon involves
in large measure that of the prothesis of
a
; as,
e.g.
in Piedmontese and
Emilian
armor
, rumore; Emilian
alvar
, levare, &c. U for the long
accented Latin
u
and
o
for the short accented Latin
o
(and even
within certain limits the short Latin
o
of position) are common to
the Piedmontese, the Ligurian, the Lombard and the northernmost
section of the Emilian:
e.g.
, Turinese, Milanese and Piacentine
dur
,
and Genoese
duu
, duro; Turinese and Genoese
move
, Parmigiane
mover
, and Milanese
mof
, muovere; Piedmontese
dorm
, dorme;
Milanese
volta
, volta.
Ei
for the long accented Latin
e
and for
the short accented Latin
i
is common to the Piedmontese and the
Ligurian, and even extends over a large part of Emilia:
e.g.
Turinese
and Genoese
avei
, habere, Bolognese
aveir
; Turinese and Genoese
beive
, bibere, Bolognese
neiv
, neve. In Emilia and part of Piedmont
ei
occurs also in the formulae
?n
,
ent
,
emp
;
e.g.
Bolognese and
Modenese
bei?
,
solameint
. In connexion with these examples, there
is also the Bolognese
fei?
, Ital. fine, representing the series in which
e
is derived from an
i
followed by
n
, a phenomenon which occurs,
to a greater or less extent throughout the Emilian dialects; in them
also is found, parallel with the
?i
from
?
, the
ou
from
?
: Bolognese
udour
, Ital. odore;
famous
, Ital. famoso;
louv
, l?pu. The system
shows a repugnance throughout to
ie
for the short accented Latin
e
(as it occurs in Italian
piede
, &c.); in other words, this diphthong
has died out, but in various fashions; Piedmontese and Lombard
dec
, dieci; Genoese
d??e
(in some corners of Liguria, however,
occurs
die?e
); Bolognese
dic
, old Bolognese,
diese
. The greater part
of the phenomena indicated above have “Gallic” counterparts too
evident to require to be specially pointed out. One of the most
important traces of Gallic or Celtic reaction is the reduction of the
Latin accented
a
into
e
(
a
, &c.), of which phenomenon, however, no
certain indications have as yet been found in the Ligurian group.
On the other hand it remains, in the case of very many of the Piedmontese
dialects, in the
e
of the infinitives of the first conjugation:
porte
, portare, &c.; and numerous vestiges of it are still found in
Lombardy (
e.g.
in Bassa Brianza:
andae
, andato;
guardae
, guardato;
sae
, sale; see
Arch.
i. 296-298, 536). Emilia also preserves it in
very extensive use: Modenese
ander
, andare;
ariveda
, arrivata;
pec
, pace; Faenzan
parle
, parlare and parlato;
parleda
, parlata;
ches
, caso; &c. The phenomenon, in company with other Gallo-Italian
and more specially Emilian characteristics extends to the
valley of the Metauro, and even passes to the opposite side of the
Apennines, spreading on both banks of the head stream of the Tiber
and through the valley of the Chiane: hence the types
artrover
,
ritrovare,
porteto
, portato, &c., of the Perugian and Aretine dialects
(see
infra
C. 3,
b
). In the phenomenon of
a
passing into
e
(as indeed,
the Gallo-Italic evolution of other Latin vowels) special distinctions
would require to be drawn between bases in which a (not standing
in position) precedes a non-nasal consonant (
e.g. amato
), and those
which have
a
before a nasal: and in the latter case there would be
a non-positional subdivision (
e.g. fame
,
pane
) and a positional one
(
e.g.
quanto
,
amando
,
campo
); see
Arch.
i. 293 sqq. This leads us to
the nasals, a category of sounds comprising other Gallo-Italic
characteristics. There occurs more or less widely, throughout
all the sections of the system, and in different gradations, that
“velar” nasal in the end of a syllable (
pa?
,
ma?
;
?a?ta
,
mo?t
)
[4]
which may be weakened into a simple nasalizing of a vowel (
p?
, &c.)
or even grow completely inaudible (Bergamese
pa
, pane;
padru
,
padrone;
tep
, tempo;
met
, mente;
mut
, monte;
put
, ponte;
pu?a
, punta,
i.e.
“puncta”), where Celtic and especially Irish
analogies and even the frequent use of
t
for
nt
, &c., in ancient Umbrian
orthography occur to the mind. Then we have the faucal
n
by which the Ligurian and the Piedmontese (
la?̱a lu?̱a
, &c.) are connected
with the group which we call Franco-Provencal (A. 1).?We
pass on to the “Gallic” resolution of the nexus ct (
e.g.
facto
,
fajto, fajtjo.
fait
,
fa?
;
tecto
, tejto, tejtjo,
teit
,
te?
) which invariably
occurs in the Piedmontese, the Ligurian and the Lombard: Pied,
fait
,
Lig.
fajtu
,
faetu
, Lombard
fac
; Pied.
teit
, Lig.
teitu
, Lom.
tec
; &c.
Here it is to be observed that besides the Celtic analogy the Umbrian
also helps us (
adveitu
= ad-vecto; &c.). The Piedmontese and
Ligurian come close to each other, more especially by a curious
resolution of the secondary hiatus (Gen.
rei?e
, Piedm.
re̱js
=
*ra-ice
,
Ital. radice) by the regular dropping of the d both primary and
secondary, a phenomenon common in French (as Piedmontese and
Ligurian
rie
, ridere; Piedmontese
pue
, potare; Genoese
naeghe
=
naighe. natiche, &c.). The Lombard type, or more correctly the
type which has become the dominant one in Lombardy (
Arch.
i.
305-306, 310-311), is more sparing in this respect; and still more so
is the Emilian. In the Piedmontese and in the Alpine dialects of
Lombardy is also found that other purely Gallic resolution of the
guttural between two vowels by which we have the types
braja
,
mania
, over against the Ligurian
braga
,
manega
, braca, manica.
Among the phonetic phenomena peculiar to the Ligurian is a continual
reduction (as also in Lombardy and part of Piedmont) of
l
between vowels into
r
and the subsequent dropping of this
r
at the
end of words in the modern Genoese; just as happens also with the
primary
r
: thus
d?
= durur = dolore, &c. Characteristic of the
Ligurian, but not without analogies in Upper Italy even (
Arch.
, ii.
157-158, ix. 209, 255), is the resolution of
pj
,
bj
,
fj
into
?, ?, ?: ?u
,
piu, plus;
ra??a
, rabbia, rabies;
?u
, fiore. Finally, the sounds
?
and
?
have a very wide range in Ligurian (
Arch.
ii. 158-159), but are,
however, etymologically, of different origin from the sounds
?
and
?
in Lombard. The reduction of
s
into
h
occurs in the Bergamo
dialects:
hira
, sera;
groh
, grosso;
cahtel
, castello (see also B.2).?A
general phenomenon in Gallo-Italic phonetics which also comes
to have an inflexional importance is that by which the unaccented
final
i
has an influence on the accented vowel. This enters into a
series of phenomena which even extends into southern Italy; but
in the Gallo-Italic there are particular resolutions which agree well
with the general connexions of this system. [We may briefly recall
the following forms in the plural and 2nd person singular: old
Piedmontese
drayp
pl. of
drap
, Ital. drappo;
man
,
meyn
, Ital.
mano, -i;
long
,
loyng
, Ital. lungo, -ghi; Genoese,
ka?
,
k??
, Ital.
cane, -i;
bu?
,
bui?
, Ital. buono, -i; Bolognese,
far
,
fir
, Ital. ferro,
-i;
peir, pir
, Ital. pero, -i.
zop
,
zup
, Ital. zoppo, -i;
louv, luv
,
Ital. lupo, -i;
vedd, vi
, Ital. io vedo, tu vedi;
vojj, vu
, Ital. io
voglio, tu vuoi; Milanese
qu?st, quist
, Ital. questo, -i, and, in the
Alps of Lombardy,
pal, p?l
, Ital. palo, -i;
r?d
,
rid
, Ital. rete, -i;
co̱r
,
cor
, Ital. cuore, -i;
?rs, urs
, Ital. orso, -i;
law, l?w
, Ital. io lavo,
tu lavi;
m?t, mit
, Ital. io metto, tu metti;
mo̱w mow
, Ital. io muovo,
tu muovi;
c?r, cur
, Ital. io corro, tu corri. [Vicentine
pomo, pumi
,
Ital. pomo, -i;
pero
,
pieri = *piri
, Ital. pero, -i; v.
Arch.
i. 540-541;
ix. 235 et seq., xiv. 329-330].?Among morphological peculiarities
the first place may be given to the Bolognese
sipa
(
seppa
), because,
thanks to Dante and others, it has acquired great literary celebrity.
It really signifies “sia” (sim, sit), and is an analogical form fashioned
on
aepa
, a legitimate continuation of the corresponding forms of the
other auxiliary (habeam, habeat), which is still heard in
ch’me aepa
purtae, ch’lu aepa purtae
, ch’io abbia portato, ch’egli abbia portato.
Next may be noted the 3rd person singular in
-p
of the perfect of
esse
and of the first conjugation in the Forli dialect (
fop
, fu;
mandep
,
mando; &c.). This also must be analogical, and due to a
legitimate
ep
, ebbe (see
Arch.
ii. 401; and compare
fobbe
, fu, in
the dialect of Camerino, in the province of Macerata, as well as the
Spanish analogy of
tuve estuve
formed after
hube
). Characteristic of
the Lombard dialect is the ending
-i
in the 1st person sing. pres.
indic. (
mi a po̱rti
, Ital. io porto); and of Piedmontese, the
-ejca
, as
indicating the subjunctive imperfect (
port?jca
, Ital. portassi) the origin
of which is to be sought in imperfects of the type
staesse, faesse
reduced normally to
ste̱jc-, fe̱jc-
. Lastly, in the domain of syntax,
may be added the tendency to repeat the pronoun (
e.g. ti te cantet
of the Milanese, which really is
tu tu cantas-tu
, equivalent merely to
“cantas”), a tendency at work in the Emilian and Lombard, but
more particularly pronounced in the Piedmontese. With this the
corresponding tendency of the Celtic languages has been more than
once and with justice compared; here it may be added that the
Milanese
nun
, apparently a single form for “noi,” is really a compound
or reduplication in the manner of the
ni-ni
, its exact counterpart
in the Celtic tongues. [From Lombardy, or more precisely,
from the Lombardo-Alpine region extending from the western slopes
of Monte Rosa to the St Gotthard, are derived the Gallo-Italian
dialects, now largely, though not all to the same extent, Sicilianized,
from the Sicilian communes of Sanfratello, Piazza-Armerina,
Nicosia, Aidone, Novara and Sperlinga (v.
Arch. glott.
viii. 304-316,
406-422, xiv. 436-452;
Romania
, xxviii. 409-420;
Memorie dell’ Istituto
lombardo
, xxi. 255 et seq.). The dialects of Gombitelli and
Sillano in the Tuscan Apennines are connected with Emilia (
Arch.
glott.
xii. 309-354). And from Liguria come those of Carloforte in
Sardinia, as also those of Monaco, and of Mons, Escragnolles and
Biot in the French departments of Var and Alpes Maritimes (
Revue
de linguistique
, xiii. 308)]. The literary records for this group go
back as far as the 12th century, if we are right in considering as
Piedmontese the Gallo-Italian Sermons published and annotated by
Foerster (
Romanische Studien
, iv. 1-92). But the documents
published by A. Gaudenzi (
Dial. di Bologna
, 168-172) are certainly
Piedmontese, or more precisely Canavese, and seem to belong to the
13th century. The Chieri texts date from 1321 (
Miscellanea di filol. e
linguistica
, 345-355), and to the 14th century also belongs the
Grisostomo
(
Arch. glott.
vii. 1-120), which represents the old Piedmontese
dialect of Pavia (
Bollett. della Soc. pav. di Storia Patria
,
ii. 193 et seq.). The oldest Ligurian texts, if we except the “contrasto”
in two languages of Rambaud de Vaqueiras (12th century
v.
Crescini,
Manualetto provenzale
, 2nd ed., 287-291), belong to the
first decades of the 14th century (
Arch. glott.
xiv. 22 et seq., ii.
161-312, x. 109-140, viii. 1-97). Emilia has manuscripts going back
to the first or second half of the 13th century, the
Parlamenti
of
Guido Fava (see Gaudenzi,
op. cit.
127-160) and the
Regola dei
servi
published by G. Ferraro (Leghorn, 1875). An important
Emilian text, published only in part, is the Mantuan version of the
De proprietatibus rerum
of Bartol. Anglico, made by Vivaldo Belcalzer
in the early years of the 14th century (
v.
Cian.
Giorn. stor. della
letteratura italiana
, supplement, No. 5, and cf.
Rendiconti Istituto
Lombardo
, series ii. vol. xxxv. p. 957 et seq.). For Modena also
there are numerous documents, starting from 1327. For western
Lombardy the most ancient texts (13th century, second half) are
the poetical compositions of Bonvesin de la Riva and Pietro da
Bescape, which have reached us only in the 14th-century
copies. For eastern Lombardy we have, preserved in Venetian
or Tuscan versions, and in MSS. of a later date, the works of Gerardo
Patecchio, who lived at Cremona in the first half of the 13th century.
Bergamasc literature is plentiful, but not before the 14th century
(
v. Studi medievali
, i. 281-292;
Giorn. stor. della lett. ital.
xlvi.
351 et seq.).
2.
Sardinian Dialects.
[5]
?These are three?the Logudorese or
central, the Campidanese or southern and the Gallurese or northern.
The third certainly indicates a Sardinian basis, but is strangely
disturbed by the intrusion of other elements, among which the
Southern Corsican (Sartene) is by far the most copious. The other
two are homogeneous, and have great affinity with each other; the
Logudorese comes more particularly under consideration here.?The
pure Sardinian vocalism has this peculiarity that each accented
vowel of the Latin appears to be retained without alteration. Consequently
there are no diphthongs representing simple Latin
vowels; nor does the rule hold good which is true for so great a
proportion of the Romance languages, that the representatives of
the
?
and the
i
on the one hand and those of the
?
and the
?
on
the other are normally coincident. Hence
plenu
(
?
);
deghe
, decem
(
?
);
binu
, vino (
?
);
pilu
(
?
);
flore
(
?
);
roda
, rota
(
?
);
duru
(
?
);
nughe
,
nuce (
?
). The unaccented vowels keep their ground well, as has
already been seen in the case of the finals by the examples adduced.?The
s
and
t
of the ancient termination are preserved, though not
constantly:
tres
,
onus
,
passados annos
,
plantas
,
faghes
, facis,
tenemus
;
mulghet
,
mulghent
.?The formulae
ce
,
ci
,
ge
,
gi
may be represented by
che
(
ke
), &c.; but this appearance of special antiquity is really
illusory (see
Arch.
ii. 143-144). The nexus
cl
, &c., may be maintained
in the beginning of words (
claru
,
plus
); but if they are in the body
of the word they usually undergo resolutions which, closely related
though they be to those of Italian, sometimes bring about very
singular results (
e.g. u?are
, which by the intermediate forms
uscare
,
usjare
leads back to
usclare
=
ustlare
=
ustulare
).
N?
is the representative
of
nj
(
testimon?u
, &c.); and
lj
is reduced to
?
alone (
e.g.
me?us
, melius; Campidanese
mellus
). For
ll
a frequent substitute
is
??
:
mass???a
, maxilla, &c. Quite characteristic is the continual
labialization of the formulae
qua
,
gua
,
cu
,
gu
, &c.;
e.g. ebba
, equa;
sambene
, sanguine (see
Arch.
ii. 143). The dropping of the primary
d
(
roere
, rodere, &c.) but not of the secondary (
finidu
,
sanidade
,
maduru
) is frequent. Characteristic also is the Logudorese prothesis
of
i
before the initial
s
followed by a consonant (
iscamnu
,
istella
,
ispada
), like the prothesis of
e
in Spain and in France (see
Arch.
iii.
447 sqq.).?In the order of the present discussion it is in connexion
with this territory that we are for the first time led to consider those
phonetic changes in words of which the cause is merely syntactical
of transitory, and chiefly those passing accidents which occur to the
initial consonant through the historically legitimate or the merely
analogical action of the final sound that precedes it. The general
explanation of such phenomena reduces itself to this, that, given the
intimate syntactic relation of two words, the initial consonant of the
second retains or modifies its character as it would retain or modify
it if the two words were one. The Celtic languages are especially
distinguished by this peculiarity; and among the dialects of Upper
Italy the Bergamasc offers a clear example. This dialect is accustomed
to drop the
v
, whether primary or secondary, between vowels
in the individual vocables (
caa
, cavare;
faa
, fava, &c.), but to preserve
it if it is preceded by a consonant (
serva
, &c.).?And similarly
in syntactic combination we have, for example,
de i
, di vino; but
ol vi
, il vino. Insular, southern and central Italy furnish a large
number of such phenomena; for Sardinia we shall simply cite a
single class, which is at once obvious and easily explained, viz.
that represented by
su oe
, il bove, alongside of
sos boes
, i. buoi (cf.
biere
, bibere;
erba
).?The article is derived from
ipse
instead of
from
ille
:
su sos
,
sa sas
,?again a geographical anticipation of
Spain, which in the Catalan of the Balearic islands still preserves the
article from
ipse
.?A special connexion with Spain exists besides in
the
nomine
type of inflexion, which is constant among the Sardinians
(Span.
nomne
, &c., whence
nombre
, &c.),
nomen
,
nomene
,
ramine
, aeramine,
legumene
, &c. (see
Arch.
ii. 429 sqq.).?Especially noteworthy
in the conjugation of the verb is the paradigm
cantere
,
canteres
, &c.,
timere
,
timeres
, &c., precisely in the sense of the imperfect subjunctive
(cf. A. 1; cf. C. 3
b
). Next comes the analogical and almost corrupt
diffusion of the -
si
of the ancient strong perfects (such as
posi
,
rosi
)
by which
cantesi
,
timesi
(cantavi, timui),
dolfesi
, dolui, are reached.
Proof of the use and even the abuse of the strong perfects is afforded,
however, by the participles and the infinitives of the category to
which belong the following examples:
tennidu
, tenuto;
parfidu
,
parso;
balfidu
, valso;
tennere
,
balere
, &c. (
Arch.
ii. 432-433).
The future, finally, shows the unagglutinated periphrasis:
hapo a
mandigare
(ho a mangiare = manger-o); as indeed the unagglutinated
forms of the future and the conditional occur in ancient vernacular
texts of other Italian districts. [The Campidanese manuscript, in
Greek characters, published by Blancard and Wescher (
Bibliotheque
de l’Ecole des Chartes
, xxxv. 256-257), goes back as far as the last
years of the 11th century. Next come the Cagliari MSS. published by
Solmi (
Le Carte volgari dell’ Archivio arcivescovile di Cagliari
, Florence,
1905; cf. Guarnerio in
Studi romanzi
, fascicolo iv. 189 et seq.),
the most ancient of which in its original form dates from 1114-1120.
For Logoduro, the
Condaghe di S. Pietro di Silchi
(§§ xii.-xiii.),
published by G. Bonazzi (Sassari-Cagliari, 1900; cf. Meyer-Lubke,
Zur Kenntnis des Altlogudoresischen
, Vienna, 1902), is of the highest
importance.]
[3.
Vegliote
(
Veglioto
).?Perhaps we may not be considered to be
departing from Ascoli’s original plan if we insert here as a third
member of the group
B
the neo-Latin dialect which found its last
refuge in the island of Veglia (Gulf of Quarnero), where it came
definitively to an end in 1898. The Vegliote dialect is the last remnant
of a language which some long time ago extended from thence along
the Dalmatian coast, whence it gained the name of
Dalmatico
, a
language which should be carefully distinguished from the Venetian
dialect spoken to this day in the towns of the Dalmatian littoral.
Its character reminds us in many ways of Rumanian, and of that
type of Romano-Balkan dialect which is represented by the Latin
elements of Albanian, but to a certain extent also, and especially
with regard to the vowel sounds, of the south-eastern dialects of
Italy, while it has also affinities with Friuli, Istria and Venetia.
These characteristics taken altogether seem to suggest that
Dalmatico
differs as much as does Sardinian from the purely Italian type. It
rejects the -
s
, it is true, retaining instead the nominative form in
the plural; but here these facts are no longer a criterion, since in
this point Italian and Rumanian are in agreement. A tendency
which we have already noted, and shall have further cause to note
hereafter, and which connects in a striking way the Vegliote and
Abruzzo-Apulian dialects, consists in reducing the accented vowels
to diphthongs: examples of this are: spuota, Ital. spada;
buarka
,
Ital. barca;
fiar
, Ital. fe̱rro;
nuat
, Ital. no̱tte;
kataina
, Ital.
cat?na;
paira
, Ital. p?ro; Lat.
p?ru
;
jaura
, Ital. ?ra;
nauk
,
Ital. noce; Lat.
n?ce
;
ortaika
, Ital. ortica;
joiva
, Ital. uova.
Other vowel phenomena should also be noted, for example those
exemplified in
prut
, Ital. prato;
dik
, Ital. dieci, Lat.
d?cem
;
luk
,
Ital. luogo, Lat.
l?cu
;
krask
, Ital. cr?scere;
cenk
, Ital. cinque, Lat.
qu?nque
;
buka
, Ital. bocca, Lat.
b?ca
. With regard to the consonants,
we should first notice the invariable persistence of the
explosive surds (as in Rumanian and the southern dialects) for
which several of the words just cited will serve as examples, with
the addition of
kuosa
, Ital. casa;
praiza
, Ital. presa;
struota
, Ital.
strada;
rosuota
, Ital. rugiada;
latri
, Ital. ladro;
raipa
, Ital. riva.
The
c
in the formula
ce
, whether primary or secondary, is represented
by
k
:
kaina
, Ital. cena;
kanaisa
, Ital. cinigia;
akait
, Ital.
aceto;
plakar
, Ital. piacere;
dik
, Ital. dieci;
mukna
, Ital. macina;
dotko
, Ital. dodici; and similarly the
g
in the formula
ge
is represented
by the corresponding guttural:
ghelut
, Ital. gelato;
jongar
,
Ital. giungere;
plungre
, Ital. piangere, &c. On the contrary, the
guttural of the primitive formula
c?
becomes
?
(
?ol
, Ital. culo); this
phenomenon is also noteworthy as seeming to justify the inference
that the
?
was pronounced
u
.
Pt
is preserved, as in Rumanian
(
sapto
, Lat.
septem
), and often, again as in Rumanian,
ct
is also
reduced to
pt
(
guapto
, Lat.
octo
). As to morphology, a characteristic
point is the preservation of the Lat.
cantavero
, Ital. avro cantato,
in the function of a simple future.
Cantaverum
also occurs as a
conditional. For Vegliote and Dalmatico in general, see M. G.
Bartoli’s fundamental work,
Das Dalmatische
(2 vols., Vienna,
1906), and
Zeitschrift fur roman. Philologie
, xxxii. 1 sqq.; Merlo,
Rivista di filologia e d’istruzione class
, xxxv. 472 sqq. A short
document written about 1280 in the Dalmatic dialect of Ragusa
is to be found in
Archeografo Triestino
, new series, vol. i.
pp. 85-86.]
C.
Dialects which diverge more or less from the genuine Italian
or Tuscan type
,
but which at the same time can be conjoined with
the Tuscan as forming part of a special system of Neo-Latin
dialects
.
1.
Venetian.
?Between “Venetian” and “Venetic” several
distinctions must be drawn (
Arch.
i. 391 sqq.). At the present
day the population of the Venetian cities is “Venetian” in language,
but the country districts are in various ways Venetic.
[6]
The ancient
language of Venice itself and of its estuary was not a little different
from that of the present time; and the Ladin vein was particularly
evident (see A. 2). A more purely Italian vein?the historical
explanation of which presents an attractive problem?has ultimately
gained the mastery and determined the “Venetian” type which
has since diffused itself so vigorously.?In the Venetian, then, we
do not find the most distinctive characteristics of the dialects of
Upper Italy comprised under the denomination Gallo-Italic (see
B. 1),?neither the
u
nor the
o
, nor the velar
[7]
and faucal nasals,
nor the Gallic resolution of the
ct
, nor the frequent elision of unaccented
vowels, nor the great redundancy of pronouns. On the
contrary, the pure Italian diphthong of
?
(
e.g. cuor
) is heard, and the
diphthong of
?
is in full currency (
die?e
, dieci, &c.). Nevertheless
the Venetian approaches the type of Northern Italy, or diverges
notably from that of Central Italy, by the following phonetic
phenomena: the ready elision of primary or secondary
d
(
cruo
,
crudo;
sea
, seta, &c.); the regular reduction of the surd into the
sonant guttural (
e.g. cuogo
, Ital. cuoco, coquus); the pure
?
in the
resolution of
cl
(
e.g. ?ave
, clave;
ore?a
, auricula); the
?
for
?
(
?ovene
,
Ital. giovane);
c
for
?
and
?
(
pece
, Ital. pesce;
ciel
, Ital. cielo).
Lj
preceded by any vowel, primary or secondary, except
i
, gives
?
:
famega
, familia. No Italian dialect is more averse than the Venetian
to the doubling of consonants.?In the morphology the use of the
3rd singular for the 3rd plural also, the analogical participle in
esto
(
ta?esto
, Ital. taciuto, &c.; see
Arch.
iv. 393, sqq.) and
?e
, Lat.
est
, are
particularly noteworthy. A curious double relic of Ladin influence
is the interrogative type represented by the example
credis-tu
,
credis tu,?where apart from the interrogation
ti credi
would be
used. For other ancient sources relating to Venice, the estuary of
Venice, Verona and Padua, see
Arch.
i. 448, 465, 421-422; iii.
245-247. [Closely akin to Venetian, though differing from it in
about the same degree that the various Gallo-Italian dialects differ
among one another, is the indigenous dialect of
Istria
, now almost
entirely ousted by Venetian, and found in a few localities only
(Rovigno, Dignano). The most salient characteristics of Istrian
can be recognized in the treatment of the accented vowels, and are
of a character which recalls, to a certain extent at least, the Vegliote
dialect. Thus we have in Istrian
i
for
?
(
bivi
, Ital. bevi, Lat.
b?bis
;
tila
, Ital. t?la;
viro
, Ital. vero and vetro, Lat.
v?ru
,
v?tru
;
nito
,
Ital. netto, Lat.
n?t?du
, &c.) and analogously
u
for
?
(
fiur
, Ital.
fiore, Lat.
fl?re
;
bus
, Ital. voce, Lat.
v?ce
, &c.);
ei
and
ou
from the
Lat.
?
and
?
respectively (
ameigo
, Lat.
amicu
,
feil
, Lat.
f?lu
, &c.;
mour
, Lat.
m?ru
;
noudu
, Lat.
n?du
;
frouto
, Ital. frutto, Lat.
fr?ctu
, &c.);
ie
and
uo
from
?
and
?
respectively in position (
piel
,
Lat.
p?lle
,
mierlo
, Ital. merlo, Lat.
m?rula
;
kuorno
, Lat.
c?rnu
;
puorta
, Lat.
p?rta
), a phenomenon in which Istrian resembles not
only Vegliote but also Friulian. The resemblance with Verona, in
the reduction of final unaccented -
e
to
o
should also be noted (
nuoto
,
Ital. notte, &c.,
bivo
, Ital.
beve
;
malam?ntro
, Ital. malamente, &c.),
and that with Belluno and Treviso in the treatment of -
oni
, -
ani
(
barboi
, -
oin
, Ital. barboni), though it is peculiar to Istrian that -
ain
should give -
??
(
ka?
,
k??
, Ital. cane -i). With regard to consonants,
we should point out the
n
for
gn
(
lino
, Ital. legno); and as to
morphology, we should note certain survivals of the inflexional
type,
amita
, -
anis
(sing.
sia
, Ital. zia, pl.
sia?ne
).] The most ancient
Venetian documents take us back to the first half of the 13th century
(
v.
E. Bertanza and V. Lazzarini,
Il Dialetto veneziano fino alla morte
di Dante Alighieri
, Venice, 1891), and to the second half of the
same century seems to belong the Saibante MS. For Verona we
have also documents of the 13th century (
v.
Cipolla, in
Archivio
storico italiano
, 1881 and 1882); and to the end of the same century
perhaps belongs the MS. which has preserved for us the writings of
Giacomino da Verona. See also
Archivio glottologico
, i. 448, 465,
421-422, iii. 245-247.
2.
Corsican
[8]
?If the “Venetian,” in spite of its peculiar
“Italianity,” has naturally special points of contact with the other
dialects of Upper Italy (B. 1), the Corsican in like manner, particularly
in its southern varieties, has special points of contact with
Sardinian proper (B. 2). In general, it is in the southern section of
the island, which, geographically even, is farthest removed from
Tuscany, that the most characteristic forms of speech are found.
The unaccented vowels are undisturbed; but
u
for the Tuscan
o
is
common to almost all the island,?an insular phenomenon
par
excellence
which connects Corsica with Sardinia and with Sicily,
and indeed with Liguria also. So also -
i
for the Tuscan -
e
(
latti
,
latte;
li cateni
, le catene), which prevails chiefly in the southern
section, is also found in Northern and Southern Sardinian, and is
common to Sicily. It is needless to add that this tendency to
u
and
i
manifests itself, more or less decidedly, also within the words.
Corsican, too, avoids the diphthongs of
?
and
?
(
pe
,
eri
;
cori
,
fora
):
but, unlike Sardinian, it treats
?
and
?
in the Italian fashion:
beju
,
bibo;
peveru
, piper;
pesci
;
noci
, nuces.
[9]
?It is one of its characteristics
to reduce a to e in the formula
ar
+ a consonant (
cherne
,
berba
,
&c.), which should be compared particularly with the Piedmontese
examples of the same phenomenon (
Arch.
ii. 133, 144-150). But
the gerund in
-endu
of the first conjugation (
turnendu
,
lagrimendu
,
&c.) must on the contrary be considered as a phenomenon of analogy,
as it is especially recognized in the Sardinian dialects, to all of which
it is common (see
Arch.
ii. 133). And the same is most probably
the case with forms of the present participle like
merchente
, mercante,
in spite of
enzi
and
innenzi
(anzi, innanzi), in which latter forms
there may probably be traced the effect of the Neo-Latin
i
which
availed to reduce the
t
of the Latin
ante
; alongside of them we find
also
anzi
and
nantu
. But cf. also,
gr?ndi
, Ital. grande. In Southern
Corsican
dr
for
ll
is conspicuous?a phenomenon which also connects
Corsica with Sardinia, Sicily and a good part of Southern Italy
(see C. 2; and
Arch.
ii. 135, &c.), also with the northern coast of
Tuscany, since examples such as
be??u
belong also to Carrara and
Montignoso. In the Ultramontane variety occur besides, the
phenomena of
rn
changed to
r
(=
rr
) and of
nd
becoming
nn
(
furu
,
Ital. forno;
koru
, Ital. corno;
kuannu
, Ital. quando;
vidennu
, Ital.
vedendo). The former of these would connect Corsican with Sardinian
(
corru
, cornu;
carre
, carne, &c.); the latter more especially with
Sicily, &c. A particular connexion with the central dialects is given
by the change of
ld
into
ll
(
kallu
, Ital. caldo).?As to phonetic phenomena
connected with syntax, already noticed in B. 2, space admits
the following examples only: Cors,
na vella
, una bella,
e bella
(
ebbella
,
et bella);
lu jallu
, lo gallo,
gran ghiallu
; cf.
Arch.
ii. 136 (135, 150),
xiv. 185. As Tommaseo has already noted,
-one
is for the Corsicans
not less than for the Sicilians, Calabrians and the French a termination
of diminution:
e.g. fratedronu
, fratellino.?In the first person
of the conditional the
b
is maintained (
e.g. farebe
, farei), as even at
Rome and elsewhere. Lastly, the series of Corsican verbs of the
derivative order which run alongside of the Italian series of the
original order, and may be represented by the example
dissipeghja
,
dissipa (Falcucci), is to be compared with the Sicilian series represented
by
cuadiari
, riscaldare,
curpiari
, colpire (
Arch.
ii. 151).
3.
Dialects of Sicily and of the Neapolitan Provinces.
?Here the
territories on both sides of the Strait of Messina will first be treated
together, chiefly with the view of noting their common linguistic
peculiarities.?Characteristic then of these parts, as compared with
Upper Italy and even with Sardinia, is, generally speaking, the
tenacity of the explosive elements of the Latin bases (cf.
Arch.
ii.
154, &c.). Not that these consonants are constantly preserved
uninjured; their degradations, and especially the Neapolitan
degradation of the surd into the sonant, are even more frequent
than is shown by the dialect as written, but their disappearance
is comparatively rather rare; and even the degradations, whether
regard be had to the conjunctures in which they occur or to their
specific quality, are very different from those of the dialects of Upper
Italy. Thus, the t between vowels ordinarily remains intact in
Sicilian and Neapolitan (
e.g.
Sicil.
sita
, Neap.
seta
, seta, where in
the dialects of Upper Italy we should have
seda
,
sea
); and in the
Neapolitan dialects it is reduced to
d
when it is preceded by
n
or
r
(
e.g. viend?
, vento), which is precisely a collocation in which the
t
would be maintained intact in Upper Italy. The
d
, on the other
hand, is not resolved by elision, but by its reduction to
r
(
e.g.
Sicil.
viriri
, Neap. dialects
vere
, vedere), a phenomenon which has been
frequently compared, perhaps with too little caution, with the
d
passing into
rs
(
?
) in the Umbrian inscriptions. The Neapolitan
reduction of
nt
into
nd
has its analogies in the reduction of
nc
(
nk
)
into
ng
, and of
mp
into
mb
, which is also a feature of the Neapolitan
dialects, and in that of
ns
into
n?
; and here and there we even find
a reduction of
nf
into
mb
(
nf
,
nv
,
nb
,
mb
), both in Sicilian and Neapolitan
(
e.g.
at Casteltermini in Sicily
’mbiernu
, inferno, and in the
Abruzzi
cumbonn’
,
’mbonn’
, confondere, infondere). Here we find
ourselves in a series of phenomena to which it may seem that some
special contributions were furnished by Oscan and Umbrian (
nt
,
mp
,
nc
into
nd
, &c.), but for which more secure and general, and so to say
“isothermal,” analogies are found in modern Greek and Albanian.
The Sicilian does not appear to fit in here as far as the formulae
nt
and
mp
are concerned; and it may even be said to go counter to
this tendency by reducing
n?
and
n?
to
n?
,
nz
(
e.g. pun?iri
, pungere;
menzu
, Ital. me??o;
sponza
, Ital. spugna, Ven.
spon?a
).
[10]
Nay,
even in the passing of the sonant into the surd, the Neapolitan dialects
would yield special and important contributions (nor is even
the Sicilian limited to the case just specified), among which we will
only mention the change of
d
between vowels into
t
in the last
syllable of proparoxytones (
e.g. ummeto
, Sicil.
umitu
, umido), and
in the formula
dr
(Sicil. and Neap.
quatro
, Ital. quadro, &c.). From
these series of sonants changing into surds comes a peculiar feature
of the southern dialects.?A pretty common characteristic is the
regular progressive assimilation by which
nd
is reduced to
nn
,
?g
to
??
,
mb
to
mm
, and even
nv
also to
mm
(
nv
,
nb
,
mb
,
mm
),
e.g.
Sicil.
?inniri
, Neap.
?ennere
, scendere; Sicil.
chiummu
, Neap.
chiumm?
, piombo; Sicil. and Neap. ’
mmidia
, invidia; Sicil.
sa??u
,
sangue. As belonging to this class of phenomena the Palaeo-Italic
analogy (
nd
into
nn
,
n
), of which the Umbrian furnishes special
evidence, readily suggests itself. Another important common
characteristic is the reduction of secondary
pj fj
into
kj
(
chianu
-
?
,
Sicil., Neap., &c., Ital. piano),
?
(Sicil.
?umi
, Neap.
?umm?
, fiume),
of secondary
bj
to
j
(which may be strengthened to
ghj
) if initial
(Sicil.
jancu
, Neap.
janch?
, bianco; Sicil.
agghianchiari
, imbiancare),
to
l
if between vowels (Neap.
neglia
, nebbia, Sicil.
nigliu
, nibbio);
of primary
pj
and
bj
into
?
(Sicil.
si??a
, Neap.
se??a
, seppia) or
?
respectively (Sicil.
ra??a
, Neap.
arra??a
, rabbia), for which phenomena
see also Genoese (B. 1). Further is to be noted the tendency
to the sibilation of
cj
, for which Sicil.
jazzu
, ghiaccio, may serve
as an example (
Arch.
ii. 149),?a tendency more particularly
betrayed in Upper Italy, but Abruzzan departs from it (cf. Abr.
jacce
, ghiaccio,
vracce
, braccio, &c.). There is a common inclination
also to elide the initial unaccented palatal vowel, and to prefix
a
,
especially before
r
(this second tendency is found likewise in Southern
Sardinian, &c.; see
Arch.
ii. 138);
e.g.
Sicil. ’
ntenniri
, Neap.
’
ndennere
, intendere; Sicil.
arriccamari
, Neap.
arragamare
, ricamare
(see
Arch.
ii. 150). Throughout the whole district, and the adjacent
territories in Central Italy, a tendency also prevails towards resolving
certain combinations of consonants by the insertion of a vowel;
thus combinations in which occur
r
or
l
,
w
or
j
(Sicil.
kiruci
, Ital.
croce,
filagutu
, Ital. flauto,
salivari
, salvare,
variva
, Ital. barba;
Abr.
calechene
, Ital. ganghero,
Saleve?tre
, Silvestro,
f?ul?menand?
,
fulminante,
jereve
, Ital. erba, &c.; Avellinese
garamegna
, gramigna;
Neap.
avotro
= *
awtro
, Ital. altro,
cevoza
= *
cewza
, Ital. gelso,
ajeta
side by side with
ajta
, Ital. eta,
odejo
=
odjo
, Ital. odio, &c.; Abr.
’
nniv?j?
, indiva,
n?bb?j?
, nebbia, &c.);
cattajeve
=
cattajve
, cattivo,
gouele
= *
gowle
, gola, &c. &c., are examples from Molfetta, where is
also normal the resolution of
?k
by
?ek
(
me?ekere
, maschera,
?ekatele
,
scatola, &c.); cf.
seddegno
, sdegno, in some dialects of the province
of Avellino. In complete contrast to the tendency to get rid of
double consonants which has been particularly noted in Venetian
(C. 1), we here come to the great division of Italy where the tendency
grows strong to gemination (or the doubling of consonants), especially
in proparoxytones; and the Neapolitan in this respect goes
farther than the Sicilian (
e.g.
Sicil.
soggiru
, suocero,
cinniri
, cenere,
doppu
, dopo; ’
nsemmula
, insieme, in-simul; Neap.
dellecato
,
dilicato;
ummeto
, umido;
debbole
).?As to the phonetic phenomena
connected with the syntax (see B. 2), it is sufficient to cite such
Sicilian examples as
ni?una ronna
, nesuna donna, alongside of
c’ e
donni
, c’ e donne;
?incu jorna
, cinque giorni, alongside of
chiu
ghiorna
, piu giorni; and the Neapolitan
la vocca
, la bocca, alongside
of
a bocca
, ad buccam, &c.
We now proceed to the special consideration, first, of the Sicilian
and, secondly, of the dialects of the mainland.
(
a
)
Sicilian.
?The Sicilian vocalism is conspicuously etymological.
Though differing in colour from the Tuscan, it is not less noble,
and between the two there are remarkable points of contact. The
dominant variety, represented in the literary dialect, ignores the
diphthongs of
?
and of
?
, as it has been seen that they are ignored
in Sardinia (B. 2), and here also the
?
and the
?
appear intact; but
the
?
and the
?
are fittingly represented by
i
and
u
; and with equal
symmetry unaccented
e
and
o
are reproduced by
i
and
u
. Examples:
teni
, tiene;
novu
, nuovo;
pilu
, pelo;
mi?nitta
, Ital. vend?tta;
jugu
, giogo;
agustu
, Ital. ag?sto;
cridiri
, credere;
vinniri
, Ital.
v?ndere;
sira
, sera;
vina
, vena;
suli
, Ital. sole;
ura
, ora;
furma
,
Ital. f?rma. In the evolution of the consonants it is enough to add
here the change of
lj
into
ghj
(
e.g. figghiu
, Ital. figlio) and of
ll
into
??
(
e.g. ga??u
, Ital. gallo). As to morphology, we will confine ourselves
to pointing out the masculine plurals of neuter form (
li
pastura
,
li marinara
). For the Sicilian dialect we have a few fragments
going back to the 13th century, but the documents are
scanty until we come to the 14th century.
(
b
)
Dialects of the Neapolitan Mainland.
?The Calabrian (by which
is to be understood more particularly the vernacular group of the
two Further Calabrias) may be fairly considered as a continuation
of the Sicilian type, as is seen from the following examples:?
cori
,
cuore;
petra
;
fimmina
, femina;
vuce
, voce;
unure
, onore;
figghiu
,
figlio;
spadde
, spalle;
trizza
, treccia. Both Sicilian and Calabrian
is the reducing of
rl
to
rr
(Sicil.
parrari
, Cal.
parrare
, parlare, &c.).
The final vowel -
e
is reduced to -
i
, but is preserved in the more
southern part, as is seen from the above examples. Even the
?
for
?
=
fj
, as in
?uri
(Sicil.
?uri
, fiore), which is characteristic in Calabrian,
has its forerunners in the island (see
Arch.
ii. 456). And, in the
same way, though the dominant varieties of Calabria seem to cling
to the
mb
(it sometimes happens that
mm
takes the form of
mb
:
imbiscare
= Sicil. ’
mmiscari
’immischiare’, &c.) and
nd
, as opposed
to the
mm
,
nn
, of the whole of Southern Italy and Sicily, we must
remember, firstly, that certain other varieties have,
e.g. granne
,
Ital. grande, and
chiummu
, Ital. piombo; and secondly, that even
in Sicily (at Milazzo, Barcelona, and as far as Messina) districts are
to be found in which
nd
is used. Along the coast of the extreme
south of Italy, when once we have passed the interruptions caused
by the Basilisco type (so called from the Basilicata), the Sicilian
vocalism again presents itself in the Otrantine, especially in the
seaboard of Capo di Leuca. In the Lecce variety of the Otrantine
the vocalism which has just been described as Sicilian also keeps
its ground in the main (cf. Morosi,
Arch.
iv.):
sira
, sera;
leitu
,
oliveto;
pilu
;
ura
, ora;
dulure
. Nay more, the Sicilian phenomenon
of
lj
into
ghj
(
figghiu
, figlio, &c.) is well marked in Terra
d’ Otranto and also in Terra di Bari, and even extends through the
Capitanata and the Basilicata (cf. D’ Ovidio,
Arch.
iv. 159-160).
As strongly marked in the Terra d’Otranto is the insular phenomenon
of
ll
into
??
(
?r
), which is also very widely distributed through the
Neapolitan territories on the eastern side of the Apennines, sending
outshoots even to the Abruzzo. But in Terra d’Otranto we are
already in the midst of the diphthongs of
?
and of
?
, both non-positional
and positional, the development or permanence of which
is determined by the quality of the unaccented final vowel,?as
generally happens in the dialects of the south. The diphthongs of
?
and
?
, determined by final -
i
and -
u
, are also characteristic of
central and northern Calabria (
viecchiu
-
i
, vecchio -a,
vecchia
-
e
,
vecchia -e;
buonu
-
i
,
bona
-
e
, &c. &c.). Thus there comes to be a
treatment of the vowels, peculiar to the two peninsulas of Calabria
and Salent. The diphthongal product of the
o
is here
ue
. The
following are examples from the Lecce variety of the dialect:
core
,
pl.
cueri
;
metu
,
mieti
,
mete
, mieto, mieti, miete (Lat. m?tere);
sentu
,
sienti
,
sente
;
olu
,
ueli
,
ola
, volo, voli, vola;
mordu
,
muerdi
,
morde
. The
ue
recalls the fundamental reduction which belongs to
the Gallic (not to speak of the Spanish) regions, and stretches
through the north of the Terra di Bari, where there are other diphthongs
curiously suggestive of the Gallic:
e.g.
at Bitonto alongside
of
luech?
, luogo,
su?nn?
, sonno, we have the
oi
and the
ai
from
i
or
?
of the previous phase (
v??oin?
, vicino), and the
au
from
o
of the
previous phase (
anaur?
, onore), besides a diphthongal disturbance
of the
a
. Here also occurs the change of
a
into an
e
more or less
pure (thus, at Cisternino,
scunsulete
, sconsolata; at Canosa di
Puglia,
arruete
, arrivata;
n-ghepe
, “in capa,” that is, in capo); to
which may be added the continual weakening or elision of the
unaccented vowels not only at the end but in the body of the word
(thus, at Bitonto,
v?ndett
,
spranz
). A similar type meets us as we
cross into Capitanata (Cerignola:
grait?
and
gr?i
-, creta (but also
p?it?
, piede, &c.),
cout?
, coda (but also
four?
, fuori, &c.);
v?in?
,
vino, and similarly
p?il?
, pelo (Neap.
pilo
), &c.;
fu?k?
, fuoco;
car?tat?
, carita,
parla
, parlare, &c.); such forms being apparently
the outposts of the Abruzzan, which, however, is only reached
through the Molise?a district not very populous even now, and
still more thinly peopled in bygone days?whose prevailing forms
of speech in some measure interrupt the historical continuity of the
dialects of the Adriatic versant, presenting, as it were, an irruption
from the other side of the Apennines. In the head valley of the
Molise, at Agnone, the legitimate precursors of the Abruzzan
vernaculars reappear (
feafa
, fava,
stufeate
and -
uote
, stufo, annojato,
fea
, fare;
chiezza
, piazza,
chiegne
, piangere,
cuene
, cane;
puole
,
palo,
pruote
, prato,
cuone
, cane;
veire
and
vaire
, vero,
moile
, melo,
and similarly voive and veive, vivo;
deune
, dono,
deuva
, doga;
minaure
, minore;
cuerpe
, corpo, but
cuolle
). The following are pure
Abruzzan examples. (1) From Bucchianico (Abruzzo Citeriore):
veiv?
, vivo;
rraj?
, re;
allaure
, allora;
craune
, corona;
cirche
,
cercare;
mel?
, male;
grenn?
, grande;
quenn?
; but ’
nsultate
,
insultata;
strade
, strada (where again it is seen that the reduction
of the
a
depends on the quality of the final unaccented vowel, and
that it is not produced exclusively by
i
, which would give rise to a
further reduction:
scillarite
, scellerati;
ampire
, impari). (2) From
Pratola Peligna (Abruzzo Ulteriore II.);
maj?
, mia; ’
naure
, onore;
’
njuriete
, inguriata;
desperete
, disperata (alongside of
venneca
, vendicare).
It almost appears that a continuity with Emilian
[11]
ought to be
established across the Marches (where another irruption of greater
“Italianity” has taken place; a third of more dubious origin has
been indicated for Venice, C. 1); see
Arch.
ii., 445. A negative
characteristic for Abruzzan is the absence of the change in the
third syllable of the combinations
pl
,
bl
,
fl
(into
kj
,
j-
,
?
) and the
reason seems evident. Here the
pj
,
bj
and
fj
themselves appear to
be modern or of recent reduction?the ancient formulae sometimes
occurring intact (as in the Bergamasc for Upper Italy),
e.g. planje
and
pranje
alongside of
pianje
, piagnere,
branghe
alongside of
bianghe
, bianco (Fr.
blanc
),
flume
and
frume
alongside
fiume
, fiume.
To the south of the Abruzzi begins and in the Abruzzi grows prominent
that contrast in regard to the formulae
alt ald
(resolved in
the Neapolitan and Sicilian into
aut
, &c., just as in the Piedmontese,
&c.), by which the types
aldare
, altare, and
call?
, caldo, are reached.
[12]
For the rest, when the condition and connexions of the vowel system
still retained by so large a proportion of the dialects of the eastern
versant of the Neapolitan Apennines, and the difference which
exists in regard to the preservation of the unaccented vowels between
the Ligurian and the Gallo-Italic forms of speech on the other
versant of the northern Apennines, are considered, one cannot fail
to see how much justice there is in the longitudinal or Apenninian
partition of the Italian dialects indicated by Dante.?But, to continue,
in the Basilicata, which drains into the Gulf of Taranto, and
may be said to lie within the Apennines, not only is the elision of
final unaccented vowels a prevailing characteristic; there are also
frequent elisions of the unaccented vowels within the word. Thus
at Matera:
sintenn la femn chessa cos
, sentendo la femina questa
cosa;
disprat
, disperata; at Saponara di Grumento:
uomnn’
scilrati
, uomini scellerati;
mnetta
, vendetta.?But even if we return
to the Mediterranean versant and, leaving the Sicilian type of the
Calabrias, retrace our steps till we pass into the Neapolitan pure
and simple, we find that even in Naples the unaccented final vowels
behave badly, the labial turning to
?
(
biell?
, bello) and even the
a
(
bell?
) being greatly weakened. And here occurs a Palaeo-Italic
instance which is worth mention: while Latin was accustomed to
drop the u of its nominative only in presence of
r
(
gener
from *gener-u-s,
vir
from *vir-u-s; cf. the Tuscan or Italian apocopated forms
vener
= venere,
venner
= vennero, &c.), Oscan and Umbrian go much
farther: Oscan, hurz = *hort-u-s, Lat. hortus; Umbr.
pihaz
, piatus;
emps
, emptus, &c. In Umbrian inscriptions we find
u
alternating
with the
a
of the nom. sing. fem. and plur. neut. In complete
contrast with the Sicilian vocalism is the Neapolitan
e
for unaccented
and particularly final
i
of the Latin and Neo-Latin or Italian phases
(
e.g. viene
, vieni; cf.
infra
), to say nothing further of the regular
diphthongization, within certain limits, of accented
e
or
o
in position
(
apiert?
, aperto, fem.
aperta
;
muort?
, morto, fem.
morta
, &c.).?In
the quasi-morphological domain it is to be noted how the Siculo-Calabrian
u
for the ancient
?
and
?
, and the Siculo-Calabrian
i
for
the ancient
?
,
?
, are also still found in the Neapolitan, and, in particular,
that they alternate with
o
and
e
in a manner that is determined
by the difference of termination. Thus
cosetore
, cucitore, pl.
coseture
(
i.e. coseturi
, the
-i
passing into
e
in keeping with the Neapolitan
characteristic already mentioned);
russ?
, Ital. rosso,
-i
;
rossa -?
,
Ital. rossa -e;
no?e
,
noce
, pl.
nuce
;
cred?
, io credo;
cride
(*cridi),
tu credi;
crede
, egli crede;
nigr?
, but
negra
.
Passing now to a cursory mention of purely morphological phenomena,
we begin with that form which is referred to the Latin pluperfect
(see A. 1, B. 2), but which here too performs the functions of
the conditional. Examples from the living dialects of (1) Calabria
Citeriore are
faceru
, farei (Castrovillari);
tu te la collerre
, tu te
l’acolleresti (Cosenza);
l’a??ettera
, l’accetterebbe (Grimaldi); and
from those of (2) the Abruzzi,
vuler’
, vorrei (Castelli);
dere
, darei
(Atessa);
candere
, canterei. For the dialects of the Abruzzi, we
can check our observations by examples from the oldest chronicle
of Aquila, as
non habera lassato
, non avrebbe lasciato (str. 180)
(cf.
negara
, Ital. negherei, in old MS. of the Marches). There are
some interesting remains (more or less corrupted both in form and
usage) of ancient consonantal terminations which have not yet
been sufficiently studied:
s’ incaricaviti
, s’ incaricava, -abat (Basilicata,
Senise); ebbiti, ebbe (
ib.
);
aviadi
, aveva (Calabria, Grimaldi);
arrivaudi
, arrivo (
ib.
). The last example also gives the
-au
of
the 3rd pers. sing. perf. of the first conjugation, which still occurs in
Sicily and between the horns of the Neapolitan mainland. In the
Abruzzi (and in the Ascolan district) the 3rd person of the plural
is in process of disappearing (the
-no
having fallen away and the
preceding vowel being obscured), and its function is assumed by
the 3rd person singular; cf. C. 1.
[13]
The explanation of the Neapolitan
forms
songh?
, io sono, essi sono,
dongh?
, io do, stongh?, io sto,
as also of the enclitic of the 2nd person plural which exists,
e.g.
in
the Sicil.
avissivu
, Neap.
avistev?
, aveste, has been correctly given
more than once. It may be remarked in conclusion that this Neo-Latin
region keeps company with the Rumanian in maintaining in
large use the -ora derived from the ancient neuter plurals of the
type
tempora
; Sicil.
jocura
, giuochi; Calabr.
nidura
, Abruzz.
nid?re
, nidi, Neap.
ortola
(= -
ra
), orti, Capitanata
acur?
, aghi, Apulian
aceddere
(Tarantine
aceddiri
), uccelli, &c. It is in this region, and
more particularly in Capua, that we can trace the first appearance
of what can definitely be called Italian, as shown in a Latin legal
document of the year 960 (
sao co kelle terre per kelle fini qui ki contene
trenta anni le possette parte Sancti Benedicti
, Ital. “so che quelle terre
per quei confini che qui contiene trent ’anni le possedette la parte
di S. Benedetto”), and belongs more precisely to Capua. The
so-called
Carta Rossanese
(Calabria), written in a mixture of Latin
and vulgar tongue, belongs to the first decades of the 12th century;
while a document of Fondi (Campania) in the vulgar tongue goes
back to the last decades of the same century. Neapolitan documents
do not become abundant till the 14th century. The same
is true of the Abruzzi and of Apulia; in the case of the latter the
date should perhaps be put even later.
4.
Dialects of Umbria, the Marches and the Province of Rome.
?The
phenomena characteristic of the Gallo-Italian dialects can be
traced in the northern Marches in the dialects not only of the provinces
of Pesaro and Urbino (
Arch. glott.
ii. 444), where we note
also the constant dropping of the final vowels, strong elisions of
accented and unaccented vowels, the suffix -
ariu
becoming -
er
, &c.,
but also as far as Ancona and beyond. As in Ancona, the double
consonants are reduced to single ones; there are strong elisions
(
breta
, Ital. berretta;
blin
, Ital. bellino;
figurte
, Ital. “figurati”;
vermne
, Ital. verme, “vermine,” &c.); the -
k
- becomes
g
; the
s
,
?
.
At Jesi -
t
- and -
k
- become
d
and
g
, and the
g
is also found at Fabriano,
though here it is modified in the Southern fashion (
spia
=
spiga
,
Ital. spica). Examples are also found of the dropping of -
d
- primary
between vowels: Pesaran
raica
, Ital. radica; Fabr.
peo
; Ital. piede,
which are noteworthy in that they indicate an isolated Gallo-Italian
phenomenon, which is further traceable in Umbria (
peacchia
=
ped-, Ital. orma;
raica
and
raice
, Ital. radice;
trubio
, Ital. torbido;
fracio
, Ital. fracido; at Rieti also the dropping of the -
d
- is normal:
veo
, Ital. vedo;
fiatu
, Ital. fidato, &c.; and here too is found the
dropping of initial
d
for syntactical reasons:
ente
, Ital. dente, from
lu
[
d
]
ente)
. According to some scholars of the Marches, the
e
for
a
also extends as far as Ancona; and it is certainly continued from
the north, though it is precisely in the territory of the Marches that
Gallo-Italian and Abruzzan come into contact. The southern
part of the Marches (the basin of the Tronto), after all, is Abruzzan
in character. But the Abruzzan or Southern phenomena in general
are widely diffused throughout the whole of the region comprising
the Marches, Umbria, Latium and Aquila (for the territory of
Aquila, belonging as it does both geographically and politically
to the Abruzzi, is also attached linguistically to this group), which
with regard to certain phenomena includes also that part of Tuscany
lying to the south of the southern Ombrone. Further, the Tuscan
dialect strictly so called sends into the Marches a few of its characteristics,
and thus at Arcevia we have the pronunciation of -
?
-
between vowels as
?
(
formesce
, Ital. forbici),
[14]
and Ancona has no
changes of tonic vowels determined by the final vowel. Again,
Umbria and the Sabine territory, and some parts of the Roman
territory, are connected with Tuscany by the phenomenon of -
ajo
for
-
ariu
(
molinajo
, Ital. mugnaio, &c.). But, to come to the Abruzzan
Southern phenomena, we should note that the Abruzzan
ll
for
ld
extends into the central region (Norcia:
callu
, caldo; Rome:
ariscalla
, riscalda; the phenomenon, however, occurs also in Corsica);
and the assimilation of
nd
into
nn
, and of
mb
into
mm
stretches
through Umbria, the Marches and Rome, and even crosses from
the Roman province into southern Tuscany (Rieti:
quanno
, quando;
Spoleto:
comannava
, comandava; Assisi:
piagnenno
, piangendo;
Sanseverino Marches:
piagnenne
, ’
mmece
, invece (imbece); Fabriano:
vennecasse
, vendicarsi; Osimo:
monno
, mondo; Rome:
fronna
, fronda;
piommo
, piombo; Pitigliano (Tuscany):
quanno
,
piagnenno
). It is curious to note, side by side with this phenomenon,
in the same districts, that of
nd
for
nn
, which we still find and which
was more common in the past (
affando
, affanno, &c., see
Zeitschrift
fur roman. Philol.
xxii. 510). Even the diphthongs of the
e
and the
o
in position are largely represented. Examples are?at Norcia,
tiempi
,
uocchi
,
stuortu
; Assisi and Fabriano:
tiempo
; Orvieto:
tiempo
,
tierra
,
le tuorte
, li torti, and even
duonna
. The change of
preconsonantal
l
into
r
, so frequent throughout this region, and
particularly characteristic of Rome, is a phenomenon common to
the Aquilan dialect. Similar facts might be adduced in abundance.
And it is to be noted that the features common to Umbro-Roman
and the Neapolitan dialects must have been more numerous in the
past, as this was the region where the Tuscan current met the
southern, and by reason of its superior culture gradually gained the
ascendancy.
[15]
Typical for the whole district (except the Marches)
is the reduction to
ł
(and later to
j
) of
ll
and of
l
initial, when followed
by
i
or
u
(Velletri,
łuna
,
łuce
; Sora,
juna
, Ital. luna,
jima
, Ital.
lima; melica. Ital. mollica,
bełe?
, Ital. belli, bello, in vulgar Latin
bellu
; but
bella
, bella, &c.). The phonological connexions between
the Northern Umbrian, the Aretine, and the Gallo-Italic type have
already been indicated (B. 2). In what relates to morphology, the
-
?rno
of the 3rd pers. plur. of the perfect of the first conjugation has
been pointed out as an essential peculiarity of the Umbro-Roman
territory; but even this it shares with the Aquila vernaculars,
which, moreover, extend it to the other conjugations (
amorno
,
timorono
, &c.), exactly like the -
o
of the 3rd person singular. Further,
this termination is found also in the Tuscan dialects.
Throughout almost the whole district should be noted the distinction
between the masculine and neuter substantive, expressed by means of
the article, the distinction being that the neuter substantive has an
abstract and indeterminate signification;
e.g.
at S. Ginesio, in the
Marches,
lu pesce
, but
lo pesce
, of fish in general, as food, &c.; at Sora
łe wetre?
, the sheet of glass, but
le? wetre?
, glass, the material, original
substance.
[16]
As to the inflection of verbs, there is in the ancient texts
of the region a notable prevalence of perfect form in the formation
of the imperfect conjunctive;
tolzesse
, Ital. togliesse;
sostenesse
, Ital.
sostenesse;
conubbessero
, Ital. conoscessero, &c. In the northern
Marches, we should note the preposition sa, Ital. con (
sa lia
, Ital. con
lei), going back to a type similar to that of the Ital. “con-esso.”
In a large part of Umbria an
m
or
t
is prefixed to the sign
of the dative:
t-a lu
, a lui;
m-al re
, al re;
[17]
which must be the
remains of the auxiliary prepositions
int
(
us
),
a
(
m
)
pud
, cf. Prov.
amb
,
am
(cf.
Arch.
ii. 444-446). By means of the series of
Perugine texts this group of dialects may be traced back with
confidence to the 13th century; and to this region should also
belong a “Confession,” half Latin half vernacular, dating from
about the 11th century, edited and annotated by Flechia (
Arch.
vii. 121 sqq.). The “chronicle” of Monaldeschi has been already
mentioned. The MSS. of the Marches go back to the beginning of
the 13th century and perhaps still further back. For Roman (see
Monaci,
Rendic. dell’ Accad. dei Lincei
, xvi. 103 sqq.) there is a short
inscription of the 11th century. To the 13th century belongs the
Liber historiarum Romanorum
(Monaci,
Archivio della Societa rom.
di storia patria
, xii.; and also,
Rendic. dei Lincei
, i. 94 sqq.), and
to the first half of the same century the
Formole volgari
of Raineri
da Perugia (Monaci,
ib.
, xiv. 268 sqq.). There are more abundant
texts for all parts of this district in the 14th century, to which also
belongs the
Cronica Aquilana
of Buccio di Ranallo, republished by
De Bartholomaeis (Rome, 1907).
D.
Tuscan
,
and the Literary Language of the Italians.
We have now only to deal with the Tuscan territory. It is
bounded on the W. by the sea. To the north it terminates with
the Apennines; for Romagna Toscana, the strip of country on
the Adriatic versant which belongs to it administratively, is
assigned to Emilia as regards dialect. In the north-west also
the Emilian presses on the Tuscan, extending as it does down the
Mediterranean slope of the Apennines in Lunigiana and Garfagnana.
Intrusions which may be called Emilian have also been
noted to the west of the Apennines in the district where the
Arno and the Tiber take their rise (Aretine dialects); and it has
been seen how thence to the sea the Umbrian and Roman
dialects surround the Tuscan. Such are the narrow limits of the
“promised land” of the language which has succeeded and was
worthy to succeed Latin in the history of Italian culture and
civilization,?the land which comprises Florence, Siena, Lucca
and Pisa. The Tuscan type may be best described by the
negative method. There do not exist in it, on the one hand, any
of those phenomena by which the other dialectal types of Italy
mainly differ from the Latin base (such as
u
=
??
; frequent
elision of unaccented vowels;
ba = gua
;
? = fl
;
nn = nd
, &c.),
nor, on the other hand, is there any series of alterations of the
Latin base peculiar to the Tuscan. This twofold negative
description may further serve for the Tuscan or literary Italian
as contrasted with all the other Neo-Latin languages; indeed,
even where the Tuscan has a tendency to alterations common to
other types of the family, it shows itself more sober and self-denying?as
may be seen in the reduction of the
t
between
vowels into
d
or of
c
(
k
) between vowels into
g
, which in Italian
affects only a small part of the lexical series, while in Provencal
or Spanish it may be said to pervade the whole (
e.g.
Prov. and
Span.
mudar
, Ital.
mutare
; Prov.
segur
, Span.
seguro
, Ital.
sicuro
). It may consequently be affirmed without any partiality
that, in respect to historical nobility, the Italian not only holds
the first rank among Neo-Latin languages, but almost constitutes
an intermediate grade between the ancient or Latin and the
modern or Romance. What has just been said about the Tuscan,
as compared with the other dialectal types of Italy, does not,
however, preclude the fact that in the various Tuscan veins,
and especially in the plebeian forms of speech, there occur
particular instances of phonetic decay; but these must of
necessity be ignored in so brief a sketch as the present. We
shall confine ourselves to noting?what has a wide territorial
diffusion?the reduction of
c
(
k
) between vowels to a mere
breathing (
e.g. f?oho
, fuoco, but
porco
), or even its complete
elision; the same phenomenon occurs also between word and
word (
e.g. la hasa
, but
in casa
), thus illustrating anew that
syntactic class of phonetic alterations, either qualitative or
quantitative, conspicuous in this region, also, which has been
already discussed for insular and southern Italy (B. 2; C. 2, 3),
and could be exemplified for the Roman region as well (C. 4).
As regards one or two individual phenomena, it must also be
confessed that the Tuscan or literary Italian is not so well
preserved as some other Neo-Latin tongues. Thus, French
always keeps in the beginning of words the Latin formulae
cl
,
pl
,
fl
(
clef
,
plaisir
,
fleur
, in contrast with the Italian
chiave
,
piacere
,
fiore
); but the Italian makes up for this by the greater
vigour with which it is wont to resolve the same formula within
the words, and by the greater symmetry thus produced between
the two series (in opposition to the French
clef
, clave, we have,
for example, the French
œil
, oclo; whereas, in the Italian,
chiave
and
occhio
correspond to each other). The Italian as
well as the Rumanian has lost the ancient sibilant at the end
(-
s
of the plurals, of the nominative singular, of the 2nd persons,
&c.), which throughout the rest of the Romance area has been
preserved more or less tenaciously; and consequently it stands
lower than old Provencal and old French, as far as true declension
or, more precisely, the functional distinction between the forms
of the
casus rectus
and the
casus obliquus
is concerned. But
even in this respect the superiority of French and Provencal
has proved merely transitory, and in their modern condition
all the Neo-Latin forms of speech are generally surpassed by
Italian even as regards the pure grammatical consistency of the
noun. In conjugation Tuscan has lost that tense which for the
sake of brevity we shall continue to call the pluperfect indicative;
though it still survives outside of Italy and in other dialectal
types of Italy itself (C. 3
b
; cf. B. 2). It has also lost the
futurum
exactum
, or perfect subjunctive, which is found in Spanish and
Rumanian. But no one would on that account maintain that
the Italian conjugation is less truly Latin than the Spanish,
the Rumanian, or that of any other Neo-Latin language. It
is, on the contrary, by far the most distinctively Latin as regards
the tradition both of form and function, although many effects
of the principle of analogy are to be observed, sometimes common
to Italian with the other Neo-Latin languages and sometimes
peculiar to itself.
Those who find it hard to believe in the ethnological explanation
of linguistic varieties ought to be convinced by any example
so clear as that which Italy presents in the difference between
the Tuscan or purely Italian type on the one side and the Gallo-Italic
on the other. The names in this instance correspond
exactly to the facts of the case. For the Gallo-Italic on either
side of the Alps is evidently nothing else than a modification?varying
in degree, but always very great?of the vulgar Latin,
due to the reaction of the language or rather the oral tendencies
of the Celts who succumbed to the Roman civilization. In
other words, the case is one of new ethnic individualities arising
from the fusion of two national entities, one of which, numerically
more or less weak, is so far victorious that its speech is adopted,
while the other succeeds in adapting that speech to its own habits
of utterance. Genuine Italian, on the other hand, is not the
result of the combination or conflict of the vulgar Latin with other
tongues, but is the pure development of this alone. In other
words, the case is that of an ancient national fusion in which
vulgar Latin itself originated. Here that is native which in the
other case was intrusive. This greater purity of constitution
gives the language a persistency which approaches permanent
stability. There is no Old Italian to oppose to Modern Italian
in the same sense as we have an Old French to oppose to a
Modern French. It is true that in the old French writers, and
even in the writers who used the dialects of Upper Italy, there
was a tendency to bring back the popular forms to their ancient
dignity; and it is true also that the Tuscan or literary Italian
has suffered from the changes of centuries; but nevertheless it
remains undoubted that in the former cases we have to deal with
general transformations between old and new, while in the latter
it is evident that the language of Dante continues to be the
Italian of modern speech and literature. This character of
invariability has thus been in direct proportion to the purity of
its Latin origin, while, on the contrary, where popular Latin has
been adopted by peoples of foreign speech, the elaboration which
it has undergone along the lines of their oral tendencies becomes
always the greater the farther we get away from the point at
which the Latin reached them,?in proportion, that is, to the
time and space through which it has been transmitted in these
foreign mouths.
[18]
As for the primitive seat of the literary language of Italy, not
only must it be regarded as confined within the limits of that
narrower Tuscany already described; strictly speaking, it must
be identified with the city of Florence alone. Leaving out of
account, therefore, a small number of words borrowed from other
Italian dialects, as a certain number have naturally been borrowed
from foreign tongues, it may be said that all that was not Tuscan
was eliminated from the literary form of speech. If we go back
to the time of Dante, we find, throughout almost all the dialects of
the mainland with the exception of Tuscan, the change of vowels
between singular and plural seen in
paese
,
paisi
;
quello
,
quilli
;
amore
,
amuri
(see B. 1; C. 3
b
); but the literary language
knows nothing at all of such a phenomenon, because it was
unknown to the Tuscan region. But in Tuscan itself there were
differences between Florentine and non-Florentine; in Florentine,
e.g.
it was and is usual to say
unto
,
giunto
,
punto
, while the non-Florentine
had it
onto
,
gionto
,
ponto
, (Lat.
unctu
, &c.); at
Florence they say
piazza
,
me??o
, while elsewhere (at Lucca, Pisa)
they say or used to say,
piassa
,
me??o
. Now, it is precisely the
Florentine forms which alone have currency in the literary
language.
In the ancient compositions in the vulgar tongue, especially in
poetry, non-Tuscan authors on the one hand accommodated
their own dialect to the analogy of that which they felt to be the
purest representative of the language of ancient Roman culture,
while the Tuscan authors in their turn did not refuse to adopt
the forms which had received the rights of citizenship from the
literary celebrities of other parts of Italy. It was this state of
matters which gave rise in past times to the numerous disputes
about the true fatherland and origin of the literary language of
the Italians. But these have been deprived of all right to exist by
the scientific investigation of the history of that language. If
the older Italian poetry assumed or maintained forms alien to
Tuscan speech, these forms were afterwards gradually eliminated,
and the field was left to those which were purely Tuscan and
indeed purely Florentine. And thus it remains absolutely true
that, so far as phonetics, morphology, rudimental syntax, and in
short the whole character and material of words and sentences
are concerned, there is no literary language of Europe that is
more thoroughly characterized by homogeneity and oneness, as
if it had come forth in a single cast from the furnace, than the
Italian.
But on the other hand it remains equally true that, so far as
concerns a living confidence and uniformity in the use and style
of the literary language?that is, of this Tuscan or Florentine
material called to nourish the civilization and culture of all the
Italians?the case is not a little altered, and the Italian nation
appears to enjoy less fortunate conditions than other nations of
Europe. Modern Italy had no glowing centre for the life of the
whole nation into which and out of which the collective thought
and language could be poured in ceaseless current for all and by
all. Florence has not been Paris. Territorial contiguity and the
little difference of the local dialect facilitated in the modern
Rome the elevation of the language of conversation to a level
with the literary language that came from Tuscany. A form of
speech was thus produced which, though certainly destitute of
the grace and the abundant flexibility of the Florentine, gives
a good idea of what the dialect of a city becomes when it makes
itself the language of a nation that is ripening its civilization in
many and dissimilar centres. In such a case the dialect loses its
slang and petty localisms, and at the same time also somewhat
of its freshness; but it learns to express with more conscious
sobriety and with more assured dignity the thought and the
feeling of the various peoples which are fused in one national
life. But what took place readily in Rome could not with equal
ease happen in districts whose dialects were far removed from
the Tuscan. In Piedmont, for example, or in Lombardy, the
language of conversation did not correspond with the language of
books, and the latter accordingly became artificial and laboured.
Poetry was least affected by these unfortunate conditions; for
poetry may work well with a multiform language, where the need
and the stimulus of the author’s individuality assert themselves
more strongly. But prose suffered immensely, and the Italians
had good cause to envy the spontaneity and confidence of foreign
literatures?of the French more particularly. In this reasonable
envy lay the justification and the strength of the Manzoni
school, which aimed at that absolute naturalness of the
literary language, that absolute identity between the language
of conversation and that of books, which the bulk of the
Italians could reach and maintain only by naturalizing themselves
in the living speech of modern Florence. The revolt of
Manzoni against artificiality and mannerism in language and
style was worthy of his genius, and has been largely fruitful.
But the historical difference between the case of France (with the
colloquial language of Paris) and that of Italy (with the colloquial
language of Florence) implies more than one difficulty of
principle; in the latter case there is sought to be produced by
deliberate effort of the
literati
what in the former has been and
remains the necessary and spontaneous product of the entire
civilization. Manzoni’s theories too easily lent themselves to
deplorable exaggerations; men fell into a new artificiality, a
manner of writing which might be called vulgar and almost slangy.
The remedy for this must lie in the regulating power of the labour
of the now regenerate Italian intellect,?a labour ever growing
wider in its scope, more assiduous and more thoroughly united.
The most ancient document in the Tuscan dialect is a very
short fragment of a jongleur’s song (12th century; see Monaci,
Crestomazia
, 9-10). After that there is nothing till the 13th
century. P. Santini has published the important and fairly
numerous fragments of a book of notes of some Florentine
bankers, of the year 1211. About the middle of the century, our
attention is arrested by the
Memoriali
of the Sienese Matasala di
Spinello. To 1278 belongs the MS. in which is preserved the
Pistojan version of the
Trattati morali
of Albertano, which we
owe to Sofredi del Grathia. The Riccardian
Tristano
, published
and annotated by E. G. Parodi, seems to belong to the end of the
13th and beginning of the 14th centuries. For other 13th-century
writings see Monaci,
op. cit.
31-32, 40, and Parodi,
Giornale storico della letteratura italiana
, x. 178-179. For the
question concerning language, see Ascoli,
Arch. glott.
i. v. et
seq.; D’ Ovidio,
Le Correzioni ai Promessi Sposi e la questione
della lingua
, 4th ed. Naples, 1895.
Literature.
?K. L. Fernow in the third volume of his
Romische
Studien
(Zurich, 1806?1808) gave a good survey of the dialects of
Italy. The dawn of rigorously scientific methods had not then
appeared; but Fernow’s view is wide and genial. Similar praise
is due to Biondelli’s work
Sui dialetti gallo-italici
(Milan, 1853),
which, however, is still ignorant of Diez. August Fuchs, between
Fernow and Biondelli, had made himself so far acquainted with the
new methods; but his exploration (
Uber die sogenannten unregelmassigen
Zeitworter in den romanischen Sprachen, nebst Andeutungen
uber die wichtigsten romanischen Mundarten
, Berlin, 1840), though
certainly of utility, was not very successful. Nor can the rapid
survey of the Italian dialects given by Friedrich Diez be ranked
among the happiest portions of his great masterpiece. Among the
followers of Diez who distinguished themselves in this department
the first outside of Italy were certainly Mussafia, a cautious and clear
continuator of the master, and the singularly acute Hugo Schuchardt.
Next came the
Archivio glottologico italiano
(Turin, 1873 and onwards.
Up to 1897 there were published 16 vols.), the lead in which was taken
by Ascoli and G. Flechia (d. 1892), who, together with the Dalmatian
Adolf Mussafia (d. 1906), may be looked upon as the founders of
the study of Italian dialects, and who have applied to their writings
a rigidly methodical procedure and a historical and comparative
standard, which have borne the best fruit. For historical studies
dealing specially with the literary language, Nannucci, with his
good judgment and breadth of view, led the way; we need only
mention here his
Analisi critica dei verbi italiani
(Florence, 1844).
But the new method was to show how much more it was to and
did effect. When this movement on the part of the scholars mentioned
above became known, other enthusiasts soon joined them,
and the
Arch. glottologico
developed into a school, which began to
produce many prominent works on language [among the first in
order of date and merit may be mentioned “Gli Allotropi italiani,”
by U. A. Canello (1887),
Arch. glott.
iii. 285-419; and
Le Origini
della lingua poetica italiana
, by N. Caix (d. 1882), (Florence, 1880)],
and studies on the dialects. We shall here enumerate those of
them which appear for one reason or another to have been the most
notable. But, so far as works of a more general nature are concerned,
we should first state that there have been other theories as
to the classification of the Italian dialects (see also above the various
notes on B. 1, 2 and C. 2) put forward by W. Meyer-Lubke (
Einfuhrung
in das Studium der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft
, Heidelberg,
1901; pp. 21-22), and M. Bartoli (
Altitalienische Chrestomathie,
von P. Savj-Lopez und M. Bartoli
, Strassburg, 1903, pp. 171 et seq.
193 et seq., and the table at the end of the volume). W. Meyer-Lubke
afterwards filled in details of the system which he had sketched
in Grober’s
Grundriss der romanischen Philologie
, i., 2nd ed. (1904),
pp. 696 et seq. And from the same author comes that masterly
work, the
Italienische Grammatik
(Leipzig, 1890), where the language
and its dialects are set out in one organic whole, just as they are
placed together in the concise chapter devoted to Italian in the
above-mentioned
Grundriss
(pp. 637 et seq.). We will now give the
list, from which we omit, however, the works quoted incidentally
throughout the text: B. 1
a
: Parodi,
Arch. glott.
xiv. 1 sqq.,
xv. 1 sqq., xvi. 105 sqq. 333 sqq.;
Poesie in dial. tabbiese del sec.
XVII. illustrate da E. G. Parodi
(Spezia, 1904); Schadel,
Die Mundart
von Ormea
(Halle, 1903); Parodi,
Studj romanzi
, fascic. v.; b:
Giacomino,
Arch. glott.
xv. 403 sqq.; Toppino, ib. xvi. 517 sqq.;
Flechia, ib. xiv. 111 sqq.; Nigra,
Miscell. Ascoli
(Turin, 1901),
247 sqq.; Renier,
Il Gelindo
(Turin, 1896); Salvioni,
Rendiconti
Istituto lombardo
, s. ii., vol. xxxvii. 522, sqq.; c: Salvioni,
Fonetica
del dialetto di Milano
(Turin, 1884);
Studi di filol. romanza
, viii.
1 sqq.;
Arch. glott.
ix. 188 sqq. xiii. 355 sqq.;
Rendic. Ist. lomb.
s. ii., vol. xxxv. 905 sqq.; xxxix. 477 sqq.; 505 sqq. 569 sqq.
603 sqq., xl. 719 sqq.;
Bollettino storico della Svizzera italiana
,
xvii. and xviii.; Michael,
Der Dialekt des Poschiavotals
(Halle,
1905); v. Ettmayer,
Bergamaskische Alpenmundarten
(Leipzig,
1903);
Romanische Forschungen
, xiii. 321 sqq.;
d
: Mussafia,
Darstellung der romagnolischen Mundart
(Vienna, 1871); Gaudenzi,
I Suoni ecc. della citta di Bologna
(Turin, 1889); Ungarelli,
Vocab.
del dial. bologn. con una introduzione di A. Trauzzi sulla fonetica e
sulla morfologia del dialetto
(Bologna, 1901); Bertoni,
Il Dialetto di
Modena
(Turin, 1905); Pulle, “Schizzo dei dialetti del Frignano”
in
L’ Apennino modenese
. 673 sqq. (Rocca S. Casciano, 1895);
Piagnoli,
Fonetica parmigiana
(Turin, 1904); Restori,
Note fonetiche
sui parlari dell’ alta valle di Macra
(Leghorn, 1892); Gorra,
Zeitschrift
fur romanische Philologie
, xvi. 372 sqq.; xiv. 133 sqq.;
Nicoli,
Studi di filologia romanza
, viii. 197 sqq. B. 2: Hofmann,
Die logudoresische und campidanesische Mundart
(Marburg, 1885);
Wagner,
Lautlehre der sudsardischen Mundarten
(Malle a. S., 1907);
Campus,
Fonetica del dialetto logudorese
(Turin, 1901); Guarnerio,
Arch. glott.
xiii. 125 sqq., xiv. 131 sqq., 385 sqq. C. 1: Rossi,
Le
Lettere di Messer Andrea Calmo
(Turin, 1888); Wendriner,
Die
paduanische Mundart bei Ruzante
(Breslau, 1889);
Le Rime di
Bartolomeo Cavassico notaio bellunese della prima meta del sec. xvi.
con illustraz. e note di v. Cian, e con illustrazioni linguistiche e lessico
a cura di C. Salvioni
(2 vols., Bologna, 1893?1894); Gartner,
Zeitschr. fur roman. Philol.
xvi. 183 sqq., 306 sqq.; Salvioni,
Arch.
glott.
xvi. 245 sqq.; Vidossich,
Studi sul dialetto triestino
(Triest,
1901);
Zeitschr. fur rom. Phil.
xxvii. 749 sqq.; Ascoli,
Arch. glott.
xiv. 325 sqq.; Schneller,
Die romanischen Volksmundarten in
Sudtirol
, i. (Gera, 1870); von Slop,
Die tridentinische Mundart
(Klagenfurt, 1888); Ive,
I Dialetti ladino-veneti dell’ Istria
(Strassburg,
1900). C. 2: Guarnerio,
Arch. glott.
xiii. 125 sqq., xiv. 131
sqq., 385 sqq. C. 3
a
: Wentrup-Pitre, in Pitre,
Fiabe, novelle e
racconti popolari siciliani
, vol. i., pp. cxviii. sqq.; Schneegans,
Laute und Lautentwickelung des sicil. Dialektes
(Strassburg, 1888);
De Gregorio,
Saggio di fonetica siciliana
(Palermo, 1890); Pirandello,
Laute und Lautentwickelung der Mundart von Girgenti
(Halle, 1891);
Cremona,
Fonetica del Caltagironese
(Acireale, 1895); Santangelo,
Arch. glott. xvi. 479 sqq.; La Rosa,
Saggi di morfologia siciliana
, i.
Sostantivi
(Noto, 1901); Salvioni,
Rendic. Ist. lomb.
s. ii., vol. xl.
1046 sqq., 1106 sqq., 1145 sqq.;
b
: Scerbo,
Sul dialetto calabro
(Florence, 1886); Accattati’s,
Vocabolario del dial. calabrese
(Castrovillari,
1895); Gentili,
Fonetica del dialetto cosentino
(Milan, 1897);
Wentrup,
Beitrage zur Kenntniss der neapolitanischen Mundart
(Wittenberg, 1855); Subak,
Die Konjugation im Neapolitanischen
(Vienna, 1897); Morosi,
Arch. glott.
iv. 117 sqq.; De Noto,
Appunti
di fonetica sul dial. di Taranto
(Trani, 1897); Subak,
Das Zeitwort
in der Mundart von Tarent
(Brunn, 1897); Panareo,
Fonetica del
dial. di Maglie d’ Otranto
(Milan, 1903); Nitti di Vito,
Il Dial. di
Bari
, part 1, “Vocalismo moderno” (Milan, 1896); Abbatescianni,
Fonologia del dial. barese
(Avellino, 1896); Zingarelli,
Arch. glott.
xv. 83 sqq., 226 sqq.; Ziccardi,
Studi glottologici
, iv. 171 sqq.;
D’ Ovidio,
Arch. glott.
iv. 145 sqq., 403 sqq.; Finamore,
Vocabolario
dell’ uso abruzzese
(2nd ed., Citta di Castello, 1893); Rollin,
Mitteilung
XIV. der Gesellschaft zur Forderung deutscher Wissenschaft
,
Kunst und Literatur in Bohmen
(Prague, 1901); De Lollis,
Arch.
glott.
xii. 1 sqq., 187 sqq.;
Miscell. Ascoli
, 275 sqq.; Savini,
La
Grammatica e il lessico del dial. teramano
(Turin, 1881). C. 4: Merlo,
Zeitschr. f. roman. Phil.
, xxx. 11 sqq., 438 sqq., xxxi. 157 sqq.;
E. Monaci (notes on old Roman),
Rendic. dei Lincei
, Feb. 21st, 1892,
p. 94 sqq.; Rossi-Case,
Bollett. di stor. patria degli Abruzzi
, vi.;
Crocioni,
Miscell. Monaci
, pp. 429 sqq.; Ceci,
Arch. glott.
x. 167
sqq.; Parodi,
ib.
xiii. 299 sqq.; Campanelli,
Fonetica del dial.
reatino
(Turin, 1896); Verga,
Sonetti e altre poesie di R. Torelli in
dial. perugino
(Milan, 1895); Bianchi,
Il Dialetto e la etnografia di
Citta di Castello
(Citta di Castello, 1888); Neumann-Spallart,
Zeitschrift fur roman. Phil.
xxviii. 273 sqq., 450 sqq.;
Weitere
Beitrage zur Charakteristik des Dialektes der Marche
(Halle a. S.,
1907); Crocioni,
Studi di fil. rom.
, ix. 617 sqq.;
Studi romanzi
,
fasc. 3°, 113 sqq.,
Il Dial. di Arcevia
(Rome, 1906); Lindsstrom,
Studi romanzi
, fasc. 5°, 237 sqq.; Crocioni, ib. 27 sqq. D.: Parodi,
Romania
, xviii.; Schwenke,
De dialecto quae carminibus popularibus
tuscanicis a Tigrio editis continetur
(Leipzig, 1872); Pieri,
Arch.
glott.
xii. 107 sqq., 141 sqq., 161 sqq.;
Miscell. Caix-Canello
, 305
sqq.;
Note sul dialetto aretino
(Pisa, 1886);
Zeitschr. fur rom.
Philol.
xxviii. 161 sqq.; Salvioni,
Arch. glott.
xvi. 395 sqq.; Hirsch,
Zeitschrift f. rom. Philol.
ix. 513 sqq., x. 56 sqq., 411 sqq. For researches
on the etymology of all the Italian dialects, but chiefly of
those of Northern Italy, the
Beitrag zur Kunde der norditalienischen
Mundarten im XV. Jahrhundert
of Ad. Mussafia (Vienna, 1873) and
the
Postille etimologiche
of Giov. Flechia (
Arch. glott.
ii., iii.) are of
the greatest importance. Biondelli’s book is of no small service also
for the numerous translations which it contains of the Prodigal
Son into Lombard, Piedmontese and Emilian dialects. A dialogue
translated into the vernaculars of all parts of Italy will be found in
Zuccagni Orlandini’s
Raccolta di dialetti italiani con illustrazioni
etnologiche
(Florence, 1864). And every dialectal division is abundantly
represented in a series of versions of a short novel of Boccaccio,
which Papanti has published under the title
I Parlari
italiani in Certaldo
, &c. (Leghorn, 1875).
[A very valuable and rich collection of dialectal essays on the
most ancient documents for all parts of Italy is to be found in the
Crestomazia italiana dei primi secoli
of E. Monaci (Citta di Castello,
1889?1897); see also in the
Altitalienische Chrestomathie
of P. Savj-Lopez
and M. Bartoli (Strassburg, 1903).]
(
G. I. A.
;
C. S.*
)