Wiktionary

Appendix:Survivals of the Latin nominative in Romance

This list mainly cites outcomes in Romanian, Italian, French, Catalan, Spanish, and Sardinian (in that order). If one of these languages lacks the form in question, another nearby language may be cited in its place.

The following categories of word have been excluded:[1]

  • Personal pronouns
  • Old French nominatives
  • Italian or Romanian masculine plurals with /-i/

Symbols used:

  • † 'archaic or obsolete'
  • ⁑ 'lacks an entry on Wiktionary'

Clear survivals

edit

Adjectives

edit

Pronouns

edit

Nouns

edit

Referring to non-humans

edit

Animate

edit

Inanimate

edit

Referring to humans

edit
Kinship terms, etc.
edit
Proper
edit
Agentives
edit
Titles, occupations, etc.
edit

Debated survivals

edit

Some scholars have dismissed outcomes like serpens > Spanish sierpe on the grounds that they were remodelled, noting that the nominative /-s/ was lost along the way. Nevertheless they are left to assume a development (Late Latin [sɛ́rpes] > *[sɛ́rpe] > Spanish [sjéɾpe]) that begins with a Latin nominative. That is, the fact remains that sierpe derives from serpens (with an extra step) and not from the accusative serpentem. In the list that follows, cases where this is the main objection will be labelled as trivial.

Misc. animates

edit

Misc. inanimates

edit

Nouns ending in /as/

edit

Trivial cases.

Abstracts in -tas

edit

Greek borrowings

edit

Nouns ending in /oː/

edit

Challenged on the grounds that -ōnem yielded an augmentative suffix in Romance. The reasoning goes that the Spanish gorgojo, for instance, could derive not from the Latin nominative gurgulio but instead from the accusative gurgulionem via an unattested Spanish *gorgojón, taken to be a form augmented with -ón and then 'de-augmented' as gorgojo.[9]

Animates

edit

Inanimates

edit

Notes

edit
  1. ^ On the grounds that the survival of Latin nominatives amongst them is well-known or trivial.
  2. ^ Possibly also the Romanian biet if that etymology holds.
  3. ^ Not originally a pronoun in Latin, of course.
  4. ^ Possibly back-formed from cespi pl.
  5. ^ 'Inanimate' as far as Latin is concerned, at any rate. The Spanish and Sardinian reflexes have taken on animal senses.
  6. ^ Still a productive suffix.
  7. ^ The only possible basis for this claim is the final /-s/. That the latter must imply borrowing is debatable in light of the aforementioned names.
  8. ^ Could also derive from lampada via an unattested stage like */lámpəðə/.
  9. ^ Whatever else one may say about this, it is impossible to apply to the French forms, since they are attested in a nominative :: accusative distribution in Old French (e.g. compaing :: compaignon).
  10. ^ Could also be a deverbal of schiamazzare, but vice-versa seems more likely (*exclamatiare is a bit absurd).
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Appendix:Survivals_of_the_Latin_nominative_in_Romance&oldid=79477313"