Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-sd5qd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T05:18:55.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intervocalic l in Umbrian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

James W. Poultney
James W. Poultney*
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For approximately a century students of the Iguvine Tables have recognized that the Umbrian phoneme represented by ř 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 l. The theory did not at first win universal acceptance in the sense that ř may be derived from original l; some accepted d as the only possible source of ř and explained the Latin l as secondary or else denied the etymologies which assumed the change l > ř. Since the originality of the l 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 l > ř for at least a few words. Von Planta (loe.cit. fn. 1) carefully examined the forms alleged to exemplify the change, attempting to define the conditions under which it occurred, and concluded that it was restricted to situations where intervocalic l was followed by a close e or by ĭ. 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. It is therefore with some feeling of temerity that I attempt in this article to reexamine the conditions of the sound-change. If my conclusions are acceptable, they may have some value for certain problems of Umbrian etymology and interpretation. If they are too uncertain, the list of new applications of the change l > ř since the appearance of von Planta’s work may be of some service.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 25 , Issue 4-Part1: October-December , December 1949 , pp. 395 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © 1949 by the Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

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 phonologjr, I have made sparing use, and here cite only Bücheier, Umbrica (Bonn, 1883). The most frequently cited works subsequent to von Planta are: Robert S. Conway, The Italic dialects (2 vols., Cambridge, 1897); F. Muller, Altitalisches Wörterbuch (Göttingen, 1926); C. D. Buck, A grammar of Osean 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 l in place of original d, and in his glossary of Umbrian words in Vol. II he maintains a skeptical attitude toward , avoiding etymologies based on it. Similarly Petr, BB 25.127-58 (1899).

3 Cf. Brugmann, IF 18.532 (1906); Devoto 158.

4 Bücheier 50; von Planta 1.291; Buck 69; Devoto 158, 170.

5 Von Planta 1.297; Buck, loc.cit.

6 Von Planta 1.291-2, 295; Müller 6; Buck 69; Walde-Pokornv 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 *dhd-mo- ‘Niederlassung, Wohnstätte’ or ‘Haufe, Schar’.

10 1.291, 295, with references. Supported by Brugmann, IF 18.532 (1906), who however later rejected this view, Ber. sächs. Ges. 63.173 (1911), taking it as dat. pl. = ‘sanctis’, with no convincing etymology. Blumenthal (15) and Goidànich, Historia 8.264 (1934), translate ‘alius’ without discussion.

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

12 Bücheier 141; Muller 21.

13 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.

15 Cf. R. G. Kent, Textual criticism of inscriptions 38 (Philadelphia, 1926).

16 Bücheier 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 ř from Etr. l, according to the etymology which he adopts.

17 Cf. Bücheier 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).

19 Von Planta 2.25, 42.

20 Von Planta 1.398-405; Buck 82-3.

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?). Bücheler, 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 -ē-.

23 On the quality of the e- and ¿-vowels cf. von Planta 1.87, 94, 96, 107; Buck 34-5.

24 On disleralinsust I refrain from comment here. In façefele and purtifele the vowel after the f may be secondary (von Planta 1.100, 2.29; Buck 190).

25 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 , indicated by ii in the native alphabet, appears especially in triia, in fourth-conjugation verb forms of the type heriiei, Ose. fakiiad, and in Osean gentile names of the type Kluvatiis, etc.