Linguistic Society of America

Intervocalic l in UmbrianAuthor(s): James W. PoultneySource: Language, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1949), pp. 395-401Published by: Linguistic Society of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/409867 .Accessed: 11/04/2011 15:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lsa. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language.

http://www.jstor.org

INTERVOCALIC 1 IN UMBRIAN

JAMES W. POULTNEY

The Johns Hopkins University

For approximately a century students of the Iguvine Tables have recognized that the Umbrian phoneme represented by r in the native alphabet and by rs in the Latin alphabet must in a few cases, when in intervocalic position, be etymologically equated not with Latin d but with 1.1 The theory did not at first win universal acceptance in the sense that i may be derived from original 1; some accepted d as the only possible source of f and explained the Latin 1 as secondary or else denied the etymologies which assumed the change 1 >

r.- Since the originality of the 1 in some cases is proved by cognates outside Italic, provided we accept the etymological equations (and some of them can scarcely be denied), practically all scholars now accept the change 1 > r for at least a few words. Von Planta (loc.cit. fn. 1) carefully examined the forms alleged to exemplify the change, attempting to define the conditions under which it oc- curred, and concluded that it was restricted to situations where intervocalic 1 was followed by a close e or by i. Since the number of relevant examples is small, Buck (69) declines to make any exact formulation of conditions, and editors generally have been satisfied with merely listing the probable instances.3 It is therefore with some feeling of temerity that I attempt in this article to re- examine the conditions of the sound-change. If my conclusions are acceptable, they may have some value for certain problems of Umbrian etymology and inter- pretation. If they are too uncertain, the list of new applications of the change 1 > r since the appearance of von Planta's work may be of some service.

The strongest single support for i < 1 is kaietu I b 33, kafitu III 21, carsitu VI a 17, VII a 43. It is generally translated by such imperatives as appellat5, calat3, vocata, and most scholars now regard it as cognate with Lat. calare (e-stem reflected in Lat. kalendae), Gk. KaX ev.4 That 1 and not d is original is proved by KaXE? and OHG halan, holSn. Devoto in deriving the Umbrian form from *kadeto

1 It seems best to give the principal bibliographical references at the outset. Von Planta, Grammatik der oskisch-umbrischen Dialekte 1.291-7 (Strassburg, 1892-97), has the most comprehensive discussion of the problem. Of literature prior to von Planta, some of which is difficult of access and antiquated in matters of phonology, I have made sparing use, and here cite only Biucheler, Umbrica (Bonn, 1883). The most frequently cited works subse- quent to von Planta are: Robert S. Conway, The Italic dialects (2 vols., Cambridge, 1897); F. Muller, Altitalisches Worterbuch (Gbttingen, 1926); C. D. Buck, A grammar of Oscan and Umbrian (Boston, 1928); A. von Blumenthal, Die iguvinischen Tafeln (Stuttgart, 1931); G. Devoto, Tabulae Iguvinae (Rome, 1937).

2 Corssen, Aussprache, Vocalismus, und Betonung der lateinischen Sprache2 2.15-6 (Leipzig, 1868-70); C. Pauli, Altitalische Studien 5.82-6 (Hannover, 1883-7). Conway (1.359-61) explained many Latin words as Sabine borrowings with 1 in place of original d, and in his glossary of Umbrian words in Vol. II he maintains a skeptical attitude toward 1 (= f) < 1, avoiding etymologies based on it. Similarly Petr, BB 25.127-58 (1899).

3 Cf. Brugmann, IF 18.532 (1906); Devoto 158. Biicheler 50; von Planta 1.291; Buck 69; Devoto 158, 170.

395

396 JAMES W. POULTNEY

is not really in conflict with the general view, since d is commonly assumed as an intermediate stage between I and r.'

utetu III 12, IV 30 as an imperative of another e-stem verb is conveniently treated after kafetu, but unfortunately its etymology is less sure. According to the usual view' it is connected in origin and meaning with Lat. ad-olito 'burn, make burn' (sacrificial offering, or altar), and possibly with several Germanic words including OE elan 'burn', OIcel. ylr 'heat'. These equations, if valid, give support to the original 1, but Conway (2.666) suggested Sabine origin for the I in Lat. adolre 'inflame', and Devoto7 assumed an earlier L. *odere (: olere = odor : olor).

For famefias II b 2, relationship with Lat. familia is generally recognized, and none of the recent editors accepts Corssen's assumptions of a form *famedia based on a suffix different from that of familia. Since no very satisfactory ety- mology for this group of words has been found,' Devoto (328, 353) may be right in asserting pre-Indo-European origin, but the validity of famefias as evidence for f < 1 is not affected.

Among the most frequently cited examples of f < 1 is arsir VI a 6, 7, the equation of which with Lat. alius is strongly supported by von Planta.'o Devoto (155-6) translates 'dedicationibus', with derivation evidently from the same root *ad- seen in arsie and arsmor. I favor the equation of arsir with Lat. alius on the ground that the essential precaution in the passage where it occurs is against any unauthorized third person appearing on the scene or making a noise while the augur and the flamen are taking the auspices. For the Latin dissyllabic form alis, which in this case would be the exact etymological equivalent of arsir, divergent explanations are offered by Sommer, IF 24.17-25 (1909: syncope or dissimilation in phrase alius alium) and by Skutsch, G1. 2.154-6 (1910: analogy of pronouns).

afepes, afipes, afpes I a 6 and elsewhere in I a, I b, and II a, is commonly taken as abl. pl. of an o- or a-stem cognate with Lat. adipibus," which is used as a translation for it, both being ultimately borrowed from Gk. dxetoa. The line of transmission of the word is uncertain. Muller suggests that it reached Latin through the medium of an Italic dialect and that the Romans used d to represent the sound of f, but it seems more likely that they received it while it still had d, the transitional sound between 1 and i. Devoto (201) on semantic grounds makes a good case for a different interpretation, deriving afepes from

6 Von Planta 1.297; Buck, loc.cit. 6 Von Planta 1.291-2, 295; Muller 6; Buck 69; Walde-Pokorny 1.88. 7 Page 376, where he translates 'odoribus imbuito'. 8 Loc.cit.; unfavorable comment in von Planta 1.292. 9 Walde-Pokorny (1.828) suggests extension of a stem *dhq-mo- 'Niederlassung, Wohn-

stitte' or 'Haufe, Schar'. 10 1.291, 295, with references. Supported by Brugmann, IF 18.532 (1906), who however

later rejected this view, Ber. sAichs. Ges. 63.173 (1911), taking it as dat. pl. = 'sanctis', with no convincing etymology. Blumenthal (15) and Goidhnich, Historia 8.264 (1934), translate 'alius' without discussion.

11 Conway 2.597; Muller 19; and in the translations of Biicheler, von Planta, Buck, and Blumenthal.

INTERVOCALIC 1 IN tMBRUAN 39f

a stem (af)ep-o-, where a-

< ad-, and ep is from a root *eph found in Gk. 1wo, Arm. ephem 'cook'.

Ahmune, an epithet of Jupiter in II b 7, has been brought into relationship with Lat. almus, alimonia, Alemona;12 but most scholars, on grounds partly pho- netic and partly semantic, have rejected this etymology for others based on roots containing -d.l

Pumpetias II b 2 is translated 'quintiliae' by Biicheler (140-1), who mentions its resemblance to the name of Numa Pompilius. Blumenthal (39), apparently alone among modern editors, explicitly assumes I < 1 here, without however making quite clear his view of the relation of pumpeHias to Osc. pumperias. The majority of scholars14 regard the equation of the two words (generally considered equivalent in form and meaning to Lat. quincuriae) as inevitable and view f as an error for r, induced perhaps by f in the adjacent famefias.

Puptike, -es, appears in III 27, 35, and in several passages of IV, always as an epithet of Puemune, -es. The fluctuation between k and g may be ignored here, and the spelling Pupi~es IV 26 is undoubtedly an error.'6 Full equation of Puphike as dative with Lat. Piiblic5 is possible, and most scholars assume it or some similar etymology with r < 1.16 Von Planta (1.293, 333, 2.74-5) is unfavorable toward the equation with Pablic6 and suggests several etymolo- gies with i < d.

A few other words deserve brief mention here for the mere reason that for each of them an interpretation has been proposed which assumes r < 1, though in no case has the interpretation in question won general acceptance.

ampefia II a 29 is connected with Gk. A7reXos by Muller 27, who proposes as a conjectural meaning '(junger) Wein' and regards the Umbrian word either as a loan from &AreXos or as a loan in common with

i5,reos from an aboriginal

language. Blumenthal (7, 70-1), giving it the sense 'omentum', reconstructs a primitive form *am-pel-i-a, with a root common to L. pellis, Gk. frirrXoor. Other etymological discussion, not based on r < 1 and mostly very inconclusive, may be found in Bticheler (133), von Planta (1.466), Conway (2.599), Buck (99), and Devoto (332).

feiehtru III 16, 18, is so obscure that interpretation is almost impossible, while application of the word in support of a sound-law is of course out of the question. We seem to have here a -tro-stem signifying some part of the wooden structure for the private sacrifice conducted by the Atiedian Brothers. Biicheler (155-6) derives from a root *fal- in Lat. faliscas, so that it would indicate some sort of wooden frame, but the correspondence of e and a is not accounted for. Scarcely better is Muller's conjecture using a stem file- (466, under sup +

fb--i-; cf. 176) with the meaning 'combustible material'. For etymologies with

1 Biicheler 141; Muller 21.

"s Von Planta 1.294-5; Conway 2.597; Buck 183, 329; Blumenthal 71-2; Devoto 194. 14 Von Planta 2.200; Muller 331; Buck 185; Devoto 353. 16 Cf. R. G. Kent, Textual criticism of inscriptions 38 (Philadelphia, 1926). 16 Biicheler 159; Muller 350-1; Buck 69. Blumenthal (11-3) translates 'Publico, -i'; Devoto

158, 384, where d in Popdico of the translation evidently represents an intermediate stage in the development of f from Etr. 1, according to the etymology which he adopts.

398 JAMES W. POULTNEY

i < d cf. von Planta (1.462); the view which connects ferehtru with Skt. bhinatti, Lat. find5, giving a sense 'tignum', is adopted also by Conway (2.621) and Devoto (380).

?ihgefa III 15, apparently a sort of lattice railing, is generally translated 'cancellos' and compared with Gk.

KLyKX•,5•. The primitive form is *kinkelij

(Muller 84) or *kinkeda (Buck 348); von Planta (1.361, 2:25, 42) wavers be- tween the two.

The difficult term mersto VI a 3, 4, etc., which refers to the significance of the augural birds, or possibly to their location, is commonly translated 'iusto' and brought into the family of mers 'ius', Lat. modes-tus, Osc. med-dis, by assuming a form *medes-to-.17 Goidinich'8 connected mersto with Lat. meltom (meltom meliorem dicebant Paul. Fest. 122).

surum, sorsom I a 27, 30, and in various other passages of I a, II a, V b, and VI b, is translated 'suillum' in most editions, the connection of r with Lat. 1 being explicitly stated by Biicheler (39); but von Planta (1.294, 2.43) and Buck (40, 190) prefer to assume a -do-stem as actual source of the Umbrian forms. Devoto (158, 244-5, 414, 438) equates only sorser of V b 12, 17, with Lat. suillo- (as an adaptation), referring all the other examples to a stem extended from *seu-d- with the sense 'liquid'.

tehtefim IV 20 is evidently a cover to be placed over the persuntru and is often translated 'tegumentum'. Derivation from the root of Lat. teg6 is extremely probable, but whether r represents 1, as in Lat. tictilem, or d, is doubtful.'9

Of all the examples in which the change 1 > f has been assumed, only a hand" ful can be used either as proof of the change itself or as argument for the condi- tions under which it occurs. The danger of circular argument here is very great, but if the sound-change can be strongly supported by even a few examples, there is no reason why it should not receive a moderately wide application where the phonetic environment is suitable, if semantic and other factors are equally favorable. I follow von Planta (1.295) in regarding kafitu karsitu, uifetu, fameiias as very difficult of analysis on any other basis than r' < 1; in arsir, despite my own preference for equation with Lat. alius expressed above, I have less faith, because of the current popularity of the interpretation whereby arsir = 'dedi- cationibus'. There appears no reason to doubt the view of von Planta (1.297) and Buck (69) that d was an intermediate stage in the change 1 > f. Since the change d > r in intervocalic position is regular and undisputed,20 the question here is to determine the possibility and conditions of a change of 1 to d, which would then be followed by the change of d to f. We cannot be surprised at the absence of forms showing the intermediate stage, since even in the oldest tables the change d > f has already taken effect, and the minor Umbrian inscriptions are so few and so short as to be of little help, but the frequency of gentile names

17 Cf. Biicheler 43; von Planta 1.407; Conway 2.633; Muller 270; Buck 12, 58. 18 Historia 8.260 (1934). Unfavorable comment by J. B. Hofmann, Bursian's Jahresber.

270.96, and Ribezzo, RIGI 18.69 (1934). According to von Planta (1.407 fn. 1), this view had already been proposed by Panzerbieter, Quaestiones Umbricae 10 (Meiningen, 1851).

"i Von Planta 2.25, 42. 20 Von Planta 1.398-405; Buck 82-3.

INTERVOCALIC 1 IN UMBRIAN 399

in -dius in Latin inscriptions from Umbria may easily point to a change 1 > d rather than to choice of a d- in place of an 1-suffix.21

Of the forms giving strongest evidence of i < 1 two, kafetu and uretu, are imperatives of second-conjugation verbs with -&- as in Lat. habit5 etc. At the same time maletom II a 18, pf. pass. ppl. of a verb cognate with Lat. molS, and Miletinar VI a 13 probably have -e-.22 Von Planta correctly observes that 1 changes before the close e and not before the open e,23 but I believe that in treating the development of 1i and li (lii) he has gone astray. He assumes that li remained, possibly as palatalized 1, while l1 became fi, and explains the mainte- nance of I in tefrali, uerfale, sorsalir, and perhaps disleralinsust, as due to the dissimilating effect of r or i. But even if a preceding r (though a different pho- neme) was able to prevent the development of r, it would scarcely have inter- fered with I > d, which von Planta himself assumes as the earlier change in the development of 1. I believe, in other words, that I is regularly unchanged before the open short i and that tefrali, uerfale, sorsalir are normal.24 Several difficul- ties require explanation. In Pupfike, as was shown above, it is uncertain whether i is from 1 or from d. Goetze, IF 41.96 (1923), in seeking an explanation for the syncope (which must be assumed in order to provide an earlier intervocalic situation for the development of r) suggests that i may have been long. If his view is right, I, being close like j, may have occasioned a change 1 > r. The appearance in some words of i before an apparently short i is admittedly em- barrassing in view of the theory proposed for tefrali etc., but these three words, undoubtedly members of a stem-class corresponding to Lat. animdlis, verb&lis, should carry great weight in comparison with forms containing r of doubtful origin. In Ahmune, though syncope must have occurred, the vocalism as well as the source of the f is uncertain. For the foreign ariepes, if the f cannot be explained by Iguvine phonology, I (of iiUeta) may have become d in some other dialect (whence Lat. adeps, adipis) in time to participate in the Iguvine change d > i. In ampefia (in the earlier form of arsir if it equated with Lat. alius), in famefias, and in pumpefias (if f is not an error for r), the i is prevocalic, but so is it in feliuf I a 14 = filiu VI b 3, presoliafe VI a 12, Salier VI a 14. For this trouble- some fluctuation between ii + vowel and ii + vowel there appears to be a choice between two possible explanations: (1) the development of ii + vowel is connected with a variation between Li and lI (l1) as in von Planta 1.296; (2) ii + vowel regularly became fi, any difference between 1i and 11 being im- material, and feliuf, presoliafe, Salier require special explanation on the basis

21 Some examples are: Atidius CIL 11.6179 (from Castelleone; = Lat. Atilius?); Ausidius CIL 11.4786 (from Spoleto; = Lat. Aurelius?); Turpidius CIL 11.4929 (from Spoleto; = Lat. Turpilius?); Orfidius CIL 11.5967 (from near Acqualagna; = Lat. Orbilius?). Bticheler, RhM 11.295-7 (1857), gives a list of such doublets, without however citing their provenance. A. Schulten, Klio 2.182 (1902), has a map showing the distribution of the -dius-type, with high frequency for the Umbrian and Sabellian territories.

22 Von Planta 1.296, 2.399-400; Buck 181. Cf. R. G. Kent, Lg. 14.215 (1938), in criticism of Devoto's view that maletu has -8-.

2 On the quality of the e- and i-vowels cf. von Planta 1.87, 94, 96, 107; Buck 34-5. 24 On disleralinsust I refrain from comment here. In faCefele and purtifele the vowel

after the f may be secondary (von Planta 1.100, 2.29; Buck 190).

400 JAMES W. POULTNEY

of analogy, dialect borrowing, or the like. If we accept the first explanation, it seems better to reverse the relation set up by von Planta, so that Ii would main- tain its I as in tefrali, etc., and li would become ii. Von Planta recognizes the palatalizing effect of i here, but if I did not change before both I and i, the pala- talizing second form is more likely to have produced the change. Yet actually I believe that palatalization and change of 1 to r were produced both by j and by prevocalic . According to Sturtevant (Pron.2 ?118) Lat. was closer before a vowel than before a consonant, and although the phenomenon in Latin may have been restricted to Rome,25 there is evidence that it held good in Oscan (cf. Buck 34-5, ?44a) and in Umbrian, where e, at least in the native alphabet, is frequently written for short i before a consonant but very rarely before a vowel.26

Even if it were probable that treatment of 1 was conditioned by a variation li : li, it would be difficult to set up such a variation among the words now in question. The distribution of the IE suffixes -/o- and -ii7o- is a difficult problem,27 but there seems to be no good reason for assigning any of the words ampefia, arsir, famefias, pumpefias, feliuf, presoliafe to an -iio-class. Four of them fall within the scope of Buck's remark (66) that single writing of postconsonantal [and prevocalic] i is evidence of its consonantal value; while arsir and presoliafe, being in the Latin alphabet, are ambiguous. In short, it is improbable that these words were based on different suffixes and equally improbable that 1 was treated differently before i and prevocalic 1. feliuf, presoliafe, and Salier thus form a residue in which the 1 seems to call for special explanation. feliuf may easily have retained its 1 through the influence of a first-conjugation verb = Lat. fdl~re; in such a verb, having the vowel d, the Umbrian change 1 > i would not operate, and the semantic connection with feliuf 'sucking' would be much closer (and hence much more likely to exert analogical influence) than with Lat. filius. presoliafe is more difficult, but if it contains the same root found in Lat. salum (thus Biicheler 48, Devoto 167), analogical influence might be exerted by an Umbrian *solo with I not subject to change. Salier may be a gentile name with an -iso-suffix, but is in general so uncertain that it had better be left alone.

The conclusions which seem to me most probable on the basis of our rather meager material are as follows. Postvocalic 1 in the dialect of Iguvium remained unchanged before all back vowels and before e (as in maletom) and i if 7 was not prevocalic (as in tefrali) but became r (rs) before j (as in kafetu) and i (as probably in famefias). Before i and prevocalic I (1~) the same change is a priori probable in view of the closeness of the vowels in question, but cannot be ade- quately supported by examples. The argument on the positive side has centered

26 veham, cited by Varro, RR 1.2.14, as a rustic form of viam, is taken as evidence that a closer pronunciation of i before a vowel was not universal.

26 Cf. von Planta 1.100 for examples. sakreu V a 6, perakneu V a 7, appear to be the only instances of e for i before a vowel.

27 On these variants cf. von Planta 1.165-6; Conway 2.470-2; Brugmann, Gdr. 2.1.182-98. For Italic an exceptionally clear explanation appears in Buck, Oscan-Umbrian verb system 158-9 (Chicago, 1895). The suffix -iio-, indicated by ii in the native alphabet, appears especially in triia, in fourth-conjugation verb forms of the type herliei, Ose. fakiiad, and in Oscan gentile names of the type Kluvatiis, etc.

INTERVOCALIC 1 IN UMBRIAN 401

largely around karfetu, uietu, and famefias, and on the negative side around maletom, tefrali, uerfale, and sorsalir. Other things being equal the conclusions here reached are favorable toward etymologies based on r < 1 for ampefia, and for feiehtru if h is a mark of vowel length (cf. von Planta 1.58), but unfavor- able for surum, sorsom, if taken as an o-stem (cf. von Planta 1.293), for Pupiike if i is short, and for Afmune and mersto if we assume 9 or I before syncope took place. In afepes the vocalism of the medial syllable is not very clear.

gih•gefa can have r < 1 only if based on a suffix -ia, with i absorbed after palatalizing the preceding consonant. Horse VI b 43 = Hutie I b 2, used by von Planta (1.535) to exemplify such treatment of i, may have its own rs r from d or from 1. arsir, if = Lat. alius, alis, probably has its i by samprasdrana; hence it would be a close i capable of causing 1 > f (cf. Buck 35, 60, 120). The i in tehterim may be of the same origin; a stem in -l1o- or -djo- seems more probable than one in -di-, a very rare type, and the 1 in a -li-stem would not yield r according to the conclusions reached on the basis of tefrali, etc.