Vowel Prosthesis in Romance: A Diachronic Study - Rodney Sampson

VOW E L P RO S T H E S I S I N RO M A N C E
A DIACHRONIC STUDY
This page intentionally left blank
Vowel Prosthesis in Romance
A Diachronic Study
RO DN EY SA M PS ON
1
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
# Rodney Sampson 2010
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published 2010
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Library of Congress Control Number: 2009934142
Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India
Printed in Great Britain
on acid-free paper by
the MPG Books Group, Bodmin and King’s Lynn
ISBN 978–0–19–954115–7
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
Preface
The present work aims to fill a gap in the available literature on historical
Romance phonology and, more broadly, to make a contribution to ongoing
research into the general nature of sound change in language. Sound change
has of course long been an object of close investigation by linguists, and the
findings that have been made over the past two centuries have enlarged our
understanding of it considerably. The main focus of attention in the work of
previous scholars in this area has centred, as might be expected, on the detection
and elucidation of the general characteristics of regular sound change. Explora-
tion of patterns of change that appeared irregular or “sporadic” has awakened
rather less interest, and in historical accounts of individual languages or families
of languages it has not been uncommon to find such types of change dealt with in
a section summarily tucked away at the end of the treatment of regular changes.
However, in more recent years a growing number of linguists have begun to
concern themselves with cases of what traditionally were taken to be irregular
sound change with a view to discovering whether patterns of regularity can after
all be identified. The present study forms part of this enterprise and, it is hoped,
will usefully contribute to it.
Amongst those who do not have specialized knowledge of the Romance
languages and their phonological history, a widespread assumption appears to
be that only one type of vowel prosthesis operated in Romance. This affected
words beginning with a consonant sequence of sibilant plus another consonant,
as in Latin SPERARE “to hope” which developed to give, for example, Spanish
esperar and French espérer. Although this certainly represents the most geograph-
ically diffused type in Romance, two other major types of vowel prosthesis have
also occurred, each of them affecting broad swathes of the Romance speech area.
Neither of the latter types took root in the more familiar Romance standard
languages, however, so that their relative obscurity is perhaps easy to understand.
Nonetheless, close analysis of their characteristics sheds a rather fuller light on the
general nature and scope of prosthesis as a phonological process in Romance.
More generally, it also reminds us of the rich store of linguistic materials to be
found in the non-standard varieties of Romance.
The organization of an account which seeks to trace the diachronic trajectory
of the various types of vowel prosthesis across Romance over two millennia of
linguistic evolution poses inevitable problems. Our intention has been to avoid
where possible the use of just “diachronic correspondences” or “metachronic
vi Preface
equations”, that is, statements simply identifying the initial and final stage of
individual sound changes. Such statements are of course not uncommon in
historical phonologies of particular languages. Instead, the overall profile of
each evolving type of vowel prosthesis is traced through time with consideration
not only of the circumstances of its genesis and establishment but also of its later
history and possible loss of productivity. To inform the coverage, data and
insights drawn from a wide range of sources are systematically exploited, philo-
logical, phonetic, and phonological. Given the nature of the very diverse materials
that have been used, a data-driven and rather surface-descriptive framework has
been adopted in preference to couching the treatment within a more formal and
abstract theoretical framework.
Finally, it is a pleasure to acknowledge the assistance received in the writing of
this book. I am grateful to the Arts and Humanities Research Council for the
award received in 2006 which enabled the completion of much fundamental
research. To Wendy Ayres-Bennett, Paola Benincà, Elaine Broselow, Patrizia
Cordin, Martin Durrell, Michele Loporcaro, Martin Maiden, Mair Parry, Ralph
Penny, and Peter Ricketts, I extend my thanks for help at various stages during the
slow gestation of the work. Their comments on sometimes inchoate conference
papers and their willing provision of invaluable materials and points of informa-
tion were much appreciated. A particular and deep debt of gratitude is owed to
Yves Charles Morin who read through the entire text and offered many invaluable
observations on it. All shortcomings which remain are of course to be laid at the
door of the author rather than any of these scholars. Thanks must also go to John
Davey and Oxford University Press for taking on this work and for their humane
and tolerant understanding of the pains of authorship, and to their anonymous
readers who provided useful suggestions. Lastly, it is impossible to overestimate
the patience and forbearance shown by my wife Bodil while this book was
written. Tusind tak min skat.
Bristol, November 2008
Contents
List of Maps ix
Abbreviations x
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Preliminaries 1
1.2 Incidence of vowel prosthesis in Romance 3
1.3 Identification of vowel prosthesis in a diachronic perspective 3
1.3.1 Direct indication 3
1.3.2 Indirect indication 7
1.4 Prosthesis as a synchronic process 8
1.5 Prosthesis as a regular or sporadic diachronic process 14
1.6 Prosthesis and vowel quality 15
1.7 Causation of vowel prosthesis 18
1.7.1 Phonological factors 20
1.7.2 Morphophonological factors 25
1.7.3 Lexical alignment 27
1.7.4 Morpholexical factors 27
1.7.5 Sociolinguistic considerations 28
1.8 Previous studies 33
1.9 Sources of data 34
2 Categories of prosthesis in the history of Romance 36
2.1 I-prosthesis 36
2.2 A-prosthesis 37
2.3 U-prosthesis 38
2.4 Miscellaneous 38
2.5 Problems of classification 40
3 The Latin background 41
3.1 The syllable in Classical Latin 41
3.1.1 Syllabification across word boundaries 47
3.2 Syllabic change in pre-Classical Latin 49
4 I-prosthesis 53
4.1 Rise of I-prosthesis: early developments 53
4.1.1 Sources and interpretation of data 56
4.1.2 Geographical distribution 60
4.1.3 Quality of the prosthetic vowel 62
4.1.4 Actualization 65
4.1.5 Causation 67
viii Contents
4.2 Medieval and modern developments 73

4.2.1 General patterns of early medieval change 74
4.3 Type 1 (‘Eastern Romance’): general non-development of
unconditioned I-prosthesis 76
4.3.1 Balkan Romance 76
4.3.2 Southern Italian 79
4.3.3 Tuscan: a problem case 80
4.4 Type 2 (‘Western Romance’): general development of unconditioned
I-prosthesis 96
4.4.1 Sardinian 96
4.4.2 Ibero-Romance 100
4.4.3 Gallo-Romance 112
4.4.4 Rheto-Romance 135
4.4.5 Northern Italo-Romance 137
5 A-prosthesis 146
5.1 Introduction 146
5.1.1 Identification 147
5.2 A-prosthesis: early developments 150
5.2.2 Chronology 154
5.2.3 Structural preconditions to prosthesis 159
5.2.6 Causation 171
5.2.7 A structurally related development: the Italian forms ignudo,
ignocchi, etc. 180
5.3 A-prosthesis: later developments 182
5.3.1 Varieties showing significant regression of A-prosthesis 182
5.3.2 Varieties showing maintenance of A-prosthesis 189
5.3.3 Varieties showing enhancement of A-prosthesis 190
6 U-prosthesis 194
6.1 Rise of U-prosthesis: early developments 195
6.1.2 Structural preconditions to U-prosthesis 196
6.1.3 Chronology 204
6.1.6 Causation 228
6.2 U-prosthesis: later developments 229
7 Conclusion: retrospective and prospective 233
Maps 239
Bibliography 251
Index 281
List of Maps
1 Areas showing systematic vowel prosthesis in Romance 239

2 Epenthesis with s impura forms in Wallonia 240
3 A-prosthesis and locations in Gascony 241
4 U-prosthesis in Italo-Romance and Rheto-Romance 242
5 U-prosthesis in Picardy 243
6 Vowel prosthesis and locations in Corsica 244
7 Vowel prosthesis and locations in Sardinia 245
8 Locations in the Iberian Peninsula 246
9 Locations in northern Italy and the Rheto-Romance area 247
10 Locations in central-southern Italy 248
11 Locations in SE France and adjacent areas of Italy 249
12 Locations in northern France 250
Abbreviations
acc. accusative
Bol. Bolognese
c. circa
Cal. Calabrian
Cast. Castilian Spanish
Cat. Catalan
CL Classical Latin
d. died
Dal. Dalmatian
dat. dative
Engad. Engadinese (Rheto-Romance)
f. feminine
Fr. French
Gasc. Gascon
gen. genitive
Germ. Germanic
imp. imperfect
It. Italian
l. line
Langob. Langobardic
Log. Logudorese (Sardinian)
m. masculine
mod. modern
n. neuter
Nap. Neapolitan
NIt. northern Italian
nom. nominative
Occ. Occitan
OCS Old Church Slavonic
OFr. Old French
OSp. Old Spanish
pl. plural
Port. Portuguese
p.pt. past participle
pres. present
Abbreviations xi
refl. reflexive
Rom. Romanian
R-R Rheto-Romance
Sard. Sardinian
sg. singular
Sicil. Sicilian
SIt. southern Italian
St.Fr. standard French
St.It. standard Italian
Sp. Spanish
subj. subjunctive
Wall. Walloon
* unattested reconstruction
** non-occurring form in a known language
> develops through time into
< has developed through time from
[] phonetic transcription
// phonemic transcription
<> attested graphy
j syllable boundary
AIS Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz

ALA Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de l’Alsace
ALAL Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de l’Auvergne et du Limousin
ALB Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de Bourgogne
ALCat Atlas lingüı́stic de Catalunya
ALCB Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de la Champagne et de la Brie
ALCe Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Centre (Berry et Bourbon-
nais)
ALD Atlant linguistich dl ladin dolomitich y di dialec vejins
ALEANR Atlas lingüı́stico y etnográfico de Aragón, Navarra y Rioja
ALEIC Atlante linguistico etnografico italiano della Corsica
ALF Atlas linguistique de la France
ALF: Corse Atlas linguistique de la France: Corse
ALG Atlas linguistique de la Gascogne
ALGa Atlas lingüı́stico galego
ALI Atlante linguistico italiano.
ALIFO Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de l’Ile-de-France et de
l’Orléanais
xii Abbreviations
ALJA Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Jura et des Alpes du Nord

ALLoc Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Languedoc Occidental
ALLor Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Languedoc Oriental
ALN Atlas linguistique et ethnographique normand
ALP Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de la Provence
ALPic Atlas linguistique et ethnographique picard
ALR Atlasul lingvistic român
ALW Atlas linguistique de la Wallonie
ASLEF Atlante storico-linguidtico-etnografico friulano
CGL Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
DCECH Diccionario crı́tico etimológico castellano e hispánico
DECLC Diccionari etimològic i complementari de la llengua catalana
DELI Il nuovo etimologico DELI. Dizionario etimologico della lingua
italiana
DHLF Dictionnaire historique de la langue française
FEW Französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch
Keil Grammatici Latini
LRL Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik
REW Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch
TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae
1
Introduction
1.1 Preliminaries
Prosthesis, also known as ‘prothesis’,1 is one of several types of diachronic phono-

logical process which affect segments as a whole rather than just features within
individual segments. Such whole-segment processes operate as word-level phenom-
ena and may be seen to fall into two broad categories. On the one hand, they may
leave the original inventory of segments in a word unchanged but bring about linear
reordering, as in CREPAS > Spanish quebras ‘you (sg.) break’, this being known as
metathesis. On the other hand, the effect may be to add new segments or delete
existing segments such that, unlike with metathesis, the original number of seg-
ments in a word is modified. Amongst such processes, different types are conven-
tionally recognized on the basis of where in a given word the change occurs—at the
beginning, within the word, or at the end. In this way, it is possible to recognize six
types in all, three additive and three reductive. Although the terminology used by
linguists to designate these is a little variable,2 the arrangement below in Figure 1.1
would doubtless be broadly acceptable.
word-initial word-medial word-final
additive PROSTHESIS EPENTHESIS PARAGOGE
(or ANAPTYXIS)
reductive APHAERESIS SYNCOPE APOCOPE
FIGURE 1.1. Types of additive or reductive process
1
The term itself was first coined by Greek grammarians, æŁØ from æ() ‘before’
and ŁØ ‘setting, placing’, and was subsequently taken over by the fourth-century Roman
grammarians Charisius and Diomedes. Drawing directly on the work of these scholars,
medieval and especially Renaissance grammarians such as Nebrija (1481) and Dubois (1531)
maintained the term within grammatical parlance.
2
For instance, ‘epenthesis’ may be found being used to refer to all types of additive
change (McMahon 1994: 15). Another possibility is that ‘prosthesis’ is reserved for word-
initial changes involving vowels only, whereas ‘epenthesis’ is used for consonant insertion
(Repetti 1997). For some discussion of terminological variation in this area, see Lass (1984:
183–90), Trask (1996: 66–8).
2 Introduction
Prosthesis is thus the phonological process whereby a new segment is inserted

at the beginning of a word. The segment may be a vowel, as in Latin SCĀLA > Span-
ish escala ‘ladder’, and it is with this type that the present study will be concerned.
But the new segment may also be a consonant, as in Latin HĚRI > Sardinian derisi
[’derizi] ‘yesterday’ where an initial /d/ has appeared (cf. Italian ieri).3 Problem-
atic however are those cases where an initial approximant has developed, since
initial phonetic segments such as [j-] [w-] etc. may be interpreted phonologically
as vowels or consonants and this of course will in turn decide which type of
prosthesis has occurred, vocalic or consonantal. We consider below (1.3) some
cases where initial approximants have arisen in Romance and propose an inter-
pretation for them.
Despite having its own special characteristics, vowel prosthesis can none-
theless be seen to share a number of basic and important properties with the
other types of process when they operate with vowels. First, with the
exception of apocope, all have phonological relevance only, in the sense
that the vowel that is inserted or deleted within a word does not directly
serve to express some grammatical value. Instead, the new vowel just
changes the formal structure of the exponent of an existing morpheme in
a word. Second, these processes all result in change affecting not only the
number of segments in a morpheme, but also the syllable structure of that
morpheme. In most instances, there is a consequent addition or reduction of
the number of syllables present in a word, but occasionally change may
involve major syllable restructuring without modification in the overall
number of syllables (see 1.3 below). Third, the vowel or syllable affected by
these processes will normally be unstressed. This is largely predictable since
the primary-stressed syllable represents the central core of a word. It is
therefore much more resistant than unstressed syllables to deletion, whilst
the attachment of primary stress to an adventitious new syllable in a word
would be highly unexpected. However, a vowel introduced by one of these
processes may of course come to receive primary stress as a result of a later
independent change affecting the location of primary stress in words.4
3
For a close analysis of the incidence and possible factors underlying /d/ prosthesis in
Sardinian, see Floricic (2004).
4
There are few if any clear examples of this in Romance however. But, outside
Romance, examples can be found. For instance, prosthesis occurred in early medieval
Welsh in words beginning with /s/ þ consonant sequences. Following the regular deletion
of word-final vowels, a paroxytonic word-stress pattern came to be generalized in the later
Middle Ages and this has sometimes led to originally prosthetic vowels being assigned
primary stress, as in SCHOLA > ysgól(a) > ýsgol ‘school’.
Introduction 3
1.2 Incidence of vowel prosthesis in Romance
Vowel prosthesis is widely represented across Romance. As we shall see, a number

of different categories of vowel prosthesis can be distinguished and one or other
of these has occurred at some stage in most Romance varieties, from the Iberian
Peninsula across to the Balkans. Certain varieties indeed have experienced more
than one category. In some forms of Romance, vowel prosthesis continues to be a
productive phonological process but in others it has ceased to be so and there
may be no more than vestigial evidence of its former presence.5 Curiously, the
available evidence suggests that vowel prosthesis seldom occurred in the early
history of Latin prior to the Imperial period which began in the first century BC
(see Chapter 3 below), though the reasons for the striking difference in this
respect between Latin and its linguistic progeny remain far from clear.
Before beginning on our investigation of the evolution of vowel prosthesis in
Romance, however, it will be helpful in this chapter to address some general
aspects relating to the phenomenon of prosthesis in order better to situate the
data which will be presented.
1.3 Identification of vowel prosthesis in a diachronic perspective
Indicators of different types exist which allow us to determine whether vowel

prosthesis has operated during the historical development of a language. These
may be direct or indirect, and we may consider each of these types in turn.
1.3.1 D I R E C T I N D I C AT I O N
The obvious direct indicator of vowel prosthesis is the presence of an overt,

non-etymological word-initial vowel. An example would be SCĀLA > Spanish
escala ‘ladder’. However, the use of this simple criterion for the identification of
vowel prosthesis can encounter difficulties since not all instances of newly
created non-etymological word-initial vowels necessarily can be appropriately
attributed to the action of the phonological process of vowel prosthesis. Two
problems in particular may be identified. First, it may be recalled that true
prosthetic vowels do not carry grammatical value. Hence, the introduction of a
prefixal vowel to an existing word form cannot be properly viewed as an
5
It may be noted that, outside the Romance-speaking area, vowel prosthesis has also
operated in the history of various other languages in Europe and beyond, for instance
Celtic (Jackson 1953: } 119), Ancient Greek (Wyatt 1972), and Armenian (Meillet 1927).
4 Introduction
instance of prosthesis. Thus, the initial vowel [a-] of the French words agrandir
‘to enlarge’ (< a- þ grand-ir) and adieu ‘farewell’ (< à þ dieu) would not be
adjudged prosthetic, as it clearly represents the exponent of an independent
word-initial morpheme (here, respectively, a formative creating a de-adjectival
verb and the preposition à plus nominal) in new lexical creations that find
numerous counterparts elsewhere in French such as aplatir ‘to flatten’, amoin-
drir ‘to diminish’ and atout ‘trump, advantage’, averse ‘downpour of rain’. True
prosthesis therefore does not lead to an increase in the overall number of
morphemes in a word. However, as may be predicted, there may be circum-
stances in a language where it is not immediately obvious whether a given
word-initial vowel arose as a result of prosthesis or the addition of a prefixal
morpheme. This can occur when a regular process of prosthesis yields a word-
initial vowel which is phonetically identical to the reflex of an original prefix.
For instance, in Gascon just as in standard French there are many clear examples
of words containing prefixal [a-], amurtà ‘to put out (fire)’ < AD-MORT-ĀRE,
arribà ‘to arrive’ < AD-RIP-ĀRE, but a productive phonological process of pros-
thesis has also operated which likewise results in word-initial [a-], as in arrı̀c
‘rich’ < Germanic rikki and arrı̀u ‘river’ < RĪVU(M). Often there are solid grounds
for deciding in a given Gascon form whether a new word-initial a- is prefixal or
prosthetic in origin but there may well be less clear cases too, in particular those
which involve stems containing etymological initial [r-]. For instance, the initial
vowel of arrebén ‘steep’ could be ascribed to prosthesis from REPĚNTE(M) or it
might be seen to reflect an earlier prefixal etymon AD-REPĚNTE(M) (cf. Rohlfs
1970: }118).6 Where such formal identity arises between the results of prefixation
and prosthesis, there is often mutual interference between the two processes
which can further add to the difficulty for the linguist in distinguishing between
them when vowels of both types coexist in a linguistic variety.
A further problem of interpretation also relates to the interplay between
phonological and grammatical structure. It presents itself in cases where mor-
phological boundaries come to be reinterpreted, the result of which may be
apparent prosthesis or aphaeresis (cf. also 1.7 below). Thus, in northern French
dialects we find forms such as (Picard) [erw~eʃ], [erw~es] ‘brambles’< RŬMICES
corresponding to Standard French ronces and [efPrʃ] ‘clippers for sheep-shearing’

< FORFICES (Flutre 1977: 34). However, the initial vowel evidently became estab-
lished through the reinterpretation of les ro(i)nches as l’éro(i)nches and les fòrš as
l’éfòrš, with the latter form of the noun subsequently becoming lexicalized in each
6
In view of the evolution of RENiCULU(M) > arnelh ‘kidney’ in Gascon, with deletion of
the original initial unstressed vowel [e], it seems more likely that the form arrebén derives
from a prefixal or phrasal etymon AD-REPĚNTE(M). Cf. section 5.2.5 below.
Introduction 5
case.7 In view of the non-phonological causation of this development, it is clearly

not appropriate to view the initial vowel in these forms as being genuinely
prosthetic in origin.
A rather different problem of interpretation also presents itself, this time
purely phonological in nature. It concerns those cases where a new vocalic
segment appears word-initially as a result of an etymological initial sound
being restructured into two successive segments. This may arise in two ways:
through the diphthongization of an original word-initial vowel, or through the
linearization of a word-initial syllabic consonant. Looking at each of these
in turn, we find that diphthongization can yield a new word-initial vowel or
vowel-like segment which is different from that of the etymon. For example, in
Surselvan (a Rheto-Romance variety) there are forms such as úorden ‘order’ and
ı́er ‘yesterday’ < o RDINE(M), HĚRI where a new initial vowel [u-] and [i-] has
developed as part of a complex vowel þ off-glide initial segment (Liver 1982),
and in Italian there appear forms such as uovo ‘egg’ and ieri ‘yesterday’ < o VU(M),
HĚRI where the original initial vowel has taken on a vocalic on-glide. Various
considerations would argue against classifying the initial segment here as pros-
thetic in origin, however. First, historically the new segment can be seen to derive
directly from an original stressed vowel. Significantly, in forms where comparable
initial vowels were unstressed, no comparable diphthongization has normally
occurred, cf. ordinar ‘to order’ in Surselvan and ovaia ‘ovary’ in Italian. (In fact,
diphthongization is a process typically associated with stressed vowels in
Romance.) Prosthesis on the other hand is a process normally associated with
unstressed vowels. Accordingly, word-initial vowels or vowel-like glides arising in
an originally stressed syllable as a result of diphthongization, such as those in our
Surselvan and Italian examples, do not appear to be genuinely prosthetic. Second,
it is significant that directly comparable diphthongization to that seen in úorden,
ı́er and uovo, ieri also occurs word-medially, as in Surselvan cúort ‘courtyard’, fı́er
‘iron’ < C(OH)
oRTE(M), FĚRRU(M) and Italian fuoco ‘fire’, piede ‘foot’ < FOCU(M), PĚDE
(M). This indicates that we have here a general phonological change rather than a
specifically word-initial process like prosthesis.
Akin to the creation of on-glides through diphthongization has been the
general development of an on-glide in word-initial position with etymologically
vowel-initial words. This is found widely for instance in dialects of eastern
Sicily and southern Italy, as in the dialect of Messina jè ‘is’ < EST, jápriri ‘to
open’ < APERĪRE, jèbba ‘grass’ < HĚRBA, jammári ‘to arm’ < ARMĀRE, but anieddu
7
Forms deriving from RŬMICES with a clearly lexicalized initial [e] are reported for many
localities in Berry, namely in the départements of Loiret, Loir-et-Cher, northern Cher, and
northern Indre, [laz erõzaj], [laz erõze] etc. (ALCe III, map 1383 Votre chapeau va tomber
dans les ronces).
6 Introduction
‘ring’ < ANĚLLU(M), aččienni ‘matches’ < deverbal noun from ACCĚNDERE (De
Gregorio 1890: }}6, 97). Here, it appears that the development more readily affects
initial syllables which are stressed. More significantly, in other dialects of southern
Italo-Romance experiencing a comparable change the new initial onset segment
takes the form of a full consonant, [g], [], and in northern and central Italo-
Romance parallel cases of initial segment insertion occur with [v], e.g. Milanese
vün ‘one’ < ŪNU(M), vora ‘hour’ < HŌRA, vèss ‘to be’ < ĚSSE-RE (Rohlfs 1966: }340).8
It therefore seems more appropriate to distinguish this type of development from
true vowel prosthesis and view it as a form of consonantal prosthesis. We will
therefore exclude it from further attention.
The other type of restructuring which creates a new word-initial vowel arises
from the linearization of a syllabic consonant, C > VC. For example, in the
’
history of standard Romanian a syllabic nasal evidently developed in word-initial
position in the early modern period, and in more recent centuries this has often
emerged as a sequence of high vowel þ nasal consonant, as in ı̂ngust ‘narrow’,
ı̂mpărat ‘emperor’ < ANGŬSTU(M), IMPERĀTOR via an intermediary stage [N’gust(u)],
[mp‰’rat(u)], although in present-day Romanian pronunciation a syllabic nasal
’
may still be used by some speakers (Avram 1990: 100–5; Sampson 1999: 329–30).9
Where an initial vowel is present in such forms, it represents the result of the
linearization of the phonetic features [ þ syllabic] and [ þ nasal]. Should such a
vowel be interpreted as being prosthetic? One negative argument would be
that the change does not affect the overall number of syllables in the word. The
only change has been in the internal structure of the original opening syllable.
Furthermore, it is striking that the process of linearization here does not yield just
word-initial vowels that are unstressed. As is shown by examples such as unghi
‘angle’ and intru with variants untru, ı̂ntru ‘I enter’ < [’Ngi(u)], [’ntru] < ĂNGULU
’
(M), iNTRO, a new stressed word-initial vowel can also emerge although this has
happened much less frequently. However, important differences exist between
this form of restructuring and the previous case concerning diphthongization.
First, the restructuring usually gives rise to an unstressed vowel, although there
may be exceptions, perhaps analogical, as we have seen. Second, the restructuring
of the initial syllable in this instance is much more profound than that which
occurs through diphthongization where there is no more than internal differen-
tiation within an existing syllable nucleus. Here, the original syllabic consonant
8
Comparable cases of consonant prosthesis are also found sporadically elsewhere in
Romance, e.g. Catalan vora ‘border, coast’ < ŌRA (cf. Castilian orilla), vuit ‘eight’ < Latin
CTO, with initial /b/ (cf. Valencian huit, Spanish ocho, Italian otto).
o
9
Petrovici (1930: 71) notes, ‘La vraie prononciation du mot ı̂mpărat est [mpărát] . . . On
croit cependant articuler un [ı̂] devant la nasale . . . Ce qu’on désigne par un [ı̂] initial nasal
n’est le plus souvent qu’une consonne syllabique.’ A similar account appears in Nandriş
(1963: 193).
Introduction 7
is transformed into a sequence of nuclear vowel þ non-syllabic consonant

(ı̂mjpăjrat etc.). The new word-initial vowel therefore does not simply represent
the modified form of an earlier vowel (or more precisely the first mora of an
earlier bimoraic vowel), it is part of an entirely reconstituted syllable structure.
Word-initial vowels created by linearization of a syllabic consonant thus have
special properties which suggest that they may properly considered to be pros-
thetic.
In sum, a directly observable and non-etymological word-initial vowel may be
recognized as prosthetic in origin when it leads to the creation of a new form, or new
alternant, for an existing word-initial morpheme rather than serving to introduce a
new morpheme in word-initial position. It normally results in the appearance of an
additional syllable in the original word, and the vowel that it introduces is normally
unstressed. The only exceptional case of prosthesis concerns word-initial syllabic
consonants which have linearized to give a vowel þ consonant sequence.
1.3.2 I N D I R E C T I N D I C AT I O N
More problematic for identification are cases where vowel prosthesis occurs at
some historical period but the prosthetic vowel is subsequently deleted. The
existence of reliable historical records showing clear evidence of prosthetic
forms would of course provide a strong indicator of the earlier presence of
prosthesis. However, the absence of suitable records does not necessarily exclude
a plausible inference being made that vowel prosthesis had operated at some time
in the past. Two sorts of data in particular seem to be relevant in this connection.
First, useful information can be gleaned from the possible interplay between
prefixes and prosthetic vowels. For example, in early Romance there has been a
striking uniformity of treatment of, on the one hand, words containing the prefix
EX- and, on the other hand, forms originally beginning with the consonantal
sequence [s] þ consonant, e.g. SCĀLA ‘ladder’. Either there was preservation
of the prefixal vowel and the prosthetic vowel, as in Spanish escoger ‘to choose’
(< EX-COLLiGERE) and escala ‘ladder’ (< SCĀLA) or there was loss, as in Romanian
scădea ‘to dwindle’ (< EX-CADĒRE) and scară ‘ladder’ (< SCĀLA). As the insertion of a
new initial vowel [e-] is not a regular change affecting consonant-initial words in
Spanish and the deletion of an etymological word-initial unstressed [e-] is
not regular in Romanian,10 the implication is that where prefixal deletion has
occurred, the loss of the prefixal vowel took place after it had been identified with
10
For example, PRĀTU(M) > prado ‘meadow’ and not ** eprado, CLĀVE(M) > llave ‘key’
and not **ellave in Spanish; and ERĪCIU(M) > arici ‘hedgehog’ and not **rici, ECCU(M)
HĪC > aici, aci ‘here’ and not **ci in Romanian.
8 Introduction
the prosthetic vowel which had developed and that thereafter the two types
of vowel shared a common fate. Thus, internal evidence lends supports to
the assumption that a prosthetic vowel [e-] may well have developed in early
Romanian.
The other sort of data which may be used for reconstructing the occurrence of
earlier vowel prosthesis lies in the presence of morphophonemic variation,
typically in preceding cliticized forms. For instance, in modern Italian the use
of the masculine definite articles lo (sing.) and gli (pl.) in nouns of popular
transmission such as specchio, scudo points to the earlier presence in these of a
word-initial vowel,11 since il (sing.) and i (pl.) normally occur before popular
consonant-initial nouns, e.g. il secchio ‘the bucket’, i prati ‘the meadows’, whereas
lo (eliding to l’ where a vowel remains pronounced) and gli appear before vowel-
initial words, e.g. l’albero ‘the tree’, gli alberi ‘the trees’ (cf. Rohlfs 1966: }187).
1.4 Prosthesis as a synchronic process
Although the focus in this work will fall on vowel prosthesis as a dynamic,
diachronic phenomenon in Romance, prosthesis can of course operate as a
productive synchronic process as well and indeed it does so in a number of
present-day varieties. Given the direct link between diachrony and synchrony, it
would be appropriate to make some brief remarks on interpretations of prosthe-
sis as a synchronic phenomenon in Romance since these will help to inform our
diachronic coverage. For convenience, circumstances with just one type of vowel
prosthesis will be briefly examined, namely that affecting forms originally begin-
ning with [s] þ consonant (see Chapter 4). Five present-day standard varieties of
11
By words of ‘popular transmission’ is meant lexical items which have formed part of
the lexicon of a Romance variety from Roman or early medieval times and which have
been transmitted in unbroken fashion in the usage of succeeding generations of speakers.
Such words will normally undergo regular change in pronunciation and will also be
susceptible to other types of modification, e.g. in meaning. They contrast with ‘learned
words’ which are lexical items borrowed in later medieval or modern times directly from
Latin or Greek. These forms undergo minimal phonological adjustment and very often
closely resemble their Latin or Greek originals in semantic value too. In the present
connection, it is significant that learned borrowings have resulted in the appearance in
word-initial position of not only consonants previously just found as geminates in medial
position but also novel complex consonant sequences. Both of these trigger the use of the
masculine articles lo and gli, as in lo gnomo, gli psicologi. From a diachronic perspective,
however, the usage with these more recent forms arises from quite different circumstances
from that with popular nouns like specchio, scudo and the two sets of nouns should be
distinguished.
Introduction 9
Romance are considered, Italian, Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese, and French, each
of these having known this type of prosthesis during their history. In other forms
of Romance, it should be emphasized, different circumstances may prevail from
any of those apparent in these five varieties.
An aspect of a very basic nature, however, may first be considered. Prosthesis is
by definition a process whereby a new segment is introduced at the left edge of a
given word. However, in those cases where the new segment occurs only in
phrase-medial realizations of that word a problem arises, since the decision to
interpret the new segment as a prosthetic vowel presupposes of course that it
forms the opening part of the following word. Thus in modern Italian [peri-
s’kritto], meaning ‘in written form’, the interpretation of the first vowel [i] as
prosthetic is founded on the assumption that it forms the first segment of the
following word, hence the conventional orthographical representation per iscritto.
In contrast, interpretations of the phonetic sequence as peri scritto (with peri
viewed as an alternant of the preposition per) or per i scritto (where i would be
some sort of independent ‘linking particle’) have not gained acceptance. The
interpretational question is thus of central importance since forms such as Italian
[peris’kritto] would not be considered to contain a prosthetic vowel unless an
analysis is made whereby the phrase is segmented as per iscritto. Significantly,
similar examples of ‘linking’ vowels within phrases can be found in other
Romance languages but their interpretation may be rather different. For example,
in French we find phrases such as [uRs‰blA~ ] ‘polar bear’, [matʃ ‰nyl] ‘drawn game
(in sport)’ where the interpretation of the medial vowel [‰] is of particular
interest. At first sight, it could be associated with either of the co-occurring lexical
items, e.g. /uRs‰ # blA~ / or /uRs # ‰blA~ / where the latter but not the former
interpretation would give a prosthetic vowel. In fact, no indication is given of
the vowel in conventional French orthography (ours blanc, match nul) but most
French linguists would attach the vowel to the right edge of the first word.
However, with another linking phenomenon found in modern French, namely
liaison, it is interesting to note that a proposal has been made whereby in noun
phrases such as grand ami ‘great friend’ the liaising consonant [t] should be
associated morphophonemically not with the right edge of the preceding word
but with the left edge of the following word as a sort of prenominal prefix: grand
ami ! /grA~ # t þ ami/ grand t-ami (Morin 2003a). The identification of a phrase-
medial epenthetic vowel as prosthetic is therefore not always self-evident and
uncontroversial. As far as the vocalic cases from Italian and French are concerned,
the generally accepted interpretations have been guided by the general phono-
logical structure of the language, yielding (prosthetic) per iscritto12 but
12
The association of [i] in per iscritto with the second word rather than with per seems
to be due to at least two factors. Historically, forms such as iscritto with an inserted [i]
10 Introduction
(non-prosthetic) /uRs‰ # blA~ /.13 However, in earlier forms of Romance for which
we have far less direct knowledge, the interpretation of segmentation issues
becomes potentially much more problematic.
Once the question of segmentation has been resolved, various indicators may
be identified for establishing whether a synchronic process of vowel prosthesis
exists in a language. One of these is the productive use of systematic alternation in
morphemes, such that one alternant may have an initial vowel that is absent in
the other alternant(s). A second relates to the phonological treatment of loan-
words. And a third is more theoretical in nature and concerns whether recogni-
tion of a process of vowel prosthesis would lead to greater overall simplicity in the
statement of phonological rules and syllable structure for the language. However,
it has to be recognized that how exactly ‘simplicity’ should be defined and
evaluated in linguistic descriptions remains one of the most vexed and debated
questions in theoretical linguistics.14
Looking first at standard Italian, words containing initial /s/ þ consonant
sequences may show alternation, as in scritto, scuola, specie which have the
alternants iscritto, iscuola, ispecie, respectively. However, loanwords such as
sport, stress do not show this alternation, and there is no compelling evidence
to indicate that postulating a rule of prosthesis would simplify a phonological
account of Italian. In fact, it seems that the occurrence of the vowel-initial
alternant in Italian is strictly determined in various ways: structurally, it occurs
appeared in phrase-initial contexts where attachment of the vowel to a preceding word was
excluded. And, in more recent times, [i] has been confined to appearing after otherwise
invariable structural forms (negative non and consonant-final prepositions) so that the
postulation of an alternant like peri would be problematic.
13
In French, the insertion of [‰] is mainly triggered by syllabic factors. Complex
consonant sequences not found within words are blocked, wherever possible, across
word boundaries and restructured through resyllabification, hence [uRsblA~ ] !
[uRs‰blA~ ]. As [‰] now forms part of the same syllable as the preceding consonant [s], its
association with the word form ours is understandable. A further important consideration
is that underlying schwa does not occur word-initially in standard French. However, we
may note that phonetically word-initial [‰] can appear in popular Parisian usage as in [‰]
l’salaud m’a encore baisé ‘the bastard has screwed me again’, [‰]r’garde-moi ça ‘just look at
that!’. The early twentieth-century poet Je(h)an Rictus whose writings reflect popular
Parisian usage clearly indicates the presence of this pronunciation feature. For a
fascinating study on how [‰] may also appear in effectively any word-final context in
French for metrical reasons, as in song and poetry, see Morin 2003b. (My thanks go to Yves
Charles Morin p.c. for helpful information here on the incidence of [‰].)
14
McMahon (2000: 1) aptly identifies this as one of the ‘slipperiest’ and ‘most variably
definable’ linguistic terms. It may appeal to inter alia feature-counting, paucity in the
number of rules postulated, maximal generalization of rules, and descriptive ‘elegance’
(however defined).
Introduction 11
solely when there is a preceding consonant-final grammatical monosyllable, e.g.

in per iscritto; lexically, it is more likely to be found in ‘everyday’, high-frequency
words like scuola than in higher register forms such as scarlattina, stupore; and
sociolinguistically, prosthetic forms are typically confined to formal styles and
occur especially in literary and bureaucratic language. In view of these considera-
tions, this type of vowel prosthesis may be seen to have a highly marginal status in
modern Italian as a synchronic process.
Turning to other Romance languages, we find circumstances that are rather
different. In modern Spanish, there are likewise cases of alternation between
forms with and without a vowel before stem-initial sequences of /s/ þ consonant,
as in esfera vs hemisferio but, unlike in Italian, vowel prosthesis represents a fully
productive synchronic process. Various arguments may be advanced for this.
Amongst these is the familiar fact that neologisms containing word-initial /s/ þ
consonant are subject to regular adaption through the addition of /e-/, as in Engl.
stress > Span. estrés. Also, on theoretical grounds the recognition of a rule of
prosthesis can lead to greater descriptive simplicity elsewhere in the phonological
description of Spanish. For instance, we may consider the statement of stress
assignment for the common verb estar. If no rule of prosthesis were postulated,
the underlying form for the verb would have the stem /est-/, so that the third
singular present indicative form would emerge as **esta rather than está, just as
/rest þ ar/ gives resta. In addition, Harris (1983: esp. 26–30) indicates that the
statement of Spanish syllable structure is simplified and is more revealing if a rule
of prosthesis is used. Interestingly, however, such has been the productivity of
vowel prosthesis in Spanish that many lexical items such as escoba ‘broom’ (where
the initial e- represents the result of earlier prosthesis) no longer show alternation
and have only a vowel-initial realization. Furthermore, Spanish has extended the
use of the vowel-initial alternant to word-medial position in prefixal forms, e.g.
paraestatal, archiestúpido, reestructurar, inestable.15 The vowel-initial alternant
therefore enjoys a wide distribution, and being the only alternant that can appear
at the beginning of words, it consequently figures in the citation form of words
and corresponds to the form that is psychologically real to many Spaniards. This
might suggest the possibility of viewing prosthetic vowels as having been lexica-
lized in the modern language and accordingly postulating underlying forms such
15
Notwithstanding the items cited by Harris (1983: 29), hemisferio (vs esfera) and
inspirar (vs espirar), the use of vowel-initial forms in prefixal words seems very general.
In fact, cases like these typically do not seem to be instances of simple prefixation. Thus,
hemisferio, which has of course a different gender from esfera, is in reality a later cultismo.
Likewise, the presence of the sequence [nsp] in inspirar betokens a cultismo, as with its
congeners conspirar, transpirar. Indeed, the impression is that the use of an alternant
beginning with /s/ þ consonant in a prefixal word is very much confined to cultismos in
particular.
12 Introduction
as /esfer-/, /estupid-/ with an initial vowel. However, given the continued pro-
ductivity of prosthesis in the treatment of neologisms beginning with /s/ þ
consonant, the appropriateness of interpreting vowel prosthesis as a live syn-
chronic process in modern Spanish seems assured.16
The other standard languages of the Iberian Peninsula have also experienced
systematic historical prosthesis in words beginning with /s/ þ consonant. For
Catalan, Wheeler (1979: 30–2) argues for non-prosthetic underlying forms and
a rule of vowel prosthesis introducing [‰], using comparable theoretical grounds
to some noted in the case of Castilian: namely, patterns seen in prefixal word-
derivation and stress assignment affecting the verb estar. Similar observations to
those above can likewise be made. In his more recent description using an OT
framework, Wheeler (2005: 250–1, 287–8) continues to assume the presence of
underlying /sC-/. The problem posed by the apparent contrast between derived
forms like superstrat (without an epenthetic vowel before the /sC-/) as against
superestructura (with such a vowel) is considered, as it has interesting implica-
tions. However, it is noted that ways of accounting for items like superstrat
have been proposed, for example by Cabré (1993) who suggests that they are
monomorphemic rather than morphologically complex. In the light of this, it is
assumed that just one underlying root-initial onset needs to be postulated, and
Wheeler operates with /sC-/ not least on the grounds of simplicity in handling the
stress assignment in estar.
European Portuguese, however, differs strikingly from its Peninsular neigh-
bours. In a recent study of Portuguese pronunciation, Mateus and d’Andrade
(2000: 44–5) note that in the contemporary language, forms like espaço, estar,
escuta, etc. begin with /ʃ/ þ consonant.17 However, these initial sequences are not
treated as genuine syllable onsets. Instead, an interpretation is proposed whereby
an empty vowel nucleus is postulated in word-initial position so that the initial
surface segment /ʃ/ and the following consonant would each belong to separate
16
The process of formally adapting neologisms corresponds to what has been labelled
‘nativization’ (Hock 1986: 390–7; Hock and Joseph 1996: 259), whereby speakers
automatically modify structurally anomalous forms so that they conform to native
patterns of usage. Vowel prosthesis is just one of various nativizing processes observable
in modern Spanish, operating alongside, for example, the elimination of impermissible
final consonant clusters by simplification (standard > estándar) or paragoge (film > filme),
cf. Lorenzo (1996: 205, 212).
17
This is not the view of Barbosa (1983: 138, 141–2) who indicates that most speakers use
a vowel with a quality between [i] and [‰] in initial position. However, the pronunciation
described here may reflect the usage of older generations where deletion of the initial vowel
was still incomplete. Interestingly, in a later article Barbosa (1994: 139) notes that initial
unstressed e- preceding s þ consonant may surface as [i] or [‰] but may also ‘desaparecer
de todo.’
Introduction 13
syllables, /ʃ/ occupying the coda of the opening syllable. The stem of espaço would
thus be represented as /Vʃpás-/ where ‘V’ indicates an unspecified vowel seg-
ment.18 In this treatment, therefore, prosthetic vowels would still exist at an
abstract level but for the most part they would have no overt phonetic expres-
sion.19 However, some uncertainties appear to exist. For instance, it is not
quite clear how the different realizations of prefixal forms like inesperado vs
inspirado or preescrito vs prescrito would be accounted for satisfactorily under
this interpretation.
Finally, French has also experienced systematic prosthesis in forms which began
with etymological /s/ þ consonant. In the present-day language, however, the initial
vowels of écrit, école, espèce (the counterpart forms to those cited above for Italian)
and other forms of comparable background have been lexicalized and usually figure
in the underlying representations postulated for these words by most generative
phonologists (e.g. Schane 1968: 112–13, Dell 1980: 50–7). Alternations such as écrit
scripteur or école scolaire do exist and indeed are well represented in the French
lexicon, which might suggest the possibility of postulating non-prosthetic underly-
ing forms and using phonological rules of vowel prosthesis and /s/ deletion to
account for surface forms like école. Such a view has commanded little following,
though. Reasons for this would include the fact that evidence from stress placement,
like that used for Spanish, cannot be invoked in the case of French since stress
operates independently of the phonological structure of the left edge of words.
Word-derivation evidence is likewise not revealing; for instance, préécole is flanked
by préscolaire suggesting no necessary priority of the alternant with initial /s/ þ
consonant over its vowel-initial counterpart. Furthermore, neologisms drawn from
foreign sources such as stress, scrabble and those coined from native resources, e.g.
[stikmi] from mystique in verlan (Azra and Cheneau 1994) or acronyms such as
SPADEM [spad¡m] (Plénat 1993), clearly point to the permissibility of /s/ þ conso-
nant sequences in word-initial position and confirm that there is no longer any
productive process of vowel prosthesis in the language.
This is not the place however to go into any further detail over possible
synchronic interpretations of vowel prosthesis. Suffice it to say that the data
from the different Romance languages which have been briefly considered serve
18
On the basis of various arguments Mateus and d’Andrade also propose elsewhere
that ‘an onset and a rhyme obligatorily constitute any syllable’, such that surface vowel-
initial words would have an obligatory empty onset position preceding the vowel, as in /C/
ermida ‘chapel’ where ‘C’ indicates an unspecified onset consonant (2000: 58–9).
Presumably, this analysis would also apply to words like espaço which have an initial
unspecified vowel. If so, at an underlying level such words would rather curiously begin
with a syllable consisting of an unspecified onset and an unspecified nucleus.
19
Such an analysis would thus be close to showing absolute neutralization (cf. Kiparsky
1968 and Kenstowicz 1994: 111–14).
14 Introduction
to illustrate two things. First, the ‘same’ original process of prosthesis may come
to yield present-day synchronic outcomes that differ significantly in status,
varying from non-productivity through to partial and even full productivity.
Second, the appropriate synchronic analysis of vowel prosthesis in a particular
linguistic variety may well be problematic and controversial—not just because
the use of different models of phonological description may well give rise to
conflicting results but also because differences in data handling and interpreta-
tion may even arise between linguists adopting the same phonological model. If
this is true for contemporary Romance varieties, as we have seen, it is also likely to
be no less true for previous états de langue for which our knowledge is inevitably a
good deal less secure.
1.5 Prosthesis as a regular or sporadic diachronic process
One of the great discoveries of nineteenth-century historical linguistics was the

general principle of regularity in sound change. But alongside the numerous cases
of regular development that were observed, apparent exceptions were found. Two
types of potential disturbing factor in particular were recognized early on,
borrowing and analogy, and present-day linguists continue to view these as
major forces causing irregularity in phonological change. However, in addition
to these a number of other, typically smaller-scale irregular processes were also
observed which only operated on an unpredictable subset of all the words they
could potentially apply to. Further investigation revealed that some of these were
actually regular after all,20 but other types of change have continued to appear
exceptional. The latter have commonly been termed sporadic changes or, in a
rule-based phonological framework, minor rules, and much-cited examples of
them are assimilation, dissimilation, and metathesis.21 Yet, although they often
operate in an irregular way, in reality these processes may not always be as
unpredictable or sporadic as is sometimes assumed. Thus, the dissimilation of
/ ´ rj . . . r/ > / ´ rj . . . l/ occurring in Spanish cárcel ‘prison’ < CĂRCERE(M) seems to
reflect a regular development; cf. mármol ‘marble’ < MĂRMORE, estiércol ‘dung,
manure’ < STĚRCORE, árbol ‘tree’ < ĂRBORE(M), etc.; and certain cases of metathesis
can likewise prove to be regular (cf. Hock 1986; Blevins and Garrett 2004; Holt
20
The classic case is that identified by Karl Verner ([1877]1978) for Proto-Germanic
where a prosodic factor (presence of a preceding unstressed vowel) was found to be crucial
in determining whether voicing of obstruents occurred.
21
For studies of types of sporadic change operating in Romance, see Posner (1961) and
Spence (1990). For general discussion, there is the study by Hoenigswald (1964) and
treatments in the standard manuals of historical linguistics, e.g. Hock (1986: 107–16).
Minor rules are presented in King (1969: 137–9).
Introduction 15
2004). Furthermore, the apparent sporadicity of a change will in some cases

depend on the stage or degree of its implementation. No sound change operates
abruptly: any phonetic innovation requires time to allow it to gain greater
currency amongst the different speakers of a language diatopically and diastrati-
cally, as well as across all potentially relevant lexical items within the usage of
individual speakers. Accordingly, apparent sporadicity in a change may simply
reflect its ongoing nature at the time when the change is being observed.
Alternatively, sporadicity may arise when the implementation of what had been
a regular and ongoing change is arrested and possibly partly reversed, as with
intervocalic simplex -r- > [z] in the French of Paris and the surrounding area.
This development gained widespread acceptance amongst less educated speakers
of the sixteenth and early seventeenth century but it was ultimately abandoned,
leaving behind a small number of ‘irregular’ residues like chaise ‘chair’ and besicles
‘spectacles’ (< OFr. chaiere, bericles). The line of demarcation between regular and
sporadic or irregular change can therefore be a good deal less clear-cut than might
be imagined.
Vowel prosthesis in Romance fits in uneasily between these two loosely distin-
guished types of sound change. Certain cases appear to fall more appropriately
into the category of regular changes. For instance, prosthesis in words originally
beginning with [s] þ consonant has come to operate systematically in certain
Romance varieties like Castilian Spanish, as we have seen (cf. also Chapter 4).
However, other cases display sufficient degrees of apparent unpredictability to
suggest that they are better viewed as sporadic changes.
1.6 Prosthesis and vowel quality
In the investigation of vowel prosthesis in Romance, an obvious question to raise

is whether this process has typically involved the appearance of a particular
quality of vowel. At first sight, the answer would seem to be in the negative, for
prosthetic vowels of very different qualities may readily be found occurring in
modern forms of Romance, for example [i] in Ital. per iscritto ‘in writing’ < PER
SCRĪPTU(M), [e] in Span. estar ‘to be’ < STĀRE, [a] in Gascon arriu ‘river’ < RĪVU(M),
, [u] in Piedmon-
[o] in central Sardinian (dial. of Busachi) orróda ‘wheel’ < ROTA
tese (dial. of Strona) uvziN ‘neighbour’ < VICĪNU(M). The only constraint might
seem to be that a prosthetic vowel will adopt a quality already occurring elsewhere
in the language or dialect concerned: prosthesis does not create new types of
vowel phoneme, it only adds to the distributional range of existing phoneme
types. More precisely, as prosthetic vowels are typically unstressed when they are
formed they will be assigned a quality found in the subsystem of unstressed
vowels. Subsequently, of course, there may be change in the quality of a prosthetic
vowel as a result of regular sound change within the Romance variety concerned.
16 Introduction
Thus, the initial prosthetic mid vowel e- of Peninsular Catalan estar, espic has
regularly developed to [a] in the Catalan variety of Alguer in Sardinia, this
being part of a general change affecting the mid vowel e in unstressed syllables,
cf. Peninsular Catalan muscle but Alguerès muscra < MŬSCULU(M) ‘muscle’ (Blasco
Ferrer 1984: }} 50, 162; Loporcaro 1997b). Such later adjustments in quality are,
however, of less relevance in the present connection. Our interest here lies more
especially in the assignment of vowel quality in the first stages of prosthesis.
As we will see in later chapters, in two of the three major types of prosthesis
that can readily be distinguished in Romance a vowel of a specific quality has
typically been introduced.22 The choice of prosthetic vowel is not entirely ran-
dom therefore, and a growing body of scholarly work exploring data from
Romance and non-Romance languages has sought to establish the factors
which may determine the adoption of one vowel quality rather than another in
contexts where prosthesis or, more generally, epenthesis has taken place.
Of particular interest have been studies on markedness in vowels across language
and on patterns of interlinguistic adaptation, i.e. the process of accommodation
of borrowings from one language to another of different phonological structure
(cf. Kitto and De Lacy [1999] 2006; Gouskova 2001; Kenstowicz 2003; Lombardi
2003; Uffmann 2006). The results of these studies shed useful light on likely
factors governing the quality of the vowel that has appeared in Romance prosthe-
sis. We will be exploring in some detail the possible reasons for the preferential
use of one particular vowel quality for each of the various categories of prosthesis,
but it will be useful here to consider some general aspects of this question.
In previous work in this area, it has been noted that when a prosthetic vowel
(or indeed any epenthetic vowel) is in the very first stages of its formation, the
vowel will typically be of short duration and of ‘neutral’ quality. The rationale
behind this is that the newly appearing vowel will provoke minimal change to the
acoustic signal associated with the previously non-prosthetic (or non-epenthetic)
form of the word or words concerned. This reflects what Kenstowicz (2003) refers
to as the principle of minimal saliency23 which governs general epenthetic pro-
cesses in language. The principle in our case suggests that the quality of any
prosthetic vowel in Romance in its very earliest embryonic stage will typically be
of a neutral or indeterminate value. Kenstowicz himself identifies a schwa-like
In the third type, which we consider in Chapter 6, the selection of vowel quality
22
appears to be more variable. However, as we shall see, the evidence indicates that here too
there is a strong preference in favour of one particular vowel quality (cf. 6.1.5).
23
Saliency, or salience as it is also termed, has been characterized in a general way as ‘a
property of a linguistic item or feature that makes it in some way perceptually and
cognitively prominent’ (Kerswill and Williams 2002: 81). The concept has been widely
invoked by sociolinguists to provide a basis for explaining the adoption or rejection of
certain linguistic phenomena in dialect contact situations.
Introduction 17
quality as the most likely to be taken on.24 However, speakers will thereafter seek
to integrate the emergent vowel within the phonological structure of their
language. As we have seen, this entails the association of the vowel with one of
the existing subset of unstressed vowels. Here, however, various determining
factors may operate so that there is no automatic and predictable selection of a
given acceptable quality for the prosthetic vowel. In the light of numerous studies
of epenthetic quality assignment across different languages, it appears that five
types of factor may be distinguished, which can act either individually or in
combination:
(i) perceptual factors,

(ii) general phonological factors at segmental level, especially marking,
(iii) phonological or morphological structure of the individual language
concerned,
(iv) assimilation to an adjacent consonant,
(v) assimilation to the vowel in an adjacent syllable (vowel harmony).
FIGURE 1.2. Factors determining the quality of a prosthetic vowel
Type (i) relates directly to the principle of minimal saliency considered above,
which suggests that a schwa will typically be formed. If however there is no schwa
in the unstressed vowel system of the language, the default quality will be a closed
vowel since, all other things being equal, the more closed a vowel is, the shorter it
is and consequently the less it will serve to modify the original acoustic signal.
Type (ii), which is based on markedness theory, has as its rationale that a newly
created epenthetic vowel in a language will normally adopt a quality which is
unmarked or less marked. Drawing on a wide range of cross-linguistic studies, a
number of phonologists have sought to identify the relative markedness of
different vowel qualities and have proposed parameters or scales of preference
for them. Three examples appear in Figure 1.3. The first is based on a sample
of sixty-seven languages, while the third appearing in Gouskova (2001) is of
particular interest as it relates specifically to unstressed vowels at word edges,
i.e. prosthetic and paragogic vowels.
24
A similar view appears in the characterization of ‘excrescent vowels’ in Bagemihl
(1991). These may be seen as epenthetic vowels at their earliest stage of development. Three
characteristics are distinguished for excrescent vowels (p. 600): their variable quality which
is determined by co-articulation effects that give rise to a value that may not be found in
underlying vowels of the language concerned and that typically tends towards [‰]; their
appearance as the result of the need to mediate a transition between consonants of
different places of articulation; and their lack of involvement with phonological rules of
the language concerned.
18 Introduction
e
> i > a (Kitto and De Lacey [1999])
-i > e > i (Lombardi 2003)
e
> i,u > e,o > a (Gouskova 2001)
unmarked (more preferred) marked (less preferred)
FIGURE 1.3. Relative markedness and preference degree of prosthetic vowel qualities
Despite slight differences, the special status of schwa is apparent, and for other
vowel qualities it is notable that the more closed they are, the more they seem to
be preferred. This observation ties in well with what we saw for determining
factor (i).
The basis for type (iii) is readily understandable. The existing phonological
structure of a language, for instance its phonotactic structure, may well serve to
guide the choice of quality in a prosthetic vowel, and aspects of a language’s
morphological structure, such as its system of prefixes and their distribution, may
likewise come to shape choice of quality. In types (iv) and (v), the prosthetic
vowel effectively copies certain features which are already present in an adjacent
or nearby segment.
In the evolution of Romance, all of these factors can be seen to have played
a role in guiding the selection of quality for emerging prosthetic vowels.
However, the specific factor or factors that have operated in individual cases
of prosthesis cannot be readily predicted. The particular factor(s) at work
in vowel-quality selection will therefore be systematically examined for each
category or prosthesis.
1.7 Causation of vowel prosthesis
Linguists have frequently expressed scepticism about the possibility of discover-

ing the causes of sound change or, more generally, of linguistic change.25 Howev-
er, this scepticism owes itself in large part to the fact that ‘causes’ here are often
being equated to scientific ‘laws’ which apply automatically and predictably
under statable circumstances. Needless to say, language change just like change
25
One of the most celebrated statements was that of Bloomfield (1935: 385): ‘the causes
of sound-change are unknown.’ Similar negative comments on explaining sound change or
linguistic change in general are widespread, e.g. Lass (1980: 75): ‘we don’t have a clue as to
what (if anything) causes or constrains linguistic change.’ For a more nuanced view, see
Andersen (1989).
Introduction 19
in other facets of human behaviour does not always show the predictability that is
typical of the physical world. So, a more realistic way of describing causes of
change is perhaps to adopt a probabilistic approach. When confronted by a
particular instance of change, the linguist works on the basis of his or her
familiarity with known patterns of language use and language change in order
to infer likely factors that may have brought about the specific change that is
under consideration. It can and does of course happen that a study brings to light
previously unknown factors promoting change. When this occurs, explanatory
accounts of a higher level of probability will be possible in subsequent studies of
individual cases of language change.
Further complicating the study of causation in language change has been a
tendency not to make a sufficiently clear distinction between the innovation of a
linguistic phenomenon and its subsequent generalization or actualization (cf.
Andersen 2001). Phonological innovation leads to the creation of a new variant
pronunciation within the usage of some individual(s). At first, it may appear in
special linguistic contexts only and affect just a limited number of possible words.
Thereafter, the range of linguistic contexts in which the novelty occurs may
increase in stages, in a process of actualization. It may also be adopted by
increasing numbers of speakers in the speech community (generalization).
Where this happens, variation may nonetheless continue to exist within and
between speakers in the overall speech community, as some individuals use the
novel variant form in most or perhaps all possible contexts and other speakers
continue to operate exclusively or predominantly with the chronologically earlier
variant. However, the variation may be resolved. Either the phonological innova-
tion may gain general acceptance over time and ultimately displace the earlier
variant altogether, or it may be abandoned altogether. Innovation and actualiza-
tion/generalization are therefore closely linked but they are distinct. As a result it
is to be expected that their causation differs.
In the case of vowel prosthesis in Romance, a number of likely factors
triggering its innovation can be recognized, although there are doubtless
others whose identity remains mysterious. However, even in cases of pros-
thesis where the relevant factors seem fairly clear it is often difficult to
establish why they operated at the time and in the way they did in the
linguistic variety concerned. Similarly, various plausible factors can be iden-
tified to account for the generalization of prosthetic vowels but doubtless
others continue to await detection, and once again the reasons for their
acting precisely when and where they did may be uncertain in many cases.
In later chapters there will be detailed consideration of the probable factors
operating for each category of prosthesis, but it will be helpful here to give a
general overview of those which seem to have been of particular relevance in
initiating prosthesis and guiding subsequent change.
20 Introduction
1.7.1 P H O N O LO G I C A L FAC TO R S
A number of different phonological factors have played a part in vowel prosthesis.

These have involved aspects of both segmental and prosodic structure.
1.7.1.1 Segmental
Some cases of vowel prosthesis in Romance appear to be motivated by the
internal phonetic quality of the original word-initial segment. For instance,
Gascon shows changes such as ROTA > arròde ‘wheel’ where the phonetic char-
acteristics of the word-initial rhotic /r-/ have evidently acted as a major trigger. A
comparable development is observable too in many varieties of Sardinian. Al-
though other structural factors may also have been of some significance in
triggering the prosthesis in these cases as we shall see (Chapter 5), the relevance
of the phonetic quality of the initial segment seems unarguable.
1.7.1.2 Prosodic or suprasegmental

For some decades now, linguists have formally recognized the existence of a
phonological hierarchy above the level of the segment. A commonly cited version
of this is: segment > syllable > foot > phonological word > clitic phrase >
phonological phrase > intonational phrase > phonological utterance (cf. Nespor
and Vogel 1986). A number of these levels will figure in later discussion of vowel
prosthesis but of particular interest for present purposes is the unit situated
directly above the segment, namely the syllable.
The syllable contains one or more segments but, between the segment and
syllable levels, intervening tiers of structure also need to be recognized. In keeping
with many phonologists, we assume that the syllable falls into two parts, an onset
and a rhyme. The onset may be unfilled or may consist of one or more segments
which are either consonants or glides. The rhyme consists of a nucleus, which
typically contains a vowel, although syllabic consonants also exist in language
(but not commonly in Romance26), and a coda (cf. Durand 1990: 198–209;
Kenstowicz 1994: 252–6). In this vision of the syllable, the structure may be
represented as in Figure 1.4.
The segments that make up the onset, nucleus, and coda of a syllable are
arranged linearly. Governing the ordering of the segments, there is a general
26
Modern Romance varieties possessing syllabic consonants include New Mexican
Spanish (Espinosa 1925; Piñeros 2005), southern Portuguese (Hammarström 1953: 140),
certain varieties of Lunigiana in northern Tuscany (cf. 6.1.4), and certain non-standard
French varieties such as that of Ranrupt in Alsace (Aub-Büscher 1962: }12), dialects of the
Vendée (Svenson 1959: I, 29–30; Rézeau 1976: }11) and some localities in the département of
Indre (cf. 6.1.4). Also, a case in early modern Romanian was noted in 1.1.
Introduction 21
syllable
rhyme
onset nucleus coda
FIGURE 1.4. Basic internal structure of the syllable
principle which is founded on the relative degree of loudness or sonority inherent

in individual segment types. Although the precise phonetic basis of sonority is
still not fully established,27 for more than a century phoneticians and phonolo-
gists have assumed the existence of a universally valid sonority hierarchy which
extends from low vowels (the most sonorous sound types) down to plosives.28
Slightly different versions of the hierarchy have been proposed; a consensus of
these appears in Figure 1.5 below.
Building on this sonority-based hierarchy, it is generally assumed that the
segments of a syllable will normally be arranged linearly in conformity with the
Sonority Sequencing Generalization (SSG) which has been neatly characterized in
the following way: ‘between any member of a syllable and the syllable peak, a
greater sonority
low vowels [a], [a]
mid vowels [e], [e], [o] etc.
high vowels [i], [u], etc.
approximants [j], [w], etc.
liquids [l], [r], etc.
nasals [m], [n], etc.
fricatives [s], [z], etc.
plosives [t], [d], etc.
lesser sonority
FIGURE 1.5. The sonority scale
27
Cf. Kenstowicz (1994: 254) who notes, ‘a simple phonetic correlate to the phonological
property of sonority has yet to be discovered.’ However, interesting proposals have been made
by phoneticians, e.g. Price (1980) who explores three acoustic correlates, Opening (level of
constriction in vocal tract), Source (nature of acoustic excitation–voicing, friction noise, etc.)
and Rate of Change (in formant structure, fundamental frequency, amplitude), and Ohala
(1990) who attributes particular significance to amplitude, periodicity, spectral shape, and
fundamental frequency.
28
Amongst earlier phoneticians who formally recognized a sonority hierarchy, mention
may be made of Sievers (1881), Jespersen (1904), and Saussure (1916). Ohala (1990) offers a
useful historical overview.
22 Introduction
sonority rise or plateau must occur’ (Blevins 1995: 210).29 Thus, syllables will
usually show a sonority profile where the onset leads up to a peak, the nucleus,
and thereafter the profile dips down again. A further proposal has been that
greater preference in syllable structure tends to be given to ‘steeper’ slopes before
and after the syllable peak (cf. Vennemann 1988). Thus, onsets are more greatly
preferred the less sonorous they are and the more sharply the sonority level rises
from the onset to the following nucleus.30 For example, complex onsets such as
/pr-/ where there is greater ‘sonority distance’ (i.e. three levels on the scale
above) would be preferred over /mr-/ where the distance is minimal. We
would therefore expect to find not only that the former type of onset occurs
more commonly than the latter in language but also that the presence of the
latter type would presuppose the presence of the former in any given language.
This generally appears to be the case and suggests a possible vector for syllabic
change.
For the most part, the SSG captures the facts of Romance syllable struc-
ture in an appropriate way. Significantly, when complex word-initial onset
sequences that run counter to the SSG problems have arisen in the history of
Romance as a result of independent sound changes, speakers have not
infrequently innovated strategies (of which vowel prosthesis is one) as a
means of eliminating them. Two different types of vowel prosthesis appear
to have arisen in this way and these form a particular area of attention in
Chapters 4 and 6.
A further and more general characteristic of the syllable may be noted. As
phonologists have long since established, the preferred or unmarked syllable
structure in human language is CV, i.e. a nucleus preceded by an onset consisting
of one consonant, but with no coda present.31 It may therefore be expected that
29
The SSG is also referred to as the Sonority Sequencing Principle and a variety of
alternative definitions of similar content exist for it, e.g. ‘Sonority must not increase from
the nucleus to the edges of the syllable’ (Côté 2000: 17).
30
Vennemann (1988) talks of ‘Consonantal Strength’ rather than of its direct converse
sonority. Hence, in his ‘Head Law’ (pp. 13–14) where ‘Head’ ¼ our syllable onset and
‘onset’ ¼ our initial onset segment, he states that: ‘A syllable head is the more preferred: (a)
the closer the number of speech sounds in the head is to one; (b) the greater the
Consonantal Strength value of its onset; and (c) the more sharply the Consonantal
Strength drops from the onset towards the Consonantal Strength of the following
syllable.’ A corresponding, reversed ‘Coda Law’ is given on p. 21. It may be noted that
virtually all the supporting data for Vennemann’s work are drawn from Indo-European,
and more precisely Italian and German and their dialects (cf. p. 13 and n. 28).
31
A major piece of evidence supporting this assumption is that all human languages
have syllables with a CV structure, whereas not all languages have syllables containing
codas or complex onsets (e.g. Hawaiian). Phoneticians have also called attention to
Introduction 23
phonological change will often tend to promote developments which generalize

CV structure. Just such a tendency is noticeable in many Romance-speaking
areas, especially during the course of the first millennium AD when various
phonological changes conspire to simplify syllable margins (cf. Kiss 1971, 1992;
Sala 1976: 19–60). One of the strategies contributing to this end has been vowel
prosthesis in contexts where its effect is to break up complex onsets in word-
initial position, and more especially those onsets which run counter to the SSG.
However, moves towards a generalized CV syllable structure have been opposed
by other phonological changes, notably vowel deletion (syncope or apocope),
which have given rise to greater complexity in syllable margins. Such complicat-
ing developments are observable in many types of Romance during the later part
of the first millennium AD and throughout the second millennium. Where the
consonant composition of word edges has become more complex, there may be
significant differences in the relative degree of complexity in word-initial and
word-final consonant sequences. For instance, in Old French word-initial se-
quences consist of either simplex consonants or clusters of obstruent þ liquid
such as /pr-/, whereas word-final sequences of up to three consonants can be
found, e.g. freinst (cf. Roland, l. 1247) ‘he broke’. In contrast, Old Romanian of the
sixteenth century had word-initial sequences of up to three consonants but no
word-final consonants. In cases where word-initial sequences of greater complex-
ity become acceptable in the development of a Romance variety, this has usually
correlated with some reduction in the use of vowel prosthesis, as we shall see
(especially Chapter 4).
1.7.1.3 Word-initial onsets

We may look a little more closely at word-initial onsets, since their behaviour and
status will be likely to play a major role in determining the possible occurrence of
vowel prosthesis. As noted earlier, simple syllable onsets consisting of one conso-
nant are commonly viewed by phonologists as representing the unmarked ar-
rangement. In Optimality Theory (OT), this is reflected in the identification of a
basic constraint ONS (i.e. ONSET) favouring simple onsets.32 Complex onsets may
perceptual considerations that favour CV syllables. For most consonant types, the release
phase is particularly important for their identification and the information yielded by the
release phase is enhanced when a vowel immediately follows.
32
The ‘Onset Theorem’ postulates that onsets are required except in languages where
the ONS constraint is dominated by Faithfulness constraints PARSE ‘underlying segments
must be parsed into syllable structure’ which forbids deletion and FILL ‘syllable positions
must be filled with underlying segments’ which forbids epenthesis (McCarthy 2004: 31–8).
The latter two have generally been replaced by the Correspondence constraints MAX-IO
‘every segment of the input has a correspondent in the output’ forbidding deletion and
24 Introduction
pose difficulties. In OT, a general constraint *COMPLEX ‘no more than one C or V
may associate to any syllable node’ has been postulated (Prince and Smolensky
[1993] 2004: 34), which may be applied more specifically to onsets as *COMPLEX-
ONSET. However, it is apparent that in a number of languages which generally
favour just simple onsets, complex onsets of one particular type, may also be
permissible, namely those consisting of obstruent þ liquid/glide. This may be
attributed in good measure to the high degree of sonority difference between the
successive consonants here which resembles that existing between a simple
consonant onset and a following vowel nucleus. At a theoretical level, Govern-
ment Phonology (GP) recognizes this distributional fact by formally licensing not
only simple onsets but also branching onsets if, and only if, they consist of
obstruent þ sonorant. For other types of complex onsets, the individual compo-
nent consonants are treated at an underlying level as forming simple onsets
of successive CV syllables, the only exception being that word-initial sequences
of /s/ þ obstruent are subject to ‘magic licensing’ whereby /s/ is a ‘rhymal com-
plement’ of an initial underlying syllable with an unrealized onset and nucleus,
i.e. as # (C)(V)s–(Kaye 1992).33
Against this general theoretical background where onsets are only licensed if
they are simple or of minimal complexity (obstruent þ sonorant), it may be
predicted that when complex surface word-initial onsets other than the obs-
truent þ sonorant type appear in a language (perhaps as a result of independent
sound change), restructuring to re-establish a licensed form for the onsets
could well come about. This can happen in various ways: for example, deletion
#C1C2- > #C1- or #C2-; epenthesis #C1C2- > #C1VC2-; or prosthesis #C1C2- >
#VC1C2-. In the last of these possibilities, the effect would be to re-syllabify the
problematic onset sequences by relocating the formerly word-initial consonant
C1 to the coda of a new syllable. For example, in the Latin monosyllabic word STAT
the two initial consonants /s/ and /t/ necessarily belonged to the same surface
syllable where they together formed a complex onset, but in Spanish esjtá the
consonant /s/ now belongs to a different syllable from /t/, where the sibilant now
has a similar status to a rhymal complement as postulated in GP. As we shall see in
the following subsection and in later chapters, it seems that the genesis of all the
DEP-IO ‘every segment of the output has a correspondent in the input’ forbidding epenthesis
(McCarthy 2004: 82).
33
Alternative views have also been proposed. Thus, Lowenstamm (1996) argues that
only single segments can be onsets and that the muta cum liquida type should be
interpreted as simplex, e.g. [pr] would be underlyingly represented as a rhotacized
bilabial plosive /pr/. Also, to account for onsets with falling sonority, such as Polish rdest
[rdest] ‘water-pepper’, extrasyllabicity of r with later adjunction at prosodic word level has
been appealed to, by Rubach and Booij (1990), but cf. also Cyran and Gussmann (1999) for
a different vision within GP.
Introduction 25
different categories of prosthesis in Romance has been directly bound up with

moves to simplify complex onsets.
Other, non-phonological factors too have been of relevance in promoting vowel
prosthesis. However, it will be recalled that prosthesis represents an essentially
phonological phenomenon. Accordingly, care needs to be taken to distinguish factors
involved in the creation of true prosthesis from those which have participated in the
development of new word-initial vowels that are not phonologically based.
1.7.2 M O R P H O P H O N O LO G I C A L FAC TO R S
Situated at the leftmost edge of a word, the potential context of a prosthetic vowel
will necessarily be adjacent to the end of a preceding word in most contexts of
speech. The only exceptions will be where a pause or sustained silence precedes.
The possibility thus exists that prosthesis may develop as a result of interplay
between adjacent word edges. In the history of Latin up to and including Classical
Latin, there appears to be relatively little indication of any such interplay, a fact
which may be due in part to the relative syntactic freedom enjoyed by the word
and which in turn could have helped to ensure its continued integrity as a
phonological unit (cf. Marotta 1999: 301).
However, in the period from the Empire onward, circumstances changed as the
syntactic freedom of the word was progressively reduced. The growing cliticiza-
tion of certain words is an indicator of this. The resulting increase in interplay
between adjacent word-edge segments was able to give rise to word-initial vowel
creation in two ways. First, speakers might reinterpret the location of the original
word boundary between successive words such that a word-final vowel was
assigned to the following word. This is particularly likely in tightly knit, high-
frequency grammatical syntagmas like clitic phrases, e.g. noun phrases composed
of a proclitic determiner þ noun. For instance, the modern French noun abajoue
‘cheek-pouch certain animals have for storing food’ owes its initial pseudo-
prosthetic vowel to reinterpretation of the word boundary in the Old French
noun phrase la bajoue. Similarly, Old French la bée was reinterpreted as l’ abée
‘(the) mouth of a mill-leat’. The initial vowel of modern French écrevisse ‘crayfish’,
épontille ‘stanchion in boat, shoring timbers used in boat building’ has appeared
as a result of the Old French plural nouns phrases les crevisses, les pontilles being
reinterpreted such that the vowel of the proclitic article has been identified with
the following noun (Nyrop 1935: I } 490).34 Such initial vowels would not be
viewed as true prosthetic vowels, however.
34
It may be added that the opposite development, aphaeresis, is equally likely to occur
in such close-knit phrases, as in (Fr.) boutique, (It.) bottega, (Sp.) bodega < APOTHĒCA
doubtless via phrases like ILLA (A)POTHĒCA.
26 Introduction
Second, when two words were juxtaposed the first word could trigger some
phonological adaptation to the beginning of the second word. In cases where
this involved a vowel appearing, we would have prosthesis which could be
interpreted as a form of sandhi, or morphophonological alternation.35 An exam-
ple of sandhi-conditioned prosthesis is seen in modern formal standard Italian
phrases such as per iscritto ‘in writing’ (as against scritto ‘written’), where the key
conditioning factor is the presence of a preceding monosyllabic grammatical
word ending in a consonant (per) within the same syntactic phrase. Sandhi has
been of relevance in the development of all categories of vowel prosthesis in
Romance, although its role has perhaps been more transparent with two cate-
gories in particular (Chapters 4, 6). Alternation arising from sandhi may subse-
quently be eliminated as a result of either the prosthetic or the non-prosthetic
alternant being generalized. Where the former takes place, the result will be
surface lexicalization of the prosthetic form.
The location of prosthesis at the left-hand edge of words may have other
morphophonological implications. One possibility is that speakers and hearers
may interpret a prosthetic vowel as a type of grammatical boundary marker.
A possible consequence of this may be that, whatever the original motivation was
for innovating the use of a prosthetic vowel at word level, the boundary-marking
role which it is perceived to fulfil may be exploited. In cases where there is a
marked increase in the frequency of words with initial vowels, thanks to the
incidence of prosthetic vowels, speakers may come to associate word-initial
boundaries with the presence of a vowel. If the process were carried to its full
extent, the result would be the establishment of a vowel-initial canonical form
for words, either for all words or those belonging to a specific syntactic class.
Unlikely as such a process might seem, an example which lends itself to an
interpretation along these lines is reported for southern varieties of Aromanian
(the branch of Romanian spoken south of the Danube), where prosthesis with a-
is reported to occur widely across the major word-classes; e.g. arı̂u (< RĪVU(M))
‘river’, arár (< RĀRU(M)) ‘rare’, alúmtu (< LŬCTO) ‘I fight’, acúmpı̂ru (< CŌMPARO)
‘I buy’, aúngu (< ŬNGO) ‘I smear’, agı́ńe (< VĪNEA) ‘vineyard’ as against Daco-
Romanian rı̂u, rar, lupt, cumpăr, ung, vie respectively (Caragiu Marioţeanu 1977:
176; Papahagi 1974). As yet, however, the process of extending the use of a- has not
been systematically carried through.
35
Alternative terms here for the phenomenon here are ‘syntactic phonetics’ or
‘Satzphonetik’. For a useful discussion of sandhi as a term and concept and its rather
varied use amongst linguists, see Ternes (1986).
Introduction 27
1.7.3 LEXICAL ALIGNMENT
The formal alignment of semantically closely related words is by no means

an unknown feature of Romance evolution; for example, *GRĚVE(M) ‘heavy,
grave’ ( > OFr. grief, It. greve, OIt. grieve) was adapted from GRĂVE(M) under
the influence of its antonym LĚVE(M) ‘light, easy’ ( > OFr. lief, It. lieve). Where a
word is formally aligned with another semantically related word which begins
with a vowel, the result may be prosthesis by association. For instance, it seems
that the initial vowel in Spanish avispa ‘wasp’ < Latin VĚSPA was introduced under
the influence of the word abeja ‘bee’ (< Latin APiCULA). It is of course not
impossible that we have here another example of the relocation of a word
boundary, la vispa > l(a) avispa, but the fact that numerous other Spanish
words of feminine gender containing an initial V- have not been similarly affected,
e.g. VĚSPERA > vı́spera ‘eve’, VĪPERA > vı́bora ‘viper’, suggests that associative influ-
ence was at least partly responsible for bringing about the initial vowel of avispa.
Given the somewhat idiosyncratic and unpredictable nature of such semantic
associations, this factor has only operated in a limited and sporadic way.
1.7.4 M O R P H O L E X I C A L FAC TO R S
Vowel prosthesis shares an obvious relationship with one of the major processes of
word formation, prefixation, and in Romance the relationship is particularly close.
Most of the Latin prefixes that remained productive in Romance, such as AD- CON-
EX- DIS- IN-, were monosyllabic and they were also unstressed unless, very unusually,
they became lexically incorporated within the following root and thereby lost their
prefixal status, as in iN-FLAT > (Fr.) (il) enfle ‘(he) inflates’ or CŌN-SUO > (Sp.) coso ‘I
sew’. Vowel-initial prefixes were particularly likely to be aligned with prosthetic
vowels since in many cases they became phonologically identical to one another. For
instance, the prefix AD- normally developed to a-, as in ADVOCĀTU(M), (Fr.) avoué
‘lawyer’, AD-CORD-ĀRE, (Sp.) acordar ‘to decide’, this outcome coinciding with the
normal result of one category of prosthesis (cf. above 1.3 and Chapter 5). Likewise,
the prefix EX- evolved into [es-] or [is-] in many varieties of early Romance, e.g. EX-
CAPĀRE > (OFr.) escaper, eschaper, (OSp.) escapar ‘to escape’, (Old Tuscan) iscappare,
thereby becoming indistinguishable from the result of another category of prosthe-
sis (cf. Chapter 4). As a consequence, there has predictably been a close connection
between the fortunes of, on the one hand, words showing vowel prosthesis and, on
the other, prefixal forms. And given the historical antecedence of prefixation, it is
not unlikely that the substantial numbers of prefixal forms that existed in Latin and
early Romance acted as a partial catalyst for expanding the incidence of vowel
prosthesis.
28 Introduction
1.7.5 S O C I O L I N G U I S T I C C O N S I D E R AT I O N S
Structural factors have undoubtedly played a key role in the rise and subsequent
development of vowel prosthesis in Romance, but due account also needs to be
taken of sociolinguistic factors since these have exercised a good deal of influence
in shaping patterns of evolution. Some of the more significant ways in which
sociolinguistic factors have operated may be briefly identified.
1.7.5.1 Interference from substrata and superstrata

The possibility exists that the use of vowel prosthesis may be promoted in some
measure as a result of contact influence from another language. Over the past two
millennia, there have been many examples of languages coming into contact with
Latin or Romance. The rise of the Roman Empire saw the incorporation of
numerous different peoples speaking entirely different languages from Latin,
such as Celtic, Punic, and Etruscan. As these languages enjoyed little or no official
recognition from the Romans and particularly so in the Latin-speaking west,36
they were almost all ultimately displaced but only after a period of greater or
lesser bilingualism lasting centuries in some cases, especially in rural areas more
remote from direct Roman influences (cf. Reichenkron 1965; Kontzi 1982; Lodge
1993; Anderson 1988; Baldinger 1972; Curchin 1991; Pulgram 1958). Unfortunately,
the degree of linguistic impact from these substratum languages on Latin remains
uncertain and consequently highly controversial, partly because of the lack of
detailed knowledge of their formal structure and partly because certain Roma-
nists of the past unfortunately used substratum languages as a useful expedient in
explaining problematic linguistic changes, thereby discrediting subsequent at-
tempts to invoke substrata as a plausible source of change. But, as we shall see
(Chapter 5), the possibility that substratum influence has been involved in
helping to promote certain instances of prosthesis cannot simply be discounted.
Further potential outside interference has come from languages (notably
Germanic, Slavic, and Arabic) introduced from the fourth to the tenth century
by the peoples who established themselves as the masters in different parts of the
36
Cf. Adams (2003: 758) who observes, ‘There does not seem to have been an explicit
official policy (based on the sort of linguistic nationalism which has often surfaced in the
history of Europe) that subject peoples should learn Latin. There was however an
expectation that Roman citizens, even if they were Greek speakers, should learn the
language, and certain types of documents concerning citizens, for a period at least
during the Empire, had to be in Latin, even if the citizens to whom the document
applied did not know the language (wills, birth certificates, and various other types of
legal text). In the west the onus was on locals to learn Latin if they wanted to get on, as their
masters treated vernacular languages as if they did not exist.’
Introduction 29
former Empire. These languages too were destined to be displaced by Latin-

Romance in almost all areas but once again this was preceded by a period of
bilingualism that may have affected in some way the speech habits of subsequent
Romance speakers. More is known of the structural make-up of these superstra-
tum languages than of substrata, but even so their precise effect on Romance
remains unclear and consequently subject once again to controversy. Nonethe-
less, there is evidence to suggest that they may have exerted some influence in
determining the fortunes of prosthesis in certain Romance areas where there was
widespread bilingualism extending over lengthy periods of time (see Chapter 4).
1.7.5.2 Interaction between contemporary varieties within Latin-Romance

In addition to interference from external languages, the interplay between differ-
ent contemporary varieties within Latin or Romance is also likely to have served
as a factor for change affecting patterns of prosthesis in individual varieties.
Already at the beginning of our period of coverage, the beginning of the Empire,
most (if not all) of the inhabitants of the Latin-speaking parts of the Empire
could not have failed to be polylectal to some degree. At that time, the estimated
population for Italy was thirteen million and for other Latin-speaking provinces
fourteen million (Christ 1984: 270), and these people were spread over a vast
geographical area and displayed wide social and ethnic diversity. To this may be
added the likelihood that, even at the height of the Empire, literacy levels may
never have reached 10 per cent (Harris 1989: 272) so that one potential force for
linguistic convergence—the influence of a homogeneous and prestigious written
norm—could at best exert a limited influence. The implication of this is that
there would have been substantial variation (diatopic and diastratic) in the
linguistic habits of Latin speakers in Imperial times. Thereafter, in the political
and social fragmentation and increased educational deprivation which occurred
after the collapse of the Empire, linguistic diversity could only have increased.
Against such a background, it seems fairly safe to assume that the nature and
patterns of occurrence of vowel prosthesis would have shown progressive diver-
gence across the varieties of speech in Romania continua during the first millen-
nium AD.37 Unfortunately, however, reliable data on language usage, and
especially spoken usage, in this period are scarce (cf. 1.9 below). As a result, any
37
Romania continua refers to the area of the former Roman Empire in which Latin has
remained in continuous use (evolving through time) up to modern times. The term
contrasts with Romania nova which designates areas beyond the Roman Empire to
which Latin-based speech was later carried (e.g. Latin America), and Romania submersa
which covers those areas of the Roman Empire where Latin came to be displaced (e.g.
North Africa).
30 Introduction
assessment of the impact of regional and social variation on early developments

with prosthesis will necessarily have to be at best tentative.
In the second millennium AD and up to the present day, circumstances change
considerably. The rise of nation states, whether politically or culturally based, within
Romania continua has had important implications for the fortunes of vowel pros-
thesis in individual linguistic varieties. In each emerging state, the typical pattern
has been for one regionally based variety (e.g. Castilian, Florentine, or ‘Francien’38)
to acquire greater prestige than other sister varieties, whether for military, socio-
economic, political or, less commonly, cultural reasons. The result has been that the
prestigious variety has come to be recognized as the linguistic norm or standard
language of the state. And, enhanced by the creation of an authoritative and
increasingly elaborated written form, it has been progressively diffused amongst
the citizens typically through the expansion of trade and commercial intercourse,
the introduction of an ever-expanding state bureaucracy, the establishment of a state
education system and, more recently, the rise of the mass media. An important
consequence of the establishment of standard languages has been progressive
linguistic convergence, as speakers of non-standard varieties tend to adjust and
accommodate their speech patterns to conform more closely with those of the more
prestigious standard usage. The significance of this for the use of vowel prosthesis in
particular is clear: linguistic convergence may sometimes result in individual non-
standard varieties either abandoning or extending their use of prosthesis in keeping
with patterns in the standard language (see Chapters 4 and 6).
1.7.5.3 Written usage, spoken usage, and Latin

One of the basic tenets of modern theoretical linguistics is the priority of speech
over writing.39 However, this rather absolute conception of things requires
38
Much debate has taken place in recent years over the origins of standard French. The
traditional view that the basis for the standard language was the dialect of Paris and the Ile-de-
France, i.e. francien as Gaston Paris baptized it in 1889, has been strongly contested, cf. Chaurand
(1983) and especially Cerquiglini (1991) who claims that Paris and the Ile-de-France had no
dialect of their own and that standard French developed instead from a consensus variety
devised in the tenth or eleventh centuries by scribes and writers using linguistic materials drawn
from a number of different dialects. Rather more plausibly, Lodge (2004) proposes that
standard French has its basis in the somewhat heterogeneous spoken usage of twelfth- and
thirteenth-century Paris when the city rapidly grew in size as immigrants from outside regions
came in introducing new linguistic characteristics that were incorporated. It was one form of the
resultant Parisian koine, the one used by the elite classes, that was later to undergo elaboration
and codification emerging as the standard French language.
39
This view was firmly enunciated by Saussure ([1916] 1967: 45), ‘l’objet linguistique
n’est pas défini par la combinaison du mot écrit et du mot parlé; ce dernier constitue à lui
Introduction 31
nuancing since written language is not merely a secondary means of representing

speech, differing only in its use of a visual channel of transmission rather than the
sound-based type. Written language possesses important properties of its own.
Notably, it has permanency, and in consequence it can be accessed and exploited
by individuals independent of a specific time and place enabling it to provide the
means for establishing and preserving tradition and authority. As Coulmas (1989:
8) observes, ‘writing is a means of social control, and it creates social coherence.’
Given the political and social significance of written language, it is not
surprising that throughout the history of Romance the written word has always
enjoyed a relatively high level of prestige in relation to spoken language in
communities where there was at least some degree of literacy present. One
consequence of this has been that features of written language have sometimes
influenced spoken usage. A familiar example is spelling pronunciation where the
written representation of a word comes to modify its spoken form, as in French
fils ‘son’ whose final segment in the present-day pronunciation [fis] has been
influenced by the written < s> . This pronunciation only finally displaced the
earlier [fi] in the nineteenth century although it is known to have been used by
some speakers from the sixteenth century (Thurot 1881: II, 81).40
The prestige of written usage relative to speech appears to have affected the
fortunes of vowel prosthesis too. In particular, the written form of Latin seems to
have been influential, operating in two different ways. First, it may be recalled
that prosthetic vowels did not exist in Classical Latin and so they did not figure in
its orthographic system. And even though prosthetic vowels doubtless began to
appear in speech in many areas during the Empire and into the early Middle Ages,
a Classical Latin-based orthographical system remained in use to represent the
evolving Latin which continued to serve as the medium for all formal written
activities, administration, religion, education, and scholarship. The Carolingian
Reforms which were promoted by Charlemagne (d. 814) restored a more Classi-
cal-style Latin for official use in Church and chancellery, and, predictably,
prosthetic vowels had no place in the spelling system advocated for use by scribes
seul cet objet.’ Critical re-assessment of the relationship between written and spoken
language has only recently been seriously engaged in, e.g. by Coulmas (1989), Harris
(2000), and Linnell (2005).
40
Thurot loc. cit. notes that the sixteenth-century grammarians Baı̈f and Henri Estienne
report the pronunciation [fis] although the latter observes that the ‘peuple’ use both [fis]
and [fi]. Thurot himself concludes his coverage with the statement ‘l’usage est encore
partagé aujourd’hui.’ In his influential dictionary (1863–73), the very conservative speaker
Emile Littré still cites [fi] as the recommended pronunciation, with a liaison form [fiz] in
fils aı̂né (s.v. fils). However, he adds: ‘Beaucoup de gens ont pris depuis quelque temps
l’habitude de faire entendre l’s quand le mot est isolé ou devant une consonne, un fiss’; c’est
une très-mauvaise prononciation.’
32 Introduction
when they wrote the restored Latin. As Banniard (1992: 46) observes, ‘la première
consigne [des clercs] . . . était de respecter l’orthographe classique, quelle que fût
la prononciation entendue.’ Subsequently, the Medieval Latin which the Reforms
effectively ‘invented’ (to paraphrase Wright 1982: ix) continued to operate for
centuries alongside vernacular Romance, acting as a prestigious official medium,
written and spoken, even though it was no longer the native language of any-
body.41 The Renaissance was to bring further change to Latin, with scholars
seeking to restore it to a fully Classical form.42 Again, understandably, no
prosthetic vowels appeared in the spelling system. The authenticity and linguistic
integrity of the Latin that emerged from the work of Renaissance scholars43
ensured its high social prestige, even though among the rest of the population
it came to be actively studied and cultivated by ever fewer people. At all stages,
therefore, the spelling system used for Latin (whether Classical or Carolingian or
Renaissance) has not indicated the presence of prosthetic vowels. Given the
prestige long associated with Latin and the known impact of written language
on speech, it seems not inconceivable that the absence of prosthetic vowels in
written Latin may have helped to discourage their use amongst the literate classes
and the socially aspirant, particularly when they articulated the Latin-based
words that came increasingly to proliferate in more formal spoken registers.
Given the prestige associated with such speakers and their linguistic usage, we
may infer that it exercised some ‘top-down’ influence on the general fate of
prosthesis, especially in more culturally and socially developed Romance areas
(cf. Chapter 4).
A second and closely related aspect concerns the changing status of
written Romance vis-à-vis Latin. Romance vernaculars had slowly begun to
develop their own written form in the wake of the Carolingian Reforms
when the distinctness of Romance and (restored) Latin first began to be
41
This was so despite the fact that many individuals not only wrote and read Latin but
also spoke it fluently. Indeed, there may have been a small minority of medieval people
possessing near-native speaker control of Latin, similar to what is indicated for certain
individuals in the Renaissance such as Michel de Montaigne (1533–92) who was evidently
brought up at first in an artificial (Classical) Latin-speaking environment (cf. Essais I, 26).
Nonetheless, the broad characterization of medieval Latin by Deutschmann (1971: 59) as a
‘lebendige Schriftsprache’ seems appropriate.
42
Notable was the work of Erasmus ([1528] 1978), cf. also Hesseling and Pernot (1919).
43
The prestige was to ensure the maintenance of Latin in many parts of Europe until
the twentieth century, notably in the Catholic Church (where it is still the language used
for official papal pronouncements and certain internal administration, and in addition has
recently been reintroduced as a permissible language for the mass) and also in areas of
education and scholarship. For a discussion of the fate of Latin in Europe since the
Renaissance, see Waquet (2001).
Introduction 33
perceived.44 Even so, Latin remained the dominant written medium for
official matters until the later Middle Ages. However, the growth in written
activity, literary and non-literary, amongst a new emerging bourgeoisie often
unfamiliar with Latin and the enormous increase in the need for official
documentation in the nascent nation states (a need which could not be met
by the insufficient number of Latin-writing lawyers and functionaries) meant
that written Romance began to encroach more and more on official domains
hitherto reserved to Latin, such as administration and the law. To enable
Romance to express the sometimes complex information that needed to be
communicated in these domains, conscious enrichment and elaboration of
the linguistic range available took place drawing freely on the resources of
Latin. This has resulted most conspicuously in the introduction from the
twelfth century onward of massive numbers of ‘learned’ lexical borrowings
(mots savants, cultismos, voci dotte) to plug conceptual gaps. The source
forms of such Latinate borrowings of course contained no prosthetic
vowel. It therefore seems not unlikely that in view of their growing frequen-
cy and the cachet they enjoyed as high-register words, these written borrow-
ings provided a further possible factor undermining the use of prosthetic
vowels in certain Romance varieties.
1.8 Previous studies
The historical development of vowel prosthesis in Romance has not so far

received a detailed and systematic investigation. Schuchardt (1867: 337–65) pro-
vides the fullest discussion so far of the most widespread type of prosthesis, I-
prosthesis (cf. Chapter 4), and the substantial array of materials presented there
remains an important source. More limited accounts of this and other types of
prosthesis appear in many historical grammars of Romance, Diez (I: 224–6),
Meyer-Lübke (1890: I, }} 29, 367, 383, 388), Guarnerio (1918: }} 281, 287), Deferrari
(1954: 97–8, 153–4, 274, 315), Bourciez (1956: }} 54b, 269c, 465d, 514c), Lausberg
(1967: }} 307, 353–5) and Posner (1996: 290–1). The article by Şiadbei (1958) offers a
slightly fuller examination of general Romance patterns, while Politzer (1959)
considers early medieval patterns of development in one type of prosthesis (see
Chapter 4). The fortunes of prosthesis in Italo-Romance in particular are briefly
44
In Northern France, this started in the ninth century but only became widespread
from the twelfth century (Lodge 1993), whilst in Spain and Italy the earliest limited
indications came in the eleventh century and in the eleventh to twelfth centuries,
respectively, although in both areas it was not until the thirteenth century that the
practice of writing in vernacular became firmly established (Bartoli Langeli 2000; Wright
2000).
34 Introduction
discussed in Meyer-Lübke (1929) and Maneca (1965), while there is a valuable

analysis of the phenomenon in Piedmont by Clivio (1971), a detailed but less
critical discussion of Piedmontese data in Telmon (1975), and useful observations
on prosthetic vowels in proclitics in north-eastern Italo-Romance by Vanelli
(1984). The only book-length study devoted specifically to vowel prosthesis in
Romance in recent times appears to be the doctoral dissertation of La Scala (1975)
which gathers together a range of basic information but does not cover all
relevant data and at times arrives at questionable interpretations.
1.9 Sources of data
For early developments in the Empire and early Middle Ages (pre-literary period
of Romance), four main types of source are available: (i) epigraphical evidence,
for which there are collections such as the CIL; (ii) glosses, the largest body of
which appear in the CGL; (iii) metalinguistic observations by Roman grammar-
ians, for which Keil provides the fullest selection; (iv) Latin texts particularly of
the later Empire and early medieval period which range from formal scholarly
works to informal writings such as private letters. A convenient list of references
to these texts appears in Stotz (1996–2004).
Entering the literary period of Romance, a growing diversity of vernacular
materials becomes available. These include texts which are literary (verse or
prose), non-literary (official or practical and for general consultation), and
those intended for private reading (e.g. letters). In addition, there are formal
accounts, whether descriptive or prescriptive, of language states especially
of standard varieties, by contemporary observers from the sixteenth century
onward. More recent descriptions carried out by trained linguists provide a
more reliable source of knowledge and these are available for both standard
and non-standard varieties. A further resource is offered by linguistic atlases,
the first of which (the ALF) dates from the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. However, the widespread tendency to present materials consisting of
just isolated words often reduces their usefulness somewhat for the present study.
Finally, the established techniques of linguistic reconstruction together with
findings from modern linguistic research are used to provide important
pointers to the interpretation of the available data. On the one hand, a
range of basic insights has been drawn from sociolinguistic work on societal
and cultural influences on language evolution. For example, studies conducted
on the effects of language standardization in nation states and the patterns of
interference when different linguistic varieties come into close contact have
offered suggestive lines of enquiry for our investigations. On the other hand,
important perspectives have been gained from formal linguistics. Particularly
fruitful for our purposes has been the work carried out on prosodic
Introduction 35
phonology, especially syllable theory. Also, more recently there has been a
great deal of insightful cross-linguistic investigation of epenthetic phenomena,
which of course include vowel prosthesis. This has been either phonetic-based,
as when exploring perceptual aspects governing the occurrence of epenthesis,
or phonologically based. For the latter, the extensive work on interphonolo-
gical phenomena has yielded results which shed useful light on formal proper-
ties of prosthetic and, more broadly, epenthetic vowels. At a more theoretical
level, no systematic use has been made of a particular model of description,
such as the currently dominant Optimality Theory (OT). In the case of OT,
the apparent claim that change in a given linguistic variety essentially involves
just modification over time in the ranking of a set of violable constraints
seems to offer a less than appealing vision of language change unless the
factors lying behind the modifications in constraint ranking can be identi-
fied.45 OT historical accounts typically contain just ex post facto statements of
such modification, which is not of course an explanation of change. A further
theoretical problem that has been identified is posed when accounting for
change which involves the lexical restructuring of underlying forms (Reiss
2003).
In the broad comparative-historical view being adopted here, the use of fine-
grained theoretical interpretation of the sort undertaken in a synchronic study of
a given linguistic variety, whether using OT or some other model, becomes
problematic. It has seemed appropriate therefore to offer a fairly ‘surface’, pho-
netically grounded account of the history of vowel prosthesis in Romance. To this
end, external (philological and sociopolitical) and internal linguistic data are
used in conjunction in order to identify, sometimes very tentatively, the processes
of change that may have operated.
45
Also the motivation for, and status of, the constraints postulated are not always
entirely clear. As one critic has noted, ‘Many [OT] analyses . . . reduce to exercises in
constraint invention, in the absence of any sensible limit on the form and number of
constraints to be proposed’ (McMahon 2000: 96). As to their status, constraints are taken
by some linguists to be universal in language, while for other linguists language-specific
constraints may also be postulated. However, how the two types relate is less than obvious.
2
Categories of Prosthesis in the

History of Romance
Vowel prosthesis has not operated across the different varieties of Romance as a
unitary phenomenon. Chronological, geographical, and structural considerations
suggest that three main categories need to be distinguished. These we shall refer
to as I-prosthesis, A-prosthesis, and U-prosthesis (see Map 1). A limited number
of other instances of vowel prosthesis can be found, but these can be seen to
represent special cases of one or other of the three main categories distinguished
or they can be attributed to the action of non-phonological factors of some sort
(cf. 1.7). The broad nature of each of the three main categories will be outlined
in this chapter before each is explored in more detail in separate chapters
(Chapters 4–6).
2.1 I-prosthesis
I-prosthesis is perhaps the most familiar category of all since it is the one usually
cited when vowel prosthesis in Romance is referred to. It involves words whose
etyma originally contained a word-initial sequence of /s/ þ consonant, such as
Latin SCĀLA ‘ladder’, SPISSU(M) ‘thick, dense’, STĀRE ‘to stand’ ( > Sp. escala, espeso,
estar; Nuorese (Sardinian) iscala, ispissu, istare; etc.). Historically, the quality of
the vowel that was at first introduced appears to have been predominantly [i-]
(hence our term for this category) and this value has been retained in some
types of Romance, such as Sardinian and central Italian varieties. However, as a
result of regular sound change, the quality of the vowel has subsequently been
modified in other types of Romance. Most commonly, it has taken on a mid
value [e-] but in certain varieties the phonetic quality has developed further, as
we shall see (Chapter 4). The triggering factor for the innovation of the
prosthetic vowel seems to have been primarily phonological, relating to syllabic
structure.
Chronologically, this category of prosthesis has a long attested history.
Epigraphical evidence suggests that it goes back at least to the second
Categories of prosthesis in Romance 37
century AD. Even so, it is not until the early seventh century that the presence
of I-prosthesis is directly alluded to by contemporary observers of linguistic
usage.
Geographically, I-prosthesis evidently came to be used widely across
the Empire. This was doubtless assisted by the fact that it arose and began to
establish itself during the period when the Empire still maintained relatively good
internal communications enabling ready social interaction between regions.
Subsequently, however, for various reasons this category of prosthesis came
to take deepest root in the usage of the western half of the Empire including
central Italy.
2.2 A-prosthesis
A-prosthesis is a development which is also well represented in the history of

Romance. Structurally, it involves the insertion typically of the low vowel [a-], as

in ROTA > Gascon arròde ‘wheel’. In its earliest phase, this category of prosthesis
appears to have occurred in words beginning with R-, as in the example cited. The
origins of the development appear to be bound up with the use of a strongly
trilled realization / r̄-/ for the rhotic R- in word-initial position within some
but not all varieties of Late Latin and early Romance. However, in certain
Romance varieties A-prosthesis has subsequently come to operate in other struc-
turally related contexts as well.
Geographically, A-prosthesis is widely represented across Romance. It has
operated in varieties of northern Ibero-Romance, in various types of southern
Gallo-Romance, in Sardinian, in southern Italo-Romance albeit under special
circumstances and patchily in central and northern varieties, and in certain
varieties of Rheto-Romance and Balkan Romance.
Turning to the chronology of this development, we find that the earliest
attestations date from the early medieval period. Examples from the tenth
century have been found for northern Ibero-Romance and Gascon. In
southern Italy, the appearance of a prosthetic vowel /a-/ similarly goes
back to the medieval period. In both areas, therefore, the process has a
long history although it postdates I-prosthesis. Elsewhere, dating is prob-
lematic for want of textual evidence. For the Balkans especially, there is no
surviving documentation of any substance at all written in Latin or early
Romance until the early sixteenth century, and in the varieties where
A-prosthesis has been most fully exploited, written evidence dates only
from the eighteenth century. Accordingly, whether this category of prosthesis
is of comparable antiquity across the different varieties of Romance affected
remains uncertain.
38 Categories of prosthesis in Romance
2.3 U-prosthesis
U-prosthesis involves the introduction of a prosthetic vowel whose quality is

somewhat variable and hence unspecific (thus explaining the use of ‘U’ for this
category). In fact, a wide variety of prosthetic vowels can be found, as in anval,
unval, inval ‘avalanche, heap of snow’ < NIVĀLE(M) which are all reported to occur
in different Piedmontese dialects (Telmon 1975: 155). The results of this category
of prosthesis can therefore coincide superficially with those of the two other
categories presented above. However, in addition to the variability in the quality
of the vowel introduced, a number of characteristics serve to distinguish this
category from the others.
First, geographically, U-prosthesis is rather less extensive than the other cate-
gories. It is found particularly in northern and, much more rarely, central dialects
of Italo-Romance, and also in Rheto-Romance varieties. Elsewhere, instances
have been reported, notably for a broad sweep of dialects in northern Gallo-
Romance.
Structurally, syllabic factors undoubtedly underlie the development of
U-prosthesis, suggesting a close connection between it and I-prosthesis. However,
the latter category involved the insertion of a prosthetic vowel before a rather
specific subset of consonant sequences. In contrast, U-prosthesis has shown
rather less specificity in that it has operated on a range of different word-initial
sequences. In addition, there can be a good deal of difference from dialect to
dialect in respect of the precise set of onset sequences which trigger U-prosthesis,
as we shall see in Chapter 6. In contrast, I-prosthesis appears to have represented
not a graded development across context types but a unitary process systemati-
cally affecting a single well-defined context type.
Further marking off this category of prosthesis is its chronology. From items
like Bolognese amváud, Piedmontese anvud ‘nephew’ < NEPŌTE(M), it is evident
that the prosthetic vowel was only added after two medieval changes had already
taken place: lenition of intervocalic obstruents and syncope of non-low initial
unstressed vowels, NEPŌTE(M) > *nevo:de > *n(e)vo:d(e) > *nvo:d. Necessarily,
therefore, prosthesis can only have occurred at some stage well into the medieval
period, thus distinguishing it even more sharply from I-prosthesis.
2.4 Miscellaneous
Each of the three categories of prosthesis that have been identified represents a
process of change whose rationale is primarily phonologically based, involving an
apparent reaction amongst speakers of a Romance variety to existing patterns of
syllabic or segmental structure. Usually, unless some special factors intervene, the
resulting restructuring process can be expected to be carried through with
Categories of prosthesis in Romance 39
considerable, or even near-total, regularity in words containing the relevant

phonological contexts. However, not all seemingly prosthetic vowels necessarily
arise in this way. As has been seen earlier (1.7), non-phonological factors can lead
to prosthesis occurring but it is significant that in such cases the process seldom
approaches anything like regularity and remains sporadic, i.e. relatively infre-
quent and unpredictable. Some illustrative examples may be considered.
First, grammatical rather than phonological factors may be of central relevance
in creating new word-initial vowels. One instance of this arises as a result of the
recutting of a word boundary so that the last vowel segment of a frequently co-
occurring preceding satellite word comes to be interpreted as the initial vowel of
the following word. An example cited earlier was (Old Fr.) la bée > (mod. Fr.)
l’abée ‘mouth of a mill-leat’. Parallel cases to this French example are found across
many varieties of Romance, e.g. in Piedmontese amél ‘honey’, afél ‘bile’ < MĔL, FĔL
(following gender switch from original neuter to feminine) and in southern
Italian dialects (5.2.1.1). However, the range of specific lexical items affected by
this development in any given variety is typically unpredictable.
A rather different case of a grammatically based prosthetic vowel is found in
Campidanese (southern Sardinian) where the vowel [i] is found before demon-
strative pronouns when a grammatical function word precedes, as in dè cussu ‘of
that’, e custu ‘and this’ which emerge respectively as [d¡i’ussu] and [¡i’ustu]
(Bolognesi 1998: 455). No such vowel occurs if a lexical item rather than a
grammatical one precedes; also, the vowel fails to appear with items other than
the three demonstrative pronouns, custu, cussu, cuffu. A not dissimilar case is
also found in Old French demonstratives where a pattern of alternation operated,
as in cest icest, cel icel. As a result of morphological reanalysis, the initial [i-]
occurring in one of the alternants was evidently interpreted as some sort of
marker of emphasis and came to be extended to certain other grammatical
forms such as tant ‘so much’, tel ‘such’ giving itant, itel.1 Examples such as
these from Sardinian and Old French, however, are clearly idiosyncratic and
accordingly need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
An ostensibly prosthetic vowel may appear word-initially as a result of formal
alignment with another semantically related word. For instance, as we saw earlier
1
According to Marchello-Nizia (1995: 169–70), the alternants in i- functioned from the
twelfth to the fifteenth century as marked forms which served to focalize or thematize the
noun phrase they appeared in. Commonly this meant that they appeared in clause-initial
position in Old French (Buridant 2000: }99). In the fifteenth century these forms become
much less frequent in texts and they predominantly operate as pronouns. In modern
French, i- forms of the cel series survive in archaic legal language, e.g. la maison et les prés
attenant à icelle and rarely as an adjective ı́ceux époux. It is also found in humorous mock-
archaic styles.
40 Categories of prosthesis in Romance
(1.7), it seems that the initial vowel in Spanish avispa ‘wasp’ < Latin VĔSPA was
introduced because of the influence of the word abeja ‘bee’ (< Latin APICULA).
Finally, in a development parallel and closely related to the creation of new
word-initial vowels through the use of prefixation in the history of Romance
(cf. 1.7), lexicalized prepositional phrases can also generate apparent prosthetic
vowels. For instance, forms such as ara:s ‘full to overflowing’ < AD RĀSU(M) in
Milanese (Salvioni 1884: }91) and standard Italian appena ‘scarcely’ < AD POENA,
allarme ‘alarm’ < AD ILLAS ARMA-S do not represent examples of A-prosthesis but of
lexicalization-based (pseudo-)prosthesis.
Such cases of non-phonologically based prosthesis are intrinsically less inter-
esting than the three main categories identified above, since, unlike the latter, they
are typically sporadic and unpredictable. For this reason we have not proposed a
further category to cover them and they will only figure in future discussion when
they interact with I-prosthesis, A-prosthesis, and U-prosthesis.
2.5 Problems of classification
As has been noted earlier (1.3), the results from the three different categories of
prosthesis are not always sharply separated so that there can be cases where
problems of classification can present themselves. Thus, the Piedmontese forms
arbatü ‘beaten down’ and astè ‘to seat’ reported by Telmon (1975: 157, 161) might
appear at first sight to have arisen as a result of, respectively, A-prosthesis and a
variant form of I-prosthesis. To resolve such uncertainties, appeal needs to be
made to both the formal characteristics and the historical background of the
word concerned and the diachronic phonological patterns operating in the
relevant Romance variety. Thus, in the first case the etymon REBATT-ŪTU(M)
suggests that the appearance of the vowel [a-] is almost certainly not due
to segmental conditioning triggered by the original word-initial consonant
R-. Rather, it is an example of U-prosthesis which occurred widely in northern
Italy after the regular syncope of mid vowel [e] in an initial syllable located before
the stressed vowel. The etymon SEDĒRE of astè reveals that it too underwent the
syncope that affected arbatü and hence that it is likewise to be interpreted as an
instance of U-prosthesis. However, the appropriate classification of other ob-
served cases of prosthesis may be less easily arrived at, so that on occasions some
indeterminacy will inevitably exist.
3
The Latin Background
At the outset of the Imperial period, there is little evidence of any form of vowel
prosthesis operating as a phonological process in Latin. However, important
developments affecting syllable structure had got underway in preceding centu-
ries and these were to be of direct relevance in promoting the earliest case of
prosthesis of relevance to the present study, namely I-prosthesis. Particular
attention will therefore be focused on the syllable in this chapter. We begin
with a synchronic account of syllable structure in the best documented and
most prestigious variety of Latin, Classical Latin, which represents educated
(and especially written) usage of the capital during the period covering approxi-
mately the first century BC to the first century AD when the most celebrated
Roman authors flourished. A diachronic approach will then be adopted in
order to consider significant patterns of change in syllable structure during the
pre-classical period of Latin in the Republic.
3.1 The syllable in Classical Latin
In the Latin syllable, the nucleus was always made up of a vowel, syllabic
consonants evidently being unknown. The nucleus could consist of a monoph-
thong, /i e a o u/ distinctively long or short, or a diphthong, /ai oi au/ and more
marginally /ei eu/ and perhaps too for some speakers /ui/ [ i] (Biville 1994).
h
Flanking the nucleus there were an onset and a coda which could consist of
between zero and three consonant segments. For the formation of onsets and
codas, the following inventory of consonants was available:
voiceless plosives p t k kw
w
voiced plosives b d g g
voiceless fricatives f s h
nasal sonorants m n (N)
lateral l
rhotic r
approximants (w) (j)
42 The Latin background
The bracketed consonants are major positional variants of independent phonemes

and are included to complete the table. The nasal [N] is the allophone of /n/ before
velar consonants and of /g/ before /n/; [w] and [j] are non-syllabic allophones of
/i/ and /u/.1 With the exception of /h/, the two labiovelars /kw gw/ and the
allophones [w] and [N], all the consonant phonemes could be geminated although
the possibility of gemination within individual morphemes was almost wholly
restricted to just the voiceless obstruents /p t k s/ and the sonorants /m n l r/.2 At
the level of the word, geminate consonants typically occurred medially in intervo-
calic position; they appear never to have been found in initial position and were
very rare indeed in final position, the deictic HOC being perhaps a rare example
[hokk] (Allen 1978: 76). They could however occur across a word boundary, as for
example in CUM NOBIS [kun’no:bi:s] ‘with us’ to which Cicero makes reference
(Orator 154).
Onsets and codas could each contain up to three consonant segments, so that
the maximum phonological syllable was theoretically CCCVCCC where ‘V’
covers all possible vowel nuclei, short or long. Maximum onsets and codas
were however only found at word edges. Thus, a maximum onset appeared in
words such as STRIX ‘screech owl’, SPLENDOR ‘splendour’ and a maximum coda
in FALX /falks/ ‘sickle’, URBS ‘city’, where it is notable that the outermost consonant
in each case is always and only the fricative /s/. It is presumably by chance that
there are no known cases of any Latin word containing a maximally filled onset
and coda, such as **SCRALX or **SPRINX. Word-medially, onsets and codas
contained up to a maximum of only two consonants within morphemes, as in
MONS|TRUM ‘portent; monster’.
The segmental composition of onsets and codas in Latin were subject to severe
constraints. Complex word-initial onsets were almost exclusively limited to the
two following types:
(a) obstruent þ liquid e.g. PLENUS ‘full’, GRANDIS ‘great’
(b) s þ voiceless plosive ( þ liquid) e.g. STO ‘I stand’, STRAMEN ‘straw’
1
The spelling system used by the Romans offers strong support for this interpretation:
I is used for both [j] and [i], V is used both for [w] and [u]. Explanations can readily be
found for the tiny number of potentially problematic near-minimal pairs contrasting [j]
with [i] and [w] with [u], such as IAM ‘now’ (with [j]) vs IAMBUS ‘iambus’, ETIAM ‘also’ (both
with [i]) and SOLVIT ‘(s)he frees’ (with [w]) vs SOLUIT ‘(s)he freed’ (with [u]). For further
discussion see Allen (1978: 37–42), Marotta (1999: 291–2).
2
Examples of other consonant types appearing intramorphemically do exist but they
are very rare and mainly appear in loanwords: OFFA ‘lump’, SUFFES ‘chief magistrate’
(a Phoenician loan), ABBAS ‘abbot’ (a Greek loan ultimately from Aramaic), ADDAX ‘type
of gazelle’ (probably an African word). Across morpheme boundaries, however, /ff/ and
geminate voiced obstruents were commonly found, e.g. OFFERO (¼ OB þ FERO) ‘I present’,
ABBIBO (¼ AD þ BIBO) ‘I begin to drink’, ADDO (¼ AD þ DO) ‘I add’.
The Latin background 43
Type (a) consisted of /pr- tr- kr- br- dr- gr- fr-/ and /pl- kl- bl- gl- fl-/, and type
(b) comprised the so-called s impura sequences /sp- st- sk- skw- / and /spr- str-
skr-; spl- stl-/. Other complex word-onsets existed but these were rare. They
included GN [Nn] which was found in occasional relics of archaic Latin, notably in
3
GNATUS ‘son’ and the proper name GNAEUS, although the sequence had generally
been simplified to /n-/ already by the end of the second century BC (Maniet 1975:
158); and /sm-/ which appeared in a few loanwords from Greek such as SMARAGDUS
(or ZMARAGDUS) ‘emerald’, SMARIS (or ZMARIS) ‘a kind of seafish’, SMURNA (SMYRNA,
ZMYRNA) ‘the town of Smyrna’. Also, the onset /sf-/ may have occurred amongst
some Latin speakers in Greek loans such as SPHAERA ‘sphere’ but it is noticeable
that popular reflexes of SPHAERA in Romance indicate restructuring to /sp-/
(cf. Ital. spera ‘celestial globe’, Old Ital. spero ‘mirror’, sperina ‘hand mirror’,
Log. isperiare ‘to discern from afar’, REW 8143). The exclusion of onset /sf-/
may reflect a general negative constraint against sequences of fricative consonants
in native forms.4
Problematic is the sequence STL- which appears in a small set of words which
includes the following items:
STLATTA or STLATA ‘kind of barge’
STLEMBUS ‘slow, sluggish’ (in Festus 413, 1)
STLIS ‘dispute’ especially in the official title DECEMVIR STLITIBUS IUDICANDIS ‘judge
dealing with cases of freedom and citizenship’
STLOCUS ‘place’
STLOPPUS ‘noise of slap on inflated cheek’
STLACCIUS, STLANIUS, STLOGA proper names appearing in inscriptions
(references in Dessau III: 137, 244)
3
Cf. Kent (1945: 54), Traina (1973: 61–2), Allen (1978: 23–5). The sequence GN also
appeared medially, as in LIGNUM, where it also had the phonetic value [Nn]. Later on,
medial GN was widely adapted through nasal dissimilation [Nn] > [gn] before passing to
[jn], but a different outcome evidently occurred in certain areas of the Empire notably S.
Italy and the Balkans, e.g. Romanian, LIGNUM > lemn, PUGNU(M) > pumn. For the latter
development, Lausberg (1967: }445) postulates the stages [ªn] > [ n] > [mn], while
Rosetti (1978: 129) proposes rather less plausibly [Nn] > [NN] > [mn].
4
The same restructuring of sf- to /sp/ was evidently used by less educated speakers of
sixteenth-century French when pronouncing the medieval learned form sph(a)ere (first
attested as espere in c. 1165, DHLF s.v. sphère). Rabelais in Gargantua, first published 1534,
refers (ch. 9) rather dismissively to the practice of devising coats of arms where a sphere
was used to signify hope, showing the near identity of sphere and espoir for many speakers
at that time. Forms with /sf/ such as Fr. sphère, Span. esfera, Ital. sfera represent of course
later forms adapted through learned influence.
The authenticity of some of these has been challenged by Pariente (1968) but
the items in the bottom two rows certainly appear to be genuine Latin words,
and indeed the others may also be genuine although they were probably
archaic by the first century BC.5 If we assume that some or most of these words
were in use by certain speakers of the Classical period with the pronunciation
[stl], it is certainly curious that /stl-/ still appears to exist in Classical Latin
when **/tl-/ and **/dl-/ had long ceased to be permissible. The non-appearance
of the latter pair finds a direct counterpart in many modern European
languages as well as in other languages further afield, which has led some
phonologists to postulate a principled theoretical basis for their general exclusion
(and by extension that of /stl-/) as possible onset sequences in language. However,
/dl-/ and especially /tl-/ have developed in many northern Italian varieties, e.g.
(Romagnolo) dlèta ‘choice’ and tlè ‘weaving loom’, and beyond Romance
both sequences are not uncommon; they are widely found for instance in
Slavonic languages, e.g. Czech dluh ‘debt’ and tlak ‘pressure’. There is therefore
no necessary reason for the sequences not to occur.6 Yet, they did disappear
from Latin but /stl-/ continued to remain permissible, albeit for a limited period.
Indeed, the presence of /stl-/ is perhaps all the more surprising in view of the
lack of native Latin words with initial /skl-/ and the occurrence of just one
native lexeme dSPLEND-e ‘gleam’ with initial /spl-/,7 even though /sk-/, /kl-/
5
Kiss (1971: 90) claims that the pronunciation [stl-] had disappeared from the spoken
language by the end of the third century BC. However, no proof is advanced in support of
this assertion.
6
Noske (1982: 306, n. 20) comes to a similar conclusion for the lack of these onset
sequences in French. In recent years, however, the special status of coronal consonants has
not infrequently been invoked to ‘explain’ the non-occurrence of certain consonant
sequences or certain co-occurrences of consonants within morphemes (see Paradis and
Prunet 1991, Hall 1997 for general discussions). A widespread view is that coronals should
be interpreted as unmarked for Place specification, though Hall (1997: esp. 29–31) opts for a
privative [coronal] vs [peripheral] specification for Place in consonants. Marotta (1999:
299) accepts the underspecified interpretation of coronals claiming, ‘The lack of **tl
and **dl is related to the coronal syndrome’ [i.e. their special underspecified status].
Underlying this claim is the theoretical assumption that in two-place onset sequences
the first segment (which is the head of the sequence) cannot be less complex feature-wise
than the following segment. Since laterals are more complex than plosives, a sequence like
/tl-/ is impermissible. However, the sequence /tr-/ appears to show a directly comparable
pattern of relative feature complexity, but it is permissible in Latin. Given too the number
of languages which manifestly break this constraint, we may view such ‘explanations’ with
some scepticism.
7
A Greek borrowing SPLĒN together with various derivatives SPLENĒTICUS ‘splenetic’, etc.
also contains initial /spl-/.
and /sp-/, /pl-/ were all commonly found as word-initial onsets. However,
the restricted incidence of /spl-/ and /skl-/ may just be coincidental. Certainly,
the post-Classical development of /stl-/ > /skl-/, for example in STLOPPUS
> *SCLOP-
PUS > Cat. esclop ‘wooden clog’, Occ. esclop ‘sharp noise’ (FEW XII, 278), Ital.
8
scoppio ‘explosion’, schioppo ‘gun’ (REW 8270) implies that /skl-/ was not struc-
turally debarred. The significance of the maintenance of the onset /stl-/ is
discussed further below (3.2).
Word-medially, intramorphemic syllable onsets (just like syllable codas)
consisted of at most two consonants, as was noted earlier. However, only
type (a) sequences could appear as onsets in this context, as in DU|PLUS, A|GRI,
thereby reflecting the fact that normally these were tautosyllabic in Latin.9
In contrast, two segment sequences of type (b) such as /st/ were heterosyllabic
word-medially and hence could not form an onset, CIS|TA, AS|TRUM. This is
confirmed not only by the facts of subsequent phonological evolution in
Romance but also by metrical evidence in Latin since medial /s/ þ consonant
sequences ‘made position’, i.e. made the preceding syllable heavy because /s/
formed its coda. The heterosyllabicity of /s/ þ consonant sequences within
words makes their occurrence as tautosyllabic onsets in word-initial position
appear anomalous, and it is easy to see in this anomaly a potential factor
for change.
The status of /s/ in complex onsets is thus exceptional in Latin and raises
some questions as to its appropriate interpretation. One strategy might be
simply to treat the disparity in syllabification between word-initial and
8
The semantic value of this Catalan form may represent the result of interference
between SCLOPPUS and SCULPONEA ‘clog’, cf. DECLC 3, s.v. esclop.
9
The status (tautosyllabic or heterosyllabic) of type (a) sequences within words in fact
remains a debated question amongst Latinists. In Classical Latin, there is evidence that
a heterosyllabic treatment as in PAT|RES, was possible although unusual. In verse, such a
treatment is generally believed to reflect imitation of Greek metrical practice. Virgil (Aen. 2,
line 663) appears to play on native vs Greek practices when he juxtaposes words displaying
tautosyllabic and heterosyllabic syllabification: NATUM ANTE ORA PATRIS PATREM QUI OBTRUNCAT
AD ARAS ‘(Pyrrhus) who slaughters the son before the father’s eyes, and the father at the
altars’, the scansion here clearly indicating PA|TRIS but PAT|REM. (For a metrical analysis of the
Aeneid, see Ott 1973–85.) Subsequently in Romance, some southern Italian dialects show
regular patterns of vowel change which indicate that type (a) sequences in these dialects
were heterosyllabic, at least in the early stages of their development, cf. Loporcaro (2005).
The Greek-speaking historical backcloth to these dialects is doubtless not without
importance in this respect. We may perhaps conclude that tautosyllabicity was the norm
for type (a) sequences in Latin but that some varieties adopted heterosyllabicity,
sometimes under influence from contact languages.
word-internal positions as just a further example of the familiar tendency in

language for syllable onsets (and codas) to admit greater complexity at word
edges than word-medially (cf. Hulst and Ritter 1999). A rather different
approach is to assume that Latin had a core syllabic structure containing
at most the two onset consonants and the two coda consonants that can be
found in word-medial position. The additional outer consonant /s/ which
may appear in three-place margins at word edges would then be viewed as
being stray or extrasyllabic10 rather than forming part of the core syllable
(cf. Steriade 1988; Marotta 1999). Such an approach would capture the fact
that the consonant /s/ has a special status at both word-edge onsets and
codas—it will be recalled that word-final /s/ in complex codas almost
invariably acts as a grammatical marker. Using this approach, a representa-
tion for the Latin syllable is given in Figure 3.1 below. However, as we shall
see (section 3.2), this approach seems to be not wholly satisfactory when a
diachronic view is adopted, for as it fails to take sufficient account of the
close relationship between /s/ þ voiceless obstruent sequences which has
clearly affected phonological evolution.
O
N Co
s C liq. V V C C s
FIGURE 3.1. Syllable structure in Classical Latin
10
Other terms that are used include ‘prependix’ for a stray consonant in an onset and
‘appendix’ for the counterpart in a coda.
3.1.1 S Y L L A B I F I C AT I O N AC RO S S WO R D B O U N DA R I E S
There is evidence that word boundaries were strong in Latin.11 The substantial
degree of freedom in word order and the near-absence of clitics12 are suggestive
and point to a relatively high level of autonomy in the word. In the light of this, it
might be expected that phonological processes operating within the word would
apply much less readily across word boundaries. However, such a view needs
some qualification. First, it is known that co-articulation and even full assimila-
tion could take place across boundaries, although this appears more typically
to have affected relatively weakly stressed syllables or weak monosyllabic words
within syntactic groups. Thus, Cicero warned against saying CUM NOBIS (Orator
154) or CUM NOS (Ad Familiares 9,22,2) since the -M N- sequence in each case would
be realized as /nn/ and hence suggest the obscene word CUNNUS. Phonological
processes could therefore operate across word boundaries.
Second, the presence of an intervening word boundary did not systematically
override normal syllabification patterns that are found operating within words.
Thus, when a word ending in single coda consonant was followed by a vowel-
initial word, the consonant was normally reassigned to form the onset of the
following syllable, just as an intervocalic consonant within a word always formed
the onset of the following syllable. For example, in NISUS AMORE PIO (Aen. V, line
296) the final consonant of NISUS is syllabified with the initial vowel of AMORI, as in
13
SŬ | SĂ. The similarity between the resyllabification here and enchaı̂nement
in modern French (and other Romance varieties) is clear. However, obs-
truent þ liquid sequences were exceptional. Though usually tautosyllabic within
morphemes, they were evidently heterosyllabic across morpheme and word
boundaries, e.g. in AB|RIPIO and in INCENDAT | REGINAM ‘may fire the queen to
madness’, Aen. I, 660 (cf. Allen 1973: 140–1). Rightward resyllabification of a
consonant across grammatical boundaries in Latin thus only appears to have
11
Cf. Hill (1954), Kiss (1971: 18–19), and Marotta (1999: 301), the last named of whom
asserts that ‘in Latin, word boundaries are very strong’. Herman (1990: 22) offers a
diatopically nuanced view. Using evidence relating to the merger of and <V > in
word-initial position in inscriptions from Gaul as against Rome, he concludes in the
Empire period that ‘le mot était phonétiquement plus autonome en Gaule que dans le
centre de la Romania’ (1990: 22).
12
Just three clitics are usually identified, ENIM, AUTEM, VERO, which serve as discourse
connectives. These are complemented by three enclitic connectives, -QUE, -VE, -NE. None of
these items, it may be noted, has left any subsequent trace in Romance. The familiar clitic
elements which are found in Romance such as personal pronouns and determiners either
have no counterpart in Latin (e.g. articles) or are not clitics but fully autonomous words in
Latin.
13
For a full metrical scansion of the Aeneid, see Ott (1973–85).
operated where it could form an onset for an onsetless syllable but not where it
would merely add to an existing onset.
Given that rightward resyllabification was permissible in Latin, the possibility
of leftward resyllabification needs to be considered. Particularly interesting is the
treatment of word-initial heterosyllabic s impura onsets when they were preceded
by a word ending in a vowel. For we might expect that stray word-initial /s/ would
tend to be reassigned to form a new coda for the preceding syllable, e.g. BENE STARE
might be syllabified as BE|NE S|TA|RE. The Roman grammarians however say
nothing on this point, and the only relevant evidence readily available is metrical.
In verse, a basic distinction is made between ‘heavy’ syllables (whose rhyme
consists of either a long vowel or a vowel plus coda) and ‘light’ syllables (whose
rhyme contains just a short vowel). Of particular interest therefore are contexts
where there is a word ending in a light syllable followed by a word beginning with
s impura. For, if resyllabification does occur, the syllable will become heavy and
this will be reflected in the scansion. Unfortunately however, as Classical scholars
have discovered (Lindsay 1894: 131; Hoenigswald 1949; Collinge 1970; Allen 1973:
139–40), the circumstances here are problematic as sequences of word-final short
vowel followed by word-initial /s/ þ consonant were not only rarely used, but
they were also not handled in a uniform way in versification. Usually, a word-final
syllable ending in a short vowel remains light when a type (b) word-initial onset
follows, i.e. there is no resyllabification. Thus, in PRAEMIĂ SCRĪBAE (Horace Satires 1,
5, 35), the syllabification is -Ă|SCRĪ-. But because Greek metrical practice was
different in that it resyllabified such sequences so that the first syllable acquired
a coda /s/ and became heavy, Latin poets from Ennius onwards also used this
syllabification pattern on occasions (cf. Hoenigswald 1949: 276 for examples). It
was this conflict between native Latin syllabification and Greek practice that
appears to have led poets to avoid sequences of light word-final syllables and
word-initial /sC-/ wherever possible.14
However, limited and variable though the data here are, the apparent resistance
to reallocating word-initial /s/ to the coda of a preceding syllable in Latin
syllabification is noteworthy, particularly as resyllabification does occur across
14
Kurolywicz (1966) has useful statistics on this question. Lucretius has nine possible
instances where resyllabification would change syllable weight, but it happens in none
of them. In Virgil, there are five instances and in Horace there are eight, but again no
resyllabification occurred. However, Catullus and Tibullus do have cases of
resyllabification. Catullus indeed has one poem where both scansions appear (LXIV, 186,
357). Unfortunately, when discussing this problematic question, Vennemann (1988: 74, n.
29) rather oversimplifies matters by stating that ‘a final open syllable with a short vowel
metrically counts as light, even if the following word begins with /s/ plus plosive’. Zirin
(1970: 41), whom he claims to be citing, is in fact a good deal more nuanced in his account.
word-medial morpheme boundaries e.g. in RES|PLEN|DET ‘it gleams back’.15 It

indicates that although complex /sC-/ sequences are heterosyllabic medially,
they nonetheless show some evidence of remaining tautosyllabic when word-
initial in Latin even if preceded by a vowel-final word. The assumption that /s/
is ‘stray’ or extrasyllabic in s impura sequences therefore requires some qualifica-
tion.
3.2 Syllabic change in pre-Classical Latin
During the centuries leading up to the Classical period there is good evidence
from the philological record and from linguistic reconstruction that considerable
change took place in the phonological structure of Latin. Important develop-
ments affected the syllable, in most cases creating greater simplicity. One instance
of this was the lightening of syllable margins through consonant deletion. For
example, in *kertsna > *kersna > CĒNA, *sedstos > SĔSSUS,16 word-medial syllable
margins have been reduced (Maniet 1975: 98; Bassols 1981: 219, 225). At word edges
there was also simplification, though word-final codas were less affected as these
frequently carried grammatical information which ensured their preservation.17
Word-initial onsets, on the other hand, were more vulnerable and it appears that
they underwent widespread simplification (Steriade 1988). Examples are:
*wrād- > RĀDIX ‘root’, *wrizd- > RĪDĒRE ‘to laugh’, *wlāna > LĀNA ‘wool’
*ktunica > TŪNICA ‘tunic’, *ptilia > TĪLIA, ‘lime tree’,*psaflom > SĂBULUM ‘sand’
*knı̄dōs > NĪDOR ‘burnt smell’, *dnuk- > NŬX ‘nut’
15
Certain Romance linguists appear to be unaware of this pattern of word-medial
syllabification. Thus, Tekavčić (1974: }297) postulates Latin CON|STARE rather than CONS|TARE,
and uses the former syllabification as a basis for explaining the origins of I-prosthesis (see
4.1.5). The force of his argument is therefore weakened.
16
The ancestral form for CĒNA is reconstructed on the basis of Oscan kersnu, kerssnaı́s,
Umbrian sesna and the likelihood of a common basis for this word and CARO ‘meat’ and

possibly CORTEX ‘bark, rind’. For SĔSSUS, it is assumed that this word participated in the pre-
literary change whereby dental plosive þ [t] sequences developed a medial [s] before the
resulting sequence [tst] became [ss]; hence the medial consonant sequence evolved as [dt] >
[dst] > [tst] with voicing assimilation, then > [ss]. The original stem SĔD- is of course
preserved in other parts of the verb, SĔDEO ‘I sit’, SEDĒRE ‘to sit’, etc.
17
Examples of simplification nonetheless can be found, such as PRAEDĀ < praidad, MĪLES

< mı̄less < *mı̄lets, HOMŌ < *homōn, COR < *cord (Maniet 1975: 149–52). Significantly, coda
simplification in these examples is facilitated by the fact that it does not have any
morphological consequences.
*tlātos > LĀTUS ‘carried’, *dlongos > LONGUS

‘longus’
*sni- > NIX ‘snow’, *sleubrikos > LŪBRICUS ‘slippery’

(Leumann 1977: }}189–95; Walde and Hofmann 1938–56)
Alongside these items there were the special cases of GN- and SM- noted earlier
(STL- is discussed below) both of which are attested in Latin texts. Evidently, forms
like GNĀTUS, GNŌSCO ‘I know’ were essentially confined to just written usage by the
beginning of the Empire period and hence are of marginal relevance. The onset
SM- had already disappeared in pre-literary times in native Latin items along
with other /s/ þ sonorant onsets, e.g. * smı̄k- > MĪCA ‘crumb’, but it was later
introduced along with a few Greek borrowings although it doubtless would have
had a rather ‘exotic’ quality for many of the Latin speakers who used it. Both of
these onset sequences therefore are extraneous to the core phonological structure
of the Latin syllable.
All the complex onsets that were eliminated in pre-Classical Latin were doubt-
less heterosyllabic,18 even though in many cases they showed rising sonority and
therefore conformed with the sonority sequencing generalization (SSG) govern-
ing syllable structure (cf. 1.7). Their progressive elimination suggests a general
movement towards limiting complex syllable onsets to just the tautosyllabic type,
i.e. obstruent þ liquid. Against such a background, it is perhaps surprising there-
fore that the complex onsets /s/ þ voiceless plosive should alone have continued
to exist into Classical Latin. For not only were they essentially heterosyllabic (but
see above 3.1), they also contravened the SSG. The prolonged existence of word-
initial STL- appears to be related to the tenacity of these anomalous onsets. A
possible factor explaining their preservation may lie in their formal structure. As
many phonologists have observed, a special bond seems to exist between a
sibilant and a following voiceless plosive, enabling such a sequence to function
as a sort of single complex phonological unit (cf. Kohler 1967, Fudge 1969, Ewen
1982 for English and German; Steriade 1994: 244–50 for native American lan-
guages). In his analysis of German, Wiese (1996: 43) even proposes a special label
‘suffricates’ to refer to such units. Kurylowicz (1966) adopts a similar view in his
interpretation of sibilant þ voiceless plosive onsets in Classical Latin. He notes
that not only does word-initial /s/ in these sequences not normally syllabify with a
preceding word-final vowel (cf. above), but also the facts of verb reduplication
similarly point to their unitary treatment, cf. SPOPONDI (vs SPONDEO), STETI (vs STO),
SCICIDI (vs SCINDO) with dissimilatory loss of /s/ in the verb root, unlike in
languages like Greek where reduplication reflected the segmental separability of
such onset sequences (
ÅŒÆ < *se-stā, etc.). Morelli (2003) highlights a further
characteristic of fricative þ stop sequences that points to their special
18
That is, like s impura sequences they were syllabified into different syllables when
word-medial, as in [-k|t-], [-k|n-] etc.
phonological status. This is that they are more commonly found cross-linguisti-
cally than other possible obstruent þ obstruent onset sequences. Her data allow
two implicational universals to be postulated: SS ) SF ) FS ( FF (where ‘S’ ¼
stop, ‘F’ ¼ fricative). That is, stop þ stop onsets imply the presence of stop þ
fricative onsets19 which in turn imply fricative þ stop, while fricative þ fricative
sequences imply fricative þ stop (no direct implications exist however between
FF on the one hand and SF or SS on the other). And of the FS sequences,
sibilant þ stop represents the most common type by far.
A rather different aspect which likewise points to a special bond between
sibilant and stop segments relates to their treatment in loanword phonology.
As Fleischhacker (2001) has noted, adaptation strategies for sibilant þ stop se-
quences in languages which permit no complex word-initial onsets are often
different from those used for other sequences. Thus, in Hindi, epenthesis is the
usual strategy as in (Engl.) frock > [fırPk], cloth > [kılPŁ], but uniquely with
sibilant þ stop sequences prosthesis is adopted instead, as in school > [ıskul],
station > [ısteʃ‰n], spelling > [ısp¡lıN] (cf. Singh 1985).20 Fleischhacker presents
experimental data to support the hypothesis that important perceptual factors
underlie the preferential use of prosthesis with sibilant þ stop sequences since an
intervening vowel segment in these serves to distort recognition of the original
sequence more severely than it does with, say, stop þ liquid sequences such as
/tr-/. Thus, once more a particular bond, this time perceptual in character, can be
seen to hold between fricative þ stop.
There is therefore some suggestive data to indicate that groups composed of /s/
þ voiceless stop may have formed closely knit clusters capable of functioning as
phonological units. However, the unifying bond was evidently never strong
enough to establish full tautosyllabic status in all onset contexts in Classical
Latin, but it was sufficient to allow tautosyllabicity in onsets occurring after
word boundaries. It seems not inconceivable that it was the syllabically flexible
treatment of /s/ þ stop sequences that made them more resistant to restructuring
in word-onset position than other sequences that were unambiguously hetero-
syllabic.21 The later retention of STL- ¼ (S þ T) þ L- as compared to TL- may well be
connected with the special phonological status of /s/ þ stop sequences.
19
Affricates are excluded from this category, since they function as single segments.
20
Broselow (1991) reports a number of other languages, including Wolof and Egyptian
Arabic, where a similar pattern of prosthesis vs epenthesis occurs in borrowings containing
complex word-initial onsets. Thus, Wolof kalaas, silip, sonob < French classe, slip, snob, but
estati, espoor < French statue, sport; Egyptian Arabic bilastik, fired, silaid, siwetar < English
plastic, Fred, slide, sweater, but #iskii, #istadi, #ispiriN < English ski, study, spring.
21
A similar fluidity has been reported in the syllabification of medial /s/ þ stop
sequences in French by Laeufer (1991) and in Italian by Bertinetto (1999).
To conclude, there is little evidence of Latin undergoing vowel prosthesis

during the centuries that led up to the disintegration of the Republic. However,
in this period a number of developments occurred which resulted in the progres-
sive elimination or simplification of the great majority of complex syllable onsets
other than the tautosyllabic obstruent þ liquid type. The one remaining anomaly
in word-initial position was the complex onset type /s/ þ consonant. The appear-
ance of the first type of vowel prosthesis in the Empire period may be seen as a
direct response to this.
4
I-prosthesis
I-prosthesis represents the earliest and the most familiar category of vowel
prosthesis in Romance. It operated on words beginning with onsets consist-
ing of /s/ þ obstruent, often referred to as s impura, as in SPĪNA, STĀTU(M),
SCRĪPTU(M) > Cast. espina, estado, escrito; Fr épine, été, écrit ‘thorn, been (p.
pt.), written’. In early attested cases of prosthesis, the initial vowel segment
which was inserted usually had the quality [i], hence our use of the term ‘I-
prosthesis’. Subsequently, however, the quality underwent change in many
regional forms of Late Latin and early Romance. The first indications of I-
prosthesis date from the early Imperial period.
Much work has been done by Romanists on the origins of this category of
prosthesis and this has shown that it probably developed as a result of factors
relating to syllable structure, as was the case with the two other major categories
of vowel prosthesis to be considered in Chapters 5 and 6. However, other aspects
of I-prosthesis have been less well studied. These include the implementation and
chronology of this development. A further area in which earlier research has been
muted concerns the fate of I-prosthesis in later medieval and modern periods of
Romance. The relative lack of attention given to this might suggest that little of
consequence has happened over the past 1000 years or so. As we shall see, this is
far from true.
4.1 Rise of I-prosthesis: early developments
As has been noted, I-prosthesis operated on words beginning with s impura

onsets. A sample set of prosthetic forms attested from the first millennium AD
is cited below, grouped according to the nature of the immediately pre-
ceding linguistic environment: namely, (i) post-pausal, (ii) post-consonantal,
intra-phrasal, (iii) post-vocalic, intra-phrasal. The significance of the phonologi-
cal environment for the occurrence of prosthesis will become apparent in due
course.
54 I-prosthesis
## sC - (post-pausal) - C # sC - (post-consonantal)
ISCINTILLA (Audollent 279, DE CET[ERIS HOC] ISCIATIS (CIL VI, 18659)
N. Africa)
ISCOLA (Dessau 2791, Rome) FURIUS ISPARTACUS (CIL X, 1974)
ISCRIBONIUS (Diehl 4128, Rome) IN ISPATIUM (Audollent 244, N. Africa)
ISCOLASTICUS (CIL II, 5129, NE ARTIS ISPECLARARIE (CIL VI, 33911)
Spain)
ISPECULATOR (CIL VIII, 2833, N. PER ISPIRITALLES (Audollent 253, N. Africa)
Africa)
ISPIRITO (269 AD, CIL VI 10013, HANIMAM ET ISPIRITUM (Audollent 250 a,b,
Rome) N. Africa)
ISPIRITUS (4th-6th cent, CIL V 210) ANTONINUS ISPOSE (CIL VIII, 3485)
ISPUMOSUS (CIL II, 5129, NE Spain) IN ISTATUAM (375 AD, CIL XI 5996)
ISTATUIS (Dessau 6091, Imperial SULLIUS ISTEFANUS (CIL VI, 26942)
letter)
ISTORICUS (CIL II, 1482, Spain) BENEMERENTI FE[CIT] ISTILIUS(CIL VI, 27259)
ISTEFANUS (Diehl 1593a, Rome) FECIT ISCELESTA MATER (CIL VI, 13353)
ISTERCOLUS (Diehl 2543 add., ET ESPONSA (CIL III, 13124)
N. Africa)
- V # sC – (post-vocalic)
EGO ISPERABI (CIL X, 8189, S. Italy)
OPSECR . . . A ISPERATA (Audollent 220a,b, N. Africa)
CLODIA ISPES (Diehl 763a, Rome)
IULIA ISPES (CIL X, 754)
ACILIA ISSPES (CIL VI, 7974)
RUBRIA ISTEFANUS (CIL VI, 25551)
FILIO ISPELDIDO (CIL VI, 31850)
MIHI ISPELUNCOLA (Le Blant 1892: 247–8, Poitiers, Gaul)
CUI ISPONSUS (CIL VIII, 9940, 21788)
QUE ISTETIT (Diehl 2756, Rome)
SOLO ISTI[TUERUNT] (CIL VIII, 9985add.)
E[QUES] AL[AE] [MILIARIAE] ISTIPEN[DIORUM] (Dessau 9227)
PRO ESPIRITUM EIUS (CIL IX, 6408)
To these may be added cases of ‘internal’ prosthesis where a prosthetic vowel has
been inserted before the s impura root of a word to which a prefix has been added.
Examples are:
I-prosthesis 55
ABISTULERUNT (Prov. Cáceres, Spain)1

INISTANTE (CIL VIII, 4498, 18639)
INISTITUI (Le Blant 1892: 247–8, Poitiers, Gaul)
2
SUPERISTITEM (Diehl 1464, 3053a, Rome)

PERESTREPEBAS (Stotz 1996: 107, 7th cent. Spain)
SUPRAESCRIPTHIS (Vielliard 1927: 105, 709 AD, Gaul)
These cases of internal prosthesis reflect the transparency of the prefixation for
contemporary speakers and form part of a more general trend towards prefixal
transparency in early Romance.3 Forms showing internal prosthesis become more
frequent in texts dating from the centuries immediately following the collapse of
the Western Roman Empire. However, perhaps surprisingly, they seem to have
left few direct traces in modern forms of Romance. Where such prefixal forms did
remain current in popular usage, a non-prosthetic form of the root appears to
have developed instead, e.g. PERSCRUTĀRI > O.Span. pescudar4 (instead of **
periscudar) ‘to examine’, CONSTĀRE > Span. costar (instead of ** conistar), Fr. coûter
‘to pay’.5 Here, it is apparent that restructuring was achieved by other already
familiar phonological processes, such as assimilation of [rs] > [ss] (cf. SŪRSU(M) >
Span., OIt. suso, Fr. sus) or pre-sibilant deletion of [n] (cf. MĒNSE(M) > Span. mes,
It. mese, Fr. mois). It is only in rather more recent times with the coining of new
1
Cited in Année Épigraphique 1957, no. 37. In the same inscription, a further case of
prosthesis also appears, IN TE ISPEN (= SPEM).
2
This appears in the same inscription as MIHI ISPELUNCOLA noted above. The inscription
which dates from the seventh century begins HIC MELLEBAUDIS REUS ET SERVUS IHM (= IESO)
CHRISTO INISTITUI MIHI ISPELUNCOLA ISTA . . . ‘Here I, Mellebaudis a sinner and servant of Jesus
Christ, set up this crypt for myself . . . ’. It appears on one of the stone supports to the
entrance of the crypt built for the abbot Mellebaudis.
3
Thus, for example, the Latin verb RETINĒRE ‘to hold back’ which historically goes back
to prefixal RE- þ TENĒRE was remodelled throughout Romania continua to RETENĒRE and the
stem subsequently evolved in an identical way to the base form TENĒRE, e.g.
(proparoxytonic) RĔTINET > (paroxytonic) RETĔNET > Fr. retient, Ital. ritiene, etc. ‘(s)he
holds back’.
4
Pescudar and the derived noun pescuda are attested from the thirteenth century, e.g.
Berceo (Milagros 293, where the verb has undergone conjugation shift to pescudir) though
not in Alfonsine prose. In the sixteenth century, this lexical family is fast losing currency
and becoming archaic, cf. ‘Pescuda y pescudar, por pregunta y preguntar, nunca me
contentó’ Valdés (1535, ed. Barbolani, p. 66).
5
It may be that an epenthetic vowel did develop in these forms but was subsequently
deleted through syncope. However, this seems less likely as the epenthetic vowel in these
forms would presumably have carried the main stress in present-tense forms, e.g. conı́sta <
*CONISTAT. We would therefore expect some trace of the vowel to have remained in such
high-frequency forms.
56 I-prosthesis
prefixal forms building on long-established prosthetic stems, such as Span. in-

esperado, Fr. dés-étatiser, that (pseudo-)prosthetic vowels have once again ap-
peared in word-medial position.
4.1.1 S O U RC E S A N D I N T E R P R E TAT I O N O F DATA
The first unambiguous indications of I-prosthesis appear in lower register texts

of the second century AD such as execratory tablets (defixionum tabellae) and
non-official inscriptions, as in the following items already noted above:
ISPATIUM, ISPIRITALLES
from North Africa,
ISCOLASTICUS, ISPUMOSUS from Barcelona,
and also ISCRIPTA from Rome 197 AD, cited in Schuchardt (1867: 338) but with no
phonological context provided.
Two early Christian inscriptions also probably date from the second century.
Both come from Rome and are proper names: C. ISCANTIUS (Diehl 755 add.) and
CLODIA ISPES cited above.
Older apparent examples of prosthesis exist but these are problematic.6 There
are two cases involving proper names of Greek origin with original SM-, namely
ISMURNA ‘the town of Smyrna’ which was found in Pompeii and hence dates at the
latest from 79 AD (CIL IV, 7221; Väänänen 1966: 48) and IZMARAGDUS ‘Emerald
(personal name)’ from Rome, datable to 105 AD (CIL VI, 156). However, the
consonant sequence SM, probably pronounced [zm], was unknown in contempo-
rary native Latin phonotactics since original pre-Classical SM sequences had been
simplified to M both initially and medially, cf. *smı̄k- > MĪCA, *prı̄s-mos > PRĪMUS.
So, the attested forms ISMURNA, IZMARAGDUS could well represent the result of the
attempted nativization of an impermissible complex word-initial sequence,
where Latin speakers adapted the sequence to the syllabically less problematic
ISM- which was already known from other borrowed Greek names, e.g. ISMARUS
and ISMENE, ISMENUS (CIL V 3802, Vives 5890; CIL VI 11795, 8967). Dressler (1965: 97) in
fact reports the attested forms æÅ and ¯ØæÆª from Asia Minor
Greek, both dating from the Imperial period.
Another indicator of prosthesis is aphaeresis caused by hypercorrection. This
occurs when etymological word-initial [i-], and later [e-], are deleted as a result of
their being (wrongly) interpreted by speakers as a prosthetic vowel, the presence
A remarkably early case is cited by Rönsch (1965: 467), namely the form ISTEGA from
6
STEGA ‘deck of a ship’ allegedly found in Bacchides (II, 3, 44) by Plautus (231–188 BC).
However, the reading of the Plautine text is very suspect. Modern editors give for the
relevant line: DOMI (or DOMUM) CUPIENTES. FORTE UT ADSEDI IN STEGA.
I-prosthesis 57
of such a vowel being in conflict with the norms of Classical orthography.

An apparent example is found in the letters written by Claudius Terentianus, a
Latin-speaking soldier stationed in Egypt, and dating from the first quarter of
the second century AD (Adams 1977). The relevant form is SPECTEMUS ‘let us
await (subj.)’7 which probably represents a hypercorrection of EXSPECTEMUS. As
SPECTEMUS occurs in sentence-initial position, the absence of the expected initial
vowel cannot be attributed to the influence of a preceding (vowel-final) word
that might have triggered elision. Instead, the writer has evidently viewed it as
a prosthetic vowel and suppressed it. If this interpretation is correct, we would
have here one of the earliest extant indications of I-prosthesis.8
The form SPECTEMUS in Claudius Terentianus’s letter is in fact just one instance
of the extensive interplay that took place in Late Latin between words originally
beginning with s impura and those beginning with etymological unstressed [isC-]
and [esC-] whether or not these sequences contained a prefixal element, an
interplay which resulted in numerous cases of aphaeresis appearing in texts of
the later Empire and early Middle Ages.9 Looking more closely at the forms
concerned, we find that, in all, four etymologically distinct types of word-initial
context were involved:
examples
(i) words with a non-prefixed stem in [sC-] (with (I)SPERĀRE, (I)STĀRE
prosthesis)
(ii) words with etymological non-morphemic (H)IS-, HISTŌRIA, ISCIĀTICUM
(H)ES-, (H)AES-. HESTĔRNUS, AESTĀTEM
7
The form appears at 471.24 in the edition of Calderini (1951a, b).
8
Mention may be made of a further proposed case which appears in the Natural
History (12, 7) of Pliny the Elder (23/24–79 AD). Here, Pliny identifies HISPANIA ‘Spain’
with the Greek word ÆÆ ‘rare (f.sg.acc.)’ which occurs in the corresponding section of
his main source, the History of Plants (4, 5, 6) by Theophrastus. The assumption is that he
saw HISPANIA as a form developed from original SPANIA through prosthesis (Leumann 1977:
104–5). However, Prinz (1938: 104) and Stotz (1996: 120 and n. 300) note that Hellenistic
Greek had the variant forms ÆÆ ‘Spain’, Æ ‘Spanish’ which were doubtless known
to Latin speakers, so it is not clear whether Pliny’s etymologizing was simply drawing on
his familiarity with both the Greek and Latin words for Spain rather than mistaking an
etymological Latin word-initial vowel for a prosthetic vowel. It may be noted that the form
SPANIA is attested in a Spanish inscription, CIL 2, 3420.
9
Malkiel (1975) explores in some detail the effects of this interplay particularly in Ibero-
Romance, identifying the action of various phonological and non-phonological forces
which we too recognize. The study rebuts certain of aspects of ‘Ascoli’s Law’ (cf. Ascoli
1878), notably the assumption that just phonological forces were operative in determining
cases of aphaeresis involving etymological unstressed word-initial [i(s)-].
58 I-prosthesis
(iii) words with prefixal EX-, EXTRA-, and also DIS- EX-PĂNDERE, EX-STĀRE,
preceding a consonant-initial stem (see below) EXTRĀNEUS, DIS-LIGĀRE
(iv) words with prefixal IN- preceding a stem in [sC-] IN-SCRĪBERE, IN-
STRUMĔNTUM
In (ii), the initial vowel occurred as part of the root of a word, HISTŌRIA, etc., but
its phonetic identity with the prosthetic vowel of (i) could lead to hypercorrective
graphies as in <storia> for HISTŌRIA, for instance in the Itala and in the writings
of the bishop Fulgentius who died in 532 (Stotz 1996: 119). Type (iii) forms
containing EX-, EXTRA- provided numerous words with initial unstressed [es-],
and in many regions these were added to by forms originally containing prefixal
DIS- which became aligned phonologically with forms in EX- and EXTRA- (cf. Italian
slegare, spandere < DISLIGĀRE, EXPĂNDERE). In type (iv), prefixal IN- before [sC-]
developed to [i-], presumably via the phonetic stage [ı̃-], before passing to [e-] in
the many areas of the Empire where unstressed I > [e] was regular. The formal
similarity which developed between words of all types (i)–(iv) thanks to the
operation of prosthesis and aphaeresis led to much variation between them in
Late Latin. Attested forms for nominals include EXPLENDIDO for SPLENDIDO
(CIL IX, 259), STRUCTUS for INSTRUCTUS, STRUMENTUM and EXTROMENTO for INSTRU-
MENTUM (Vielliard 1927: 103–4), INSPANUS for HISPANUS (Stotz 1996: 108). The situa-
tion with verbal forms was even more fluid. Orthographic variants such
as EXSPOLIARE SPOLIARE, EXSPIRARE INSPIRARE SPIRARE, EXSCULPERE INSCULPERE
SCULPERE are widely found with little discernible difference in meaning being
intended by certain scribes10 (Ernout 1957; Väänänen 1967: 49; Stotz 1996: 107–8).
Where there was little semantic difference in Classical usage between the
simplex and prefixal form, it is difficult to know whether hypercorrection is
present, e.g. EXPOLIARE as against SPOLIARE, since both meant ‘to strip, plunder’.
But with forms like EXSPECTARE ‘to await’ and SPECTARE ‘to look at’, hypercorrective
use of SPECTARE is more readily detected (cf. SPECTEMUS above).
The extent to which the fluctuation in written forms mirrored contemporary
patterns of spoken usage is difficult to establish with any certainty. However, in
Italy and the Balkans, subsequent evolution suggests that from early times all four
types (i)–(iv) came to be treated in the same way, as they have emerged with
identical results, cf. It. strumento, storcere, stretto, slegare (< INSTRUMENTUM, EX-
TORQUERE, STRICTUM, DISLIGARE). In other parts of the Empire, it appears that
10
The ‘confusion’ between simplex s impura forms and their prefixal derivatives
(especially those containing EX-) was noted by grammarians in the later Empire and
attempts were made by them to maintain distinctions (Stotz 1996: 109). Thus, the fifth-
century Ars de Orthographia by the grammarian Agroecius has SPIRARE VIVERE EST, EXSPIRARE
MORI; i.e. ‘SPIRARE means to live and EXSPIRARE means to die’ (Keil 7, 122, 19).
I-prosthesis 59
the formal identification may have been less complete, notably with forms in
etymological DIS-, as in the corresponding reflexes found in Old French, estru-
ment, estordre, estreit but deslı̈er.
Against the background of the growing number of attestations of I-prosthesis
from the third century onward in texts written by less educated scribes,11 it might
be expected that some reference to the use of prosthetic vowels would have been
made in the metalinguistic writings of the many normative grammarians who
lived during the later Empire period. However, it receives no direct mention at all
in such writings, not even in clearly pedagogical texts like the Appendix Probi
where four items occur which would have offered scope for noting (and perhaps
condemning) the use of prosthesis: (3) SPECULUM non SPECLUM ‘mirror’, (137)
12
VICO STROBILI non VICOSTROBILI ‘a street name in Rome’, (142) STABULUM non
STABLUM ‘abode’, (192) STROFA non STROPA ‘trick’. The nearest thing to a reference
comes when grammarians try to distinguish formally between related prefixal
and non-prefixal verb forms (cf. n. 10 above). The first time that the existence of
I-prosthetic vowels is indicated in a metalinguistic text, albeit obliquely, comes in
the writings of the Spanish bishop St Isidore (574–636).13 The long delay before
any grammarian formally called attention to the presence of prosthetic vowels
may well have been caused in part by their being perceived as a predictable sandhi
vowel on-glide and also by their having no basis in conventional Latin spelling.14
It is not until the establishment of vernacular-based orthographies for represent-
ing Romance in the period from the ninth century onward that prosthetic vowels
11
Higher-register texts by writers of any education show few direct signs of prosthetic
vowels, cf. our comments below on Italian documents of the Lombard period (4.3.3). Even
informal and private compositions by educated writers in the late Empire period, such as
the Peregrinatio Egeriae, contain no examples.
12
Baehrens (1922: 93–4) rejects the reading VICOSTROBILI for the second item, proposing
VICO TROBILI instead. He argues that above the S in the manuscript there is a diacritic
indicating that the letter underneath should be deleted. This entry therefore does not offer
safe evidence for our purposes.
13
In his Etymologiae, Isidore cites the forms ESCARUS (= Classical Latin SCARUS) ‘kind of
sea-fish’ (12,6,30) and ISCURRA (= Classical Latin SCURRA) ‘jester’ (10,152), and assumes them
both to derive from the word ESCA ‘bait’, indicating that SCARUS and SCURRA would normally
have been pronounced with a prosthetic vowel. Velázquez (2003: 39) also notes a further
example from Isidore’s Etymologiae, namely STIPULA ‘outer covering of the stalk of cereal
crops’ whose pronunciation is described as QUASI USTA ET QUASI USTIPULA. STIPULA DICTA AB
USTO ‘like USTA and USTIPULA, since STIPULA derives from USTUS’ (i.e. burnt), in 17.3.18. Once
again, for such an etymological association to be drawn the presence of a prosthetic vowel
in the pronunciation of STIPULA seems probable.
14
Cf. Jackson (1953: 528) who suggests similar reasons for the failure of scribes to
represent prosthetic y- in early Welsh texts until the eleventh century.
60 I-prosthesis
can begin to appear systematically in writing, though the influence of Latin

spelling long remains an obstructing factor in certain areas of Romania continua.
4.1.2 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
Given the political unity of the Roman Empire and the relative freedom of
movement of its inhabitants during the Imperial period and to a decreasing
extent in the centuries immediately following the collapse of the Empire, I-
prosthesis had the opportunity of becoming generalized throughout all parts of
the Latin-speaking world. To discover whether this in fact occurred, a valuable
source of evidence is the epigraphical record. Extant inscriptions are not only very
numerous (well over 250,000 in all), they also permit ready localization and often
they can be accurately dated. Prinz (1938: 106) compiled useful statistics from a
detailed study of the attestations of I-prosthesis in pagan and Christian inscrip-
tions from across the Empire. These we cite below together with the findings of
Gaeng (1968: 263–6) and Omeltchenko (1977: 418–27) for Christian inscriptions
only. The bracketed figures followings Prinz’s totals are subtotals for pagan
inscriptions to the left of the colon, and Christian inscriptions to the right.
Differences between the two sets of corresponding statistics reflect the slightly
different range of sources exploited by Gaeng and Omeltchenko and also the
more critical stance towards reliability adopted by Gaeng in particular.
Prinz Gaeng/Omeltchenko
Rome and Latium 107 (34 : 73) 37 (G.)
Northwest Africa 52 (34 : 18) 17 (O.)
Asia 22 (22 : 0)
Southern Italy and Sicily 11 (7 : 4)
Northern Italy and Gallia Cisalpina 7 (3 : 4)
Spain 7 (2 : 5) 5 (G.)
Gallia Transalpina and German provinces 5 (1 : 4) 1 (G.)
Balkans 2 (0 : 2) 2 (O.)
Egypt 1 (0 : 1)
Britain – 0 (O.)
FIGURE 4.1. Epigraphical attestations of forms containing a prosthetic vowel
Despite the statistical discrepancies, two areas in particular stand out for the
relatively high incidence of attested cases of I-prosthesis: Central Italy, especially
Rome, and Northwest Africa. In contrast, Gaul (Transalpine) and Spain offer
few examples. There is therefore a striking paradox. In the latter two areas, where
I-prosthesis later became fully established in Romance, there is minimal inscrip-
tional evidence in Roman times, whilst in Rome and the surrounding area, where
I-prosthesis 61
few if any traces now remain of the phenomenon in Romance, the epigraphic
record for the Roman period is rich. (North Africa of course ceased to be Latin-
speaking following the Muslim invasion and occupation in the later seventh
century.) Do the variable totals of attested cases directly reflect major differences
in the incidence of prosthesis from region to region in Roman times? A wide-
spread view is that, notwithstanding the inscriptional evidence, I-prosthesis came
into fairly general use throughout all the Latin-speaking community of the
later Roman Empire but that later developments in certain areas led to its
subsequent elimination (Schuchardt 1867: 348; Meyer-Lübke 1890: }29; Prinz
1938: 115; Lausberg 1967: }353; Väänänen 1967: 49). However, Omeltchenko (1977:
425–7) has contested this, claiming instead that I-prosthesis did not spread across
the whole Empire and that in particular it never penetrated into Britannia nor did
it reach beyond the Dalmatian coast in the east (cf. also Şiadbei 1958: 155;
Mihăescu 1978: 273). Omeltchenko’s view seems fairly plausible in the case of
Britannia where it finds support in the sociolinguistic situation in this region. For
the Latin language here enjoyed limited diffusion since relatively few Latin-
speaking colonists came to settle here. As a result, Latin was used more generally
by native Britons belonging to the higher social classes who lived in the new
towns established by the Romans, and it was characterized by a general bookish
conservatism that reflected its conscious acquisition.15 In the light of the more
‘top-down’ introduction of Latin (cf. Labov 1994: 78; 2001: 272–5), the failure of
lower register features like prosthesis to gain any significant acceptance and their
consequent absence from the 2314 inscriptions of Britannia appearing in Colling-
wood and Wright (1965) is perhaps understandable.16
No such case can readily be made for the Balkans or other regions of the Latin-
speaking world however. The near-total absence of cases in the 21880 extant
inscriptions (as of 1978) from the Balkans and the complete lack of examples
from Dacia in particular are certainly curious.17 However, the sociolinguistic
15
Cf. Jackson (1953: 94–112) who highlights the conservatism of British Latin and notes
of its phonetic peculiarities that ‘time and again they tend to agree with the pronunciations
recommended by the grammarians’ (p. 108).
16
Cf. also Smith (1983) who points out however that the apparent conservatism of
British Latinity may be partly due to the later influence of the Latin-speaking Celtic
Church after the collapse of Imperial rule. With regard to prosthetic vowels, he reports
no cases of their appearance even in the more recently discovered sources of data which he
considers. His conclusion is that prosthesis ‘may have passed Britain by, or it may not have
been sufficiently well-established for it to have been felt as an essential in words taken into
Celtic’ (p. 941).
17
The figure for the overall number of inscriptions is cited by Mihăescu (1978: 1). It
compares with a total of 15220 in CIL III, which covers Asia Minor, the European mainly
Greek-speaking provinces and Illyria. All the examples of prosthetic vowels in inscriptions
62 I-prosthesis
situation in Dacia was quite different from that in Britain since, after the conquest
by Trajan in the early second century AD, there had been a major influx of mainly
humble Latin-speaking immigrants.18 The inhabitants were thus probably more
socially diverse and used forms of Latin more similar to those spoken elsewhere
in Continental Europe than was the case in Britain. If there are no signs of
I-prosthesis in Dacian inscriptions, it cannot be plausibly attributed to the
absence of the phenomenon in spoken usage, any more than we can account
for the very small number of cases in Gaul or Spain in this way. In all these three
regions, other factors must surely have been at work masking the presence of
prosthesis in inscriptions although their identity remains unclear.
4.1.3 Q UA L I T Y O F T H E P RO S T H E T I C VOW E L
As has been noted, in the earliest cases of I-prosthesis the vowel inserted was
almost always represented as which presumably indicated a high front
quality [i]. But from the fifth century, it was also sometimes written <e> , e.g.
in PRO ESPIRITUM (IC, 4983), this graphy coming into use at a time when the regular
sound change I > [e] was well on the way to completion in many areas of the
Empire. However, <e> remained a fairly unusual graphy until the seventh
century.19 Just a dozen examples are inventoried by Prinz (1938: 108) from a
total of more than 200 attestations of vowel prosthesis. Of the other vowel
graphies, Prinz reports that is never found whilst <a> and <o> are
extremely unusual, though no actual epigraphical data are cited by him for
these graphies. The relative frequency of the different vowel graphies used can
be represented in the parameter in Figure 4.2.
Various types of explanation have been proposed for the overwhelming use of
the vowel quality [i] in the early stages of this type of prosthesis, phonetic and
phonological. Already in the nineteenth century, Schuchardt (1867: 349) had
are from Dalmatia. However, a small number of cases of prosthesis are reported for Dacia
from the historical works of the sixth-century Dacian-born writer Iordanes (Mihăescu
1978: 193).
18
The fourth-century historian Eutropius claims that the new inhabitants who settled
in war-ravaged and much depopulated Dacia at Trajan’s behest came from all over the
Roman world (EX TOTO ORBE ROMANO INFINITAS EO COPIAS HOMINUM TRANSTULERAT Breviarium
ab urbe condita 8, 6). But linguistic evidence suggests that a major component of the new
arrivals probably came from southern Italy (cf. Lüdtke 1957: 146; Leonard 1978: 32;
Sampson 1985: 355).
19
Cf. Carnoy (1906: 111) who claims that attestations of forms with <e> remain rare
until the seventh century. Prinz (1938: 108, n. 2) observes that ‘e taucht erst später und auch
nur vereinzelt auf ’.
I-prosthesis 63
i e a,o (u)
more common less common
FIGURE 4.2. Parameter of vowel quality for early stages of I-prosthesis
identified the close phonetic relationship between [s] and [i] as the reason for the
selection of a high front unrounded quality for the prosthetic vowel, and this was
later echoed by Prinz (1938: 109), though neither develop the idea further.
Acoustic-perceptual factors were appealed to by Richter (1934: }52A), who
claimed that the high-frequency energy of [s] led to its forming a quasi-sonority
peak before voiceless plosives which was perceptually akin to a lax [i]. More
recent experimental phonetic investigation has confirmed the link between [s]
and the vowel [i]. Acoustically, [s] has its energy situated principally at about 3500
Hz and above, and [i] is the vowel type whose F2 has the highest frequency. For
French, it is about 2500 Hz (Léon 1992: 83) and for Italian it likewise averages
at about 2500 Hz (Gaspari and Tirondola 1976: 127).20 Given that the frequency
of F2 in vowels is a major factor in determining the perceived quality of a vowel,
it is apparent that significant perceptual and acoustic links exist between
the vowel [i] and the sibilant [s], which complement the evident articulatory
similarities between the two segment types. The association between [s] and
[i]/[j] receives some further support from diachronic evidence, for [s] has
vocalized to [i]/[j] in the history of a number of Romance varieties, e.g. Italian
(NOS > noi, CRAS > OIt. crai), Romanian (NOS > noi, TRES > trei), varieties of
Occitan (Michel 1948, 1956: 102–5, 128–9; Ronjat II: 190, 271; Straka 1979: 454–5)
and modern Spanish dialects of the Chocó area in Colombia (Flórez 1951: 194–5,
cited in Seklaoui 1989: 53).
More recent investigations of epenthetic vowel quality undertaken by general
phonologists drawing on cross-linguistic and interphonological data (see section
1.6 above) serve to clarify the selection of [i] more fully. In accordance with the
principle of minimal saliency which governs the selection of quality in epenthetic
vowels, we would expect [‰] to have been adopted (Kenstowicz 2003: 95).
However, in the absence of such a vowel quality in Late Latin, a closed vowel
would be expected in view of its relatively brief duration and hence minimal
saliency. The choice of [i] rather than [u] is evidently motivated, on the one hand,
by the fact that phonologically [i] is less marked than [u] and, on the other
hand, by the close phonetic link between [s] and [i] already identified by earlier
scholars—both share certain acoustic-perceptual characteristics and from an
articulatory viewpoint both are unrounded speech-sounds and share a similar
20
Gaspari and Tirondola’s data distinguish adult male from adult female speakers. The
former show F2 values lying between 1900–2320 Hz and the latter 2400–3200 Hz.
64 I-prosthesis
posture involving the elevation of the front part of the tongue. Phonologists using
a framework that builds on articulatory-based features have formalized the link
by classifying segments which share such an articulatory posture as [ þ coronal]
(Clements and Hume 1995: 277). The link may be represented diagrammatically as
in Figure 4.3 below, where we assume that the intrasyllabic adjacency of the
segments has played an important role in establishing the link.21
σ
i s
Root Root
C Place C Place
V Place
Coronal
FIGURE 4.3. Agreement of the prosthetic vowel in respect of Place feature
Finally, it may be noted that markedness has been invoked by some scholars in
a rather different way to explain the selection of the quality [i] in I-prosthesis.
Here, it is not the relative degree of marking of the high vowels [i] vs [u] which is
in question but the supposed marking relations which hold between vowel
quality and syllable structure.
The initial assumption is that vowel prosthesis occurred as a result of a type of
‘diphthongization’ or intrasegmental differentiation affecting the initial conso-
nant [s], giving rise to a sequence of two segments. The first of these took on an
unmarked distinctive feature value with respect to the marked value found in the
21
We have drawn here on the interesting interphonological study by Rose and Demuth
(2006). Here it is claimed (p. 1124) not only that ‘consonant-to-vowel sharing must take
place within the same syllable’ but also that ‘a consonant to the right of the epenthetic
vowel can never contribute place features.’ The latter claim, however, relates to conditions
specifically found in Sesotho where there is an exclusively CV syllable structure. In this
language therefore, a post-vocalic consonant would necessarily belong to a different
syllable from the preceding consonant. The data (and our formulation) for Late Latin
demonstrate the primacy of intrasyllabic adjacency over simple directionality.
I-prosthesis 65
original segment [s]. The new segment thus became [ þ vocalic] and then [ þ
syllabic], i.e. it became a true vowel, as against the marked [– vocalic] value of [s]
(cf. Andersen 1972: 34–5). The selection of the quality [i] was then determined by
the marked value of the syllable in which the prosthetic vowel appeared. Had the
syllable been of the unmarked CV type, the unmarked [a] vowel would have been
used, but the marked VC type led to the adoption of the corresponding marked
vowel [i] (cf. Francard 1981: 174). However, various problems present themselves
with this view. Rather obviously, it is not quite clear why [i] should have emerged
rather than another equally marked vowel like [u].22 Furthermore, there are
numerous cases in Romance where, despite their marked nature, VC syllables
arising from prosthesis contain the unmarked vowel [a] (cf. especially Chapter 6).
Such an approach therefore provides no real basis for predicting the quality [i] in
the prosthetic vowel that arose in Imperial Latin.
4.1.4 AC T UA L I Z AT I O N
The actualization or linguistic implementation of I-prosthesis has been the

subject of some controversy which centres on whether or not it was a staged
process. According to the staged view, the prosthetic vowel arose first in specific
structural contexts before becoming generalized, in some areas at least, to all
contexts. Two versions of the staged view have been advanced. On the one hand,
I-prosthesis has been claimed to have arisen first of all in post-consonantal
contexts, e.g. IN SCALA, before being subsequently generalized (Niedermann 1954:
78; Bourciez 1956: }54b; Michel 1956: }123; Leumann 1977: 105). On the other, the
assumption is that it first affected s impura words when they were both post-
consonantal and post-pausal (Meyer-Lübke 1890: }29; Politzer 1959: 32; Fouché
1966: 694–6; Lausberg 1967: }353). Despite their differences, both versions of the
staged view share a common rationale. Prosthesis is taken to have been a syllabi-
cally conditioned sandhi phenomenon, whereby a vowel [i] was inserted in
contexts in which the initial [s] of s impura sequences could not be resyllabified
to the preceding syllable (cf. 4.1.5 below).
It is not clear which of the two versions is to be preferred. On theoretical
grounds, reference to both post-consonantal and post-pausal contexts certainly
seems more appropriate since both context types would have been equally likely
22
Synchronic data also argue against the necessary selection of [i]. For example, in his
phonology of Spanish, Harris (1983: 29–30), having postulated initial /sC-/ for esfera,
estudio, etc., proposes a scenario whereby /s/ ‘becomes syllabic’ and gives rise to a less
marked VC syllable. Yet the new vowel is realized as /e/, not /i/. Harris offers no explanation
as to why /e/ of all possible vowel types should appear, but more relevant here is the fact
that a mid vowel rather than a high one is selected.
66 I-prosthesis
to give rise to resyllabification in s impura sequences. Some empirical support

from modern Romance for this view comes from the Gascon dialect of Bagnères-
de-Luchon where forms like espyó ‘thorn’ (< SPĪNA) show regular alternation with
and without a prosthetic vowel:
(post-pausal) espyó ‘thorn’
h
(post-consonantal) dües espyés ‘two thorns’ where ü = [ ]
but (post-vocalic) era spyó ‘the thorn’
(data: Sarrieu 1903: 319)
However, other Romance varieties have continued to operate with a sandhi-style
prosthesis which typically inserts the prosthetic vowel in just post-consonantal
contexts only, e.g. in Piedmontese varieties (4.4.5) and, in a more marginal way,
standard Italian (1.4, 4.3.3). Such data would suggest a multi-staged process in the
actualization of prosthesis: post-consonantal > post-pausal > post-vocalic.
It might be expected that the epigraphic record would provide some decisive
evidence for establishing the likely stages of actualization. However, this proves
not to be the case. The statistics assembled by Prinz (1938: 109) on the basis of
attestations from across the Empire reveal the following distribution for pros-
thetic vowels:
post-pausal 87
post-consonantal 65
post-vocalic 56
uncertain cases 6
total 214
FIGURE 4.4. Epigraphical attestations of I-prosthesis according to phonological context
The lack of any clear predominance of one type of context over another would
seem to argue against staged actualization despite the theoretical arguments
which support it. However, these statistics are rather less revealing than they
might appear to be. This is because the overall total of attestations for I-prosthesis
is relatively small; there is a lack of information about the number of cases where
prosthesis could have occurred but is not attested; and the statistics are frequently
skewed by the repeated appearance of certain words such as the personal name
(I)SPES (cf. Prinz 1938: 110; Löfstedt 1961: 111; Adams 2007: 672–3).
Perhaps the safest conclusion to be drawn is that the actualization of I-pros-
thesis may well have been staged in Late Latin, and that it may even have come to
be generalized to all linguistic contexts by some speakers in the communities
which seem to have first developed the new pronunciation, i.e. the less educated
classes of Central Italy and North Africa. A significant factor fostering
I-prosthesis 67
generalization is that the post-pausal form of a word usually corresponds to its

citation form, so we can imagine that when prosthesis appeared post-pausally,
there was a fair possibility that the resulting alternant could be interpreted as the
base form and extended to all contexts. However, amongst the great bulk of Latin
speakers in the late Empire period, the presence of considerable sociolinguistic
variation can be envisaged, some individuals systematically avoiding the pros-
thetic variant and others (perhaps the overwhelming majority) limiting its use to
just certain contexts or situations.
4.1.5 C AU S AT I O N
There have been many attempts to explain the appearance of I-prosthesis in

Latin. Most have assumed the action of internal structural factors of some sort
but the possibility of outside linguistic influence has also been considered, for
example by Schuchardt (1867: 348) and Prinz (1938: 114). Schuchardt speculates on
whether there was influence from the east which spread westwards to Italy along
with Christianity or whether the source of influence was a pre-Roman language
(but not Phoenician) acting on the vernacular Latin of North Africa. Prinz alludes
to possible influence from the Middle East, either from Semitic or Asia Minor
Greek. The evidence in support of outside causation is slight, however, since we
do not know enough about relevant adstratum or substratum languages of the
time except for Greek. In fact, prosthesis akin to what develops in Latin is attested
in Asia Minor Greek but Dressler (1965) demonstrates that this prosthesis is only
found from the first century AD, becoming more frequent up to the sixth century.
It seems unlikely therefore that a substandard novelty limited to a regional form
of Greek could have had such a rapid and extensive effect on Latin across the
Empire. And certainly it does not seem likely that any other language would have
had sufficient status to influence a prestigious language like Latin. Nonetheless, it
is not inconceivable that external linguistic influence may have helped to promote
prosthesis, once it had arisen in Latin. This is suggested by Lausberg (1963: 99)
who observes that where (unspecified) pre-Roman languages prohibited complex
word onsets like s impura, speakers of these languages may have tried to impose
this structural constraint on Latin when they began to acquire the language of the
Empire. As a result, any existing internal tendency to abandon such onsets in
Latin would have been reinforced by such speakers. Such a view is not implausible
but it is difficult to confirm given the paucity of reliable phonological data about
pre-Roman languages.23
23
Greek would not be involved here since complex onsets with fall sonority including
s impura sequences were well established there. Oscan and Umbrian too had s impura
68 I-prosthesis
Turning to internal explanations, three broad types may be distinguished. First,

appeal has been made, rather unconvincingly, to the alleged development of a
tenser articulatory set position in the ancestral form of Romance (Seelmann 1885:
317–18). As a result of this, it is suggested, momentary tensing took place at the
start of s impura sequences giving rise to an [i]-like sound effect. However, such
an explanation lacks any empirical basis and is essentially speculative.
Second, prosthesis has been viewed as a consequence of the presence of
certain inherent properties in the segment [s]. In s impura onsets, [s] is
assumed to have greater articulatory power, longer duration, or higher relative
sonority than the plosive which followed it. This allegedly gives [s] incipient
syllabicity—Spanish linguists sometimes refer to [s] in this context as
‘s lı́quida’ or liquid s (e.g. Menéndez Pidal 1966: }39,3; Garcı́a Arias 1988:
110). It is then assumed that as the result of further enhancement or rein-
forcement of [s] in such onsets, full syllabicity of [s] occurred leading to I-
prosthesis (Grandgent [1907] 1963: }230; Richter 1934: }52A; Michel 1956: 23–4;
Jungemann 1955: 286, and, more recently using a broader theoretical frame-
work developing a special conception of diphthongization, Andersen 1972:
34).24 However, the suggestion that [s] became fully syllabic appears question-
able. The only independent indication of the possible syllabicity of [s] in Latin
comes in isolated forms such as the interjection ST ‘sh!’ which is found in
Naevius, Plautus, and Cicero (Michel 1956: 24). Such affective items of course
reveal little of the phonological structure of Latin. Certainly, it would be
curious that a fricative should be able to operate syllabically when other
consonants more usually found with a syllabic value (notably sonorants)
were unable to do so in Latin. A further problem for this view is the general
lack of any indication as to why possible moves to establish full syllabicity for
[s] should have begun in early Imperial times rather than at some other time.
The only proposal that has been advanced in this connection is that prosthesis
came as a response to an earlier development in Latin that threatened the
integrity of the segment [s] in word-initial pre-consonantal contexts (Deferrari
1954: 98, and, following him, La Scala 1975: 36, 64).25 A tendency to assimilate
[s] to a following consonant had developed, it is asserted, and it was in order
to protect the fricative that speakers strengthened its articulation to such an
onsets, e.g. (Umbrian) scriftas = Latin SCRIPTAE ‘written (f.pl.)’ and (Oscan) statı́f = Latin
STATUA ‘statue’. Such s impura forms appear without a prosthetic vowel in both languages in
all types of phonological context including post-consonantal (cf. Buck 1904: }47 and
p. 254).
24
See above 4.1.3.
25
Curiously, La Scala makes no reference at all to the work of Deferrari either in his text
or bibliography.
I-prosthesis 69
extent that it became syllabic and gave rise to the creation of a prosthetic vowel.
The assumption of previous [s] weakening finds some support from three sources:
the earlier weakening of Latin word-final [-s] after a short vowel; the development
of a few isolated words in Late Latin such as the Greek loanword SPASMUS > PASMUS26
beside ESPASMUS (Stotz 1996: 105); and various graphies appearing in later Latin
manuscripts where an expected <s> is missing (cf. the compilation of Schuchardt
1867: 354–8). Nonetheless, there is little solid evidence in early Romance of any
general weakness of [s], especially preceding voiceless plosives.27 The proposal
is therefore of doubtful validity. Indeed, it appears unlikely that any account of
I-prosthesis based on intrinsic phonetic properties of the segment [s] will prove
satisfactory.
Much more plausible have been the explanatory accounts that invoke
syllabic factors as the main cause of I-prosthesis (cf. 3.2 above). Two broad
subtypes can be identified, depending on whether syntagmatic or constituency
considerations are given prominence. In the former, prosthesis is taken to
represent a strategy for resyllabifying pre-consonantal word-initial [s] when it
appeared in sequences which violated the sonority sequencing generalization.
In word-initial s impura onsets preceded by a vowel-final word, it is assumed
that no restructuring was necessary as [s] was automatically resyllabified to
the coda of the preceding syllable, as in BO|NA S|CA|LA (BONA SCALA).28 Else-
where, resyllabification occurred by inserting a prosthetic vowel. In this way, it
is envisaged that I-prosthesis first developed as a sandhi phenomenon trig-
gered when words with original s impura onsets were preceded by either a
pause or a consonant-final word. Some linguists who advocate this interpre-
tation have also suggested an incipient syllabicity in the initial [s] segment of
26
The loss of initial S- in (S)PASMUS has been claimed to be due to aphaeresis following
prosthesis and confusion with prefixal EX-, SPASMUS > ESPASMUS > PASMUS (cf. Grandgent 1963:
}301, DCELC s.v. pasmar) or to dissimilation of the first /s/ or to blending with another
Greek word palmos ‘palpitation’ (DHLF s.v. pâmer). However, the form SPASMUS was
adopted in learned borrowings and gave Old and Middle French espame (from 13th c.),
It. spasimo, and Catalan espasme. Castilian has both pasmo (< SPASMUS) ‘temporary
paralysis (caused by cold); amazement’ ! pasmar ‘to amaze’ and the later learned form
espasmo ‘spasm’.
27
In fact, Schuchardt recognizes the lack of data indicating generalized weakening of
[s]: ‘Die rustike Erweichung des s kann demnach keine allgemeine und durchgreifende
gewesen sein; wahrscheinlich war sie nur dialektisch’ (1867: 359). Revealingly, standard
works on ‘Vulgar Latin’ make no mention of any weakening of [s], e.g. Grandgent [1907]
1963, Väänänen 1967.
28
The appropriateness of such an assumption, however, is questionable. As noted in
3.1.1, native Latin patterns of syllabification as reflected in metrical practice did not favour
the leftward resyllabification of [s] in initial s impura sequences.
70 I-prosthesis
s impura sequences (cf. the segmental approach above), but syllable structure
considerations are of primary importance.29
A fuller version of this scenario is provided by Tekavcic (1972: }297) who also
addresses the question of why I-prosthesis should have occurred when it did. It is
claimed that the key development was the deletion of [n] before [s]. Hence, in
words such as CON|STO > COS|TO the new syllabification resulting from loss of [n]
had the effect of leading to the prohibition of [s] þ consonant sequences in
syllable onsets. This would have impacted on such sequences in word-initial
position too (cf. 3.1.1). However, objections have been raised to this proposal.
As various Classical scholars have noted, e.g. Michel (1956: 25–6) and Marotta
(1999: 303), the syllabification of such prefixal forms as CONSTO, PERSTO is prob-
lematic. The likelihood is that they were syllabified CONS|TO, PERS|TO, thereby
destroying, as Marotta puts it, the ‘principle of agreement between morphological
structure and syllabic representation’.30 A further criticism may be made on
chronological grounds. This is that [n] deletion before [s] is clearly attested
already in the third century BC, as in COSUL ‘consul’ and CESOR ‘censor’
corresponding to later Classical Latin CONSUL and CENSOR, which appear on the
sarcophagus of Cornelius Scipio who was consul in 259 BC (CIL I, 8 and 9). Given
the early dating of [n] deletion, it is surprising that no attestations of authenti-
cally prosthetic forms are to be found until the second century AD (cf. 4.1.1 above).
In a contituency-based approach, however, the elimination of a s impura onset
through prosthesis is interpreted in the light of the changing permissible internal
architecture of the syllable in Latin. In Classical Latin, as we have seen (3.2), the
syllable was already subject to a number of constraints which limited its internal
complexity. Various diachronic developments in pre-Classical times leading to
greater simplicity had brought this about, one of which was the progressive
elimination of complex onsets and especially those of falling sonority. Of these,
s impura onsets were the last type. Their restructuring and the consequent
generalization of only complex onsets of maximal rising sonority, i.e. the obs-
truent þ liquid type which are widely licensed across languages, can therefore
be seen as the culmination of a long-running process of syllable simplification
(cf. Steriade 1988).
29
Thus, Lausberg (1963: }94) refers to [s] as forming a ‘Nebengipfel’ while Kiss (1971: 91)
more mysteriously assumes a vowel i or e to be an ‘élément adventice’ contained as a
‘virtualité’ within [s].
30
To try to reconcile morphology and phonology here, Marotta (1999: 303) proposes an
ultimately morphological-based interpretation PER|STO but where the sibilant S is viewed as
‘a sort of appendix’ which may be associated with the preceding coda or following onset
(i.e. it is ambisyllabic).
I-prosthesis 71
4.1.5.1 Towards a unified explanation

It seems very probable that syllabic considerations played the key role in trigger-
ing I-prosthesis in Romance. As we have seen, two types of syllable-based factor
can be distinguished but rather than viewing them as alternatives, it seems
preferable to see them as working directly in tandem with one another. Thus,
on the one hand, the falling sonority of s impura onsets marked these off as
exceptional so that some restructuring was likely. These onset sequences were less
problematic phrase-medially when preceded by a vowel-final word since the
sibilant [s] could in principle be reinterpreted as the coda of the preceding
syllable, even though Classical Latin metrical practice offers little evidence that
reinterpretation of this type was regular (cf. 3.1.1). But in other phonological
contexts, i.e. post-pausal and post-consonantal, no such reinterpretation was
possible so that the solution adopted in order to ensure syllabifiable syntagmatic
sequences was the introduction of a sandhi vowel. On the other hand, a general
diachronic movement towards greater simplicity in early Latin syllable architec-
ture entailed a progressive and systematic reduction in the complexity of onsets.
Eventually, this development was to affect the last remaining type, s impura
clusters. In this way, two complementary forces, syntagmatic and structural,
may be seen to underlie I-prosthesis.
One important question remains unresolved. If there was to be restructuring,
why was prosthesis selected as the means of bringing it about? In fact, prosthesis
represents just one of three possible strategies alongside epenthesis and deletion,
as in IN SCALA ! IN ISCALA or IN SICALA or IN CALA, respectively.31 Very few examples
of epenthesis in this context have been found, however. Indeed, in the literature
just one attested case is usually cited which occurs in a second-century North
African execratory tablet written in Latin but using Greek letters, namely ıØØı
ØØæØı = HUI(I)US SIPIRITUS ‘his breath’ corresponding to Classical Latin HUIUS
SPIRITUS (Audollent 1904: 270). The epenthetic in SIPIRITUS, however, may be
just a scribal error induced here by the presence of the high front vowel [i] in the
two following two syllables. The presence of the form STELLAS in the phrase SEPTEM
STELLAS ( ŁººÆ) in the same text, with no epenthetic vowel indicated,
points to the anomalous nature of SIPIRITUS and suggests the plausibility of this
31
A further strategy is also possible, metathesis. However, while PS- TS- KS- would yield
onset sequences of increasing sonority, the majority (TS and all three-place sequences PSL,
KSR, etc.) were impermissible as onsets or codas in Latin. Only PS and KS (= X) were licensed
but only as codas, as in forms like DAPS ‘feast’, FAX ‘torch’. The non-use of metathesis here is
therefore understandable and finds parallels elsewhere in other languages (cf. Gouskova
2001).
72 I-prosthesis
explanation. As regards deletion as a possible strategy of eliminating s impura

sequences, it is certainly true that unfamiliar word-initial consonant sequences
appearing in loanwords could be nativized by deleting one of the consonants, as
in PSALMUS > SALMUS, PNEUMA > NEUMA borrowed from Greek (Stotz 1996: 246), but
even so exceptions are found, e.g. the Greek loanword XENIUM which was restruc-
tured by prosthesis or pseudo-prefixation to EXENIUM (Stotz 1996: 109).32 The
implication is therefore that significant factors existed promoting the use of
prosthesis in preference to other adaptive stategies. Although the identity of
these factors remains somewhat mysterious, at least two seem very likely to
have been involved.33 First, at a morpho-lexical level, there may have been a
desire amongst speakers to maintain maximal formal identity between the root of
s impura words and forms derivationally related to them. Thus, the phonological
link between the root elements [skri:b], [sta:] in DESCRIBERE ISCRIBERE, RESTARE
ISTARE is transparently preserved after prosthesis, whereas it would be more
obscure in DESCRIBERE **SICRIBERE (via epenthesis) or RESTARE **TARE (via
deletion). The significant number of familiar Latin verbs beginning with s im-
pura34 and the increasing use of prefixal verbal forms during the Imperial period
would doubtless have strengthened the importance of this factor. Second, a
special phonological bond holding between [s] þ voiceless plosive sequences
has been noted by phonologists across many languages (cf. 3.2). Its effect has
commonly been to preserve the integrity of such sequences when moves towards
simplification of complex onsets and codas occur. In the history of Latin before
the Classical period, there is evidence that wide-ranging simplification of conso-
nant sequences took place word-initially. Yet, [s] þ voiceless plosive onsets re-
mained despite their falling sonority, and by the Classical period they represented
the last surviving type of complex onset apart from the obstruent þ liquid type.
The special cohesion between [s] and voiceless plosive in onsets therefore may
well have served to block possible moves to separate them.35
To summarize, we can see I-prosthesis as a development which arose in Latin for
syllabic reasons. As the last remaining phonologically anomalous type of word-
initial onset, s impura sequences were susceptible to restructuring. This was achieved
through prosthesis rather than other strategies such as epenthesis for morpholexical
32
A further and more doubtful example is the proper name IPSITHILLA which appears in
a poem of Catullus. This has been claimed to contain a prosthetic vowel (Gratwick 1967).
33
There have not been many serious attempts to explain the choice of prosthesis. For
example, Kiss (1971: 89–90) merely suggests that [s] deletion would have threatened
homonymic clash, e.g. SPES PES, but he does not pursue the subject any further.
34
E.g. SCANDERE, SCOPARE, SCRIBERE, SPERARE, SPONDERE, SPUTARE, STARE, STERNERE, STRINGERE.
35
Epenthesis was to occur with word-initial [s] þ voicelss plosive onsets, however, in
Walloon during the later Middle Ages. The reasons for this are explored below in 4.4.2.1.
I-prosthesis 73
and phonological reasons. Mainly on theoretical grounds, it seems likely that I-

prosthesis was carried through in a two-stage process; first, these sequences were
modified in contexts where they were anomalously tautosyllabic, i.e. post-conso-
nantally and post-pausally, and subsequently the restructuring could be generalized
to post-vocalic contexts (where the sequences were already heterosyllabic).
4.2 Medieval and modern developments
By the sixth century AD, I-prosthesis was probably a phenomenon of pronuncia-

tion known in almost all parts of Romania continua. However, it seems very likely
that prosthetic forms had not entirely displaced their earlier non-prosthetic
counterparts amongst all speakers in any region. We may envisage the existence
of much variation in the use of the two competing forms from area to area,
speaker to speaker, situation to situation and from one phonological context-type
to another. Subsequently, the variation was usually resolved as one or other
variant form was generalized. The pattern of use or non-use of I-prosthesis
found in many present-day Romance varieties appears already to have been
established by the time that the first written records become available for them.
However, in certain varieties there have been significant changes during the
period for which we have written records, notably in Gallo-Romance and Tuscan.
In tracing the history of the prosthetic vowel in the different varieties of
Romance, we need to recall the direct link holding between the fate of this
vowel and that of the etymological vowel appearing in the prefixes EX-, EXTRA-,
IN þ /s-/ and also DIS- in areas where this prefix has merged with EX-. As
already noted (4.1.1), even in Imperial times there was a good deal of interplay
between the two types of vowel, and in Romance this interplay led to direct
association. As a result, both types of vowel have always shared a common
evolution in individual varieties: either they are both maintained, perhaps
becoming fully generalized in all phonological contexts, or they will both be
lost. In this way, observation of the fate of the etymological prefixal vowel
(henceforth referred to as ‘prefixal vowel’ for short) can shed invaluable light
on the incidence and development of the prosthetic vowel during periods
when relevant documentation is lacking.
A further aspect concerns syllabic structure. Word-initial s impura sequences,
as has been seen (3.1.1, 3.2), represented the only remaining falling-sonority and
therefore heterosyllabic onset type in the Classical period. However, in many
Romance varieties later developments have resulted in the reappearance of
heterosyllabic onsets. Where this has occurred, s impura sequences are always
among the restored onsets and moreover they are usually the first such onset to be
restored. We therefore seem to have a striking example here of the last-out, first-
in principle which has been noted elsewhere in language change.
74 I-prosthesis
4.2.1 G E N E R A L PAT T E R N S O F E A R LY M E D I EVA L C H A N G E
A broad distinction between western and eastern Romance in the treatment of

I-prosthetic forms has long been noted (cf. Schuchardt 1867: 349). To the west
and north of the La Spezia-Rimini line36 which is conventionally recognized as
a useful and convenient dividing line in Romania continua, the I-prosthetic
variant was generalized during the Middle Ages in almost all areas but not in
Rheto-Romance, North Italian and certain varieties of Gallo-Romance. To the
east and south, the non-prosthetic variant was generalized although Tuscan is
problematic, as we shall see (4.3.3). Sardinian follows the western pattern. Illus-
trative derivations appear below in Figure 4.5.
Port. Cast. Cat. Occ. Fr. Sard. (with I-prosthesis)
SCĀLA ‘ladder’ escala escala escala escalo échelle iskāla
STĒLLA ‘star’ estrela estrella estrella esteilo étoile istèlla 37
Wall. R-R. NIt (Bol.) St.It. SIt (Nap.) Dal. Rom. (no I-prosthesis)
SCĀLA ‘ladder’ hâle šcela scala scala šcala šcala scară
STĒLLA ‘star’ steûle šæla strèla stella štella štala stea
FIGURE 4.5. Prosthetic and non-prosthetic reflexes across Romance

Select sources: Sardinian, AIS pt. 943 (Macomer); Walloon, Haust (1933); Rheto-Rom.,
Walberg (1907); Dalmatian, Hadlich (1965)
Building on the assumption that I-prosthesis developed as a sandhi phenomenon

triggered by the presence of a preceding consonant or pause, the different
development of prosthetic vowels across Romance may be seen to be connected
with the treatment of word-final consonants in the later Empire period and early
Middle Ages. In the east, final consonants were regularly deleted or a paragogic
vowel inserted, as in PONTES ‘bridges’ > St.It. ponti, Rom. punţi as against Cast.
pontes, Fr. ponts,38 CANTANT > S.It.dial. cantanu, Rom. cı̂ntă but Cast. cantan,
36
This line formed by a bundle of isoglosses passes from west to east across Italy just
north of Tuscany. It was first identified by Walther von Wartburg in 1936 and its
significance was explored more fully in Wartburg (1950).
37
The singular form STĒLLA has unusually yielded reflexes with a lateral [ll] in almost all
the localities of Sardinia used in the AIS, presumably through influence from Italian. It
seems that in early Sardinian a masculine variant *STĒLLU(M) was adopted and this emerges
in certain varieties, e.g. [is’teffu] at pt. 938 (Bitti) where the expected geminate coronal
retroflex [ff] is found as the reflex of Latin -LL-. However, the masculine variant provides
the plural form across almost all localities reported in the AIS. Thus, for point 943, the
reported form is [is’t¡ffos].
38
In standard French and in other northern Gallo-Romance varieties, final [s] was
deleted during the later Middle Ages in pre-consonantal position and during the
I-prosthesis 75
Fr. chantent.39 The only exceptions were certain function words like prepositions
which occurred in syntactic groups where they operated like proclitics. As a
result, if post-pausal contexts are left aside, words beginning with [s] þ conso-
nant were statistically much more frequently found in post-vocalical contexts,
where the preceding vowel could provide syllabic support for the initial [s], than
in post-consonantal contexts (Politzer 1959, Tekavcic 1974: 231). However, in the
west including Sardinia, word-final consonants were widely preserved. This
meant that in phrase-medial contexts, word-initial s impura onsets appeared
statistically more frequently in post-consonantal contexts where I-prosthesis
occurred for syllabic reasons; the prosthetic variant therefore appeared with far
greater frequency than its non-prosthetic counterpart.40 Subsequently, in all areas
of Romania continua the alternation between prosthetic and non-prosthetic
forms was gradually eliminated during the course of the Middle Ages as a result
of the more frequent variant being generalized. The relative frequency of one or
other variant can thus be seen as the key factor.
This scenario provides a plausible basis for understanding early developments
with I-prosthesis in Romance. Also, given the identification that took
place between prosthetic forms and prefixal words in EX-, EXTRA-, IN- þ s impura
stem- and DIS-, it offers a rationale for the occurrence of aphaeresis in the initial
vowel in the latter words. It was the abandonment of the prosthetic alternant
in s impura forms that can be seen to have acted as the catalyst for this
development.
However, the expected patterns of prosthesis have not always materialized. On
the one hand, one eastern variety evidently saw the continued use of I-prosthesis
seventeenth century in pre-pausal position too, e.g. ponts modernes and j’aime les ponts.
Pre-vocalically (and hence intervocalically) it may still appear as [z] in liaison contexts, e.g.
ponts et chaussées and (depending on register) plural noun phrases with a following vowel-
initial adjective like ponts espagnols.
39
The literary Italian language has always had cantano where the inflexion -no is
analogical (Rohlfs 1968: II, }532; Maiden 1995: 130–2). The original early Romance form
in Italy was probably canta and this is the form preserved in many Central Italian dialects,
e.g. that of Servigliano in the Marche (Camilli 1929). The final consonant of Fr. trois and
chantent was lost in the later Middle Ages except in liaison contexts, for example, troi[z]
ans, chanten[t]-ils.
40
Detailed statistics in support of this view are seldom provided by Romanists.
However, Hall (1964) offers data of some relevance in the course of his study on a
different aspect of historical Romance phonology. These were based on an analysis of
textual material from Old Occitan and indicated that, if the textual material was projected
back into Late Latin, approximately two thirds of the consonant-initial word tokens would
have appeared in post-pausal or post-consonantal position.
76 I-prosthesis
and its extension to a wide range of phonological contexts in the medieval period
(cf. 4.3.3). On the other hand, a number of western Romance varieties such as
standard French developed a fully productive rule of I-prosthesis in the course of
the Middle Ages, as expected, but later abandoned the rule. However, no exam-
ples appear to exist of the reverse change whereby at first a rule of I-prosthesis
failed to develop in a given variety during the medieval period but thereafter such
a rule was acquired.
The familiar simple binary east-west division therefore offers a broadly appro-
priate but not entirely satisfactory basis for covering the fate of I-prosthesis
in medieval and modern Romance. Despite its limitations, it will nonetheless
be convenient to use it as a starting point for our treatment rather than
operating with a classificational framework that risks being excessively complex
and fragmented. Within each of the divisions, we examine the divergent
and changing fortunes of prosthesis geographically and chronologically up to
the present day.
4.3 Type 1 (‘Eastern Romance’): general non-development of

unconditioned I-prosthesis
Already in the pre-literary period, I-prosthesis was abandoned as a phono-

logical process in all varieties of Romance spoken in southern Italy and the
Balkans. Nonetheless, there is evidence to indicate that alternation between
prosthetic and non-prosthetic forms remained for some time before the
former were abandoned. One area of what is traditionally understood as
eastern Romance is problematic in its treatment of prosthesis, namely Tus-
cany and the adjacent region of Umbria. Here, the evidence points clearly to
the widespread use of prosthetic vowels during the medieval period. Today,
although prosthesis no longer operates as a phonological process, unmistak-
able residues still survive in certain varieties bearing witness to its former
productivity.
4.3.1 B A L KA N RO M A N C E
Extant inscriptions and texts from the Balkans which date from up to the sixth
century suggest that I-prosthesis was known to at least some Latin speakers of the
area, more especially those of Illyria. However, the phonological process evidently
failed to take root so that no direct trace remains of I-prosthesis in any known
variety of Romance used in areas to the east of the Adriatic, as the following
examples illustrate.
I-prosthesis 77
Dalmatian (Vegliote) Daco-Romanian

STRICTU(M) strat strı̂mt 41 ‘narrow, tight’
SCRĪPTU(M) skrit scrit ‘written’
SPĪNA/-U(M) spajna spin ‘thorn’
SPĪCA/-U(M) spajka spic ‘ear of corn’
STĒLLA stal stea ‘star’
And, predictably, loanwords from medieval times onward which contained origi-
nal s impura word-initial onsets likewise developed no prosthetic vowel. For
instance, Romanian borrowings from Slavic dating from the seventh or eighth
century include stăpı̂n ‘master’, scump ‘expensive’, stı̂nă ‘sheepfold’, smı̂ntı̂nă
‘cream’, slab ‘weak’, and more recent loans such as structură, scandal similarly
preserve initial [s]C- intact.
Unfortunately there is little textual evidence available before fairly recent times
to help us trace developments while I-prosthesis was abandoned as a process. As
we have seen, there are some relevant pieces of data from the Imperial period
but they are far from abundant.42 Thereafter, no substantial extant documentation
exists for Romanian between the end of the sixth century until the sixteenth
century when a tradition for writing in the Romance vernacular becomes estab-
lished. Moreover, during this thousand year period there is not even the possibility
of inferring vernacular change from medieval texts composed in Latin, since the
written medium in the Balkans was Slavonic which remained the chancellery
language of the Romanian princedoms until the late sixteenth century and
continued to be used in the liturgy until the early eighteenth century (Coteanu
1981: 88). The historical record for Dalmatian is even more limited. The most
substantial surviving text for this Romance variety is the reminiscences, recorded
in phonetic script, of the last known native speaker who died in 1898, Antonio
Burbur.43 Given the minimal direct knowledge of language patterns in Balkan
Romance during the medieval period, we have to rely on linguistic reconstruction.
41
The original past participle form STRICTU(M) was remodelled to *STRINCTU to conform with
the stem appearing in finite parts of the verb STRINGERE (> strı̂nge ‘to press, squeeze’); cf. FRĂCTU
(M) > *FRĂNCTU (influenced by FRĂNGERE) > frı̂nt ‘broken’. Analogical *STRINCTU also developed
in other Romance varieties, e.g. Sardinian istrintu, S. Italian and Old Tuscan strinto (REW 8305).
In modern Daco-Romanian, a new past participle strı̂ns has developed, leaving strı̂mt as an
adjective only meaning ‘narrow, tight’. For the postulation of a short stressed vowel in STRICTU
(M), FRĂCTU(M) rather than a long vowel as some latinists assume, see Sampson (2006).
42
Arvinte (1980: 20) claims that after 268 AD there are no inscriptions from Dacia, and
south of the Danube there are no inscriptions from Moesia Inferior after 392 and Moesia
Superior after 287. In Pannonia Inferior, surviving inscriptions cease after 377. Further west
in Illyria, however, epigraphic evidence is much more extensive and there are numerous
inscriptions dating from beyond the fourth century.
43
The text of these reminiscences and all surviving documentation relating to
Dalmatian appear in Bartoli ([1906] 2000). This amplifies the earlier study of Ive (1886).
78 I-prosthesis
The poverty of evidence for prosthetic vowels in s impura words in the Imperial
period and their absence thereafter in the Balkans has led some scholars to doubt
that I-prosthesis ever really existed here (cf. 4.1.2 above). However, the more
general view is that this process was introduced but was subsequently abandoned.
The main evidence for this assumption lies in the treatment of words which
contain etymological initial /es-/ typically arising from the prefixes EX- or EXTRA-.
In such words, aphaeresis has regularly taken place. For example, Romanian:
EX-CADĒRE > scădea ‘to fall due’ EX-PULVERĀRE > spulbera ‘to dust’
EX-CAMBIĀRE > schimba ‘to change’ EXTINGUERE > stinge ‘to extinguish’
EX-PER-LAVĀRE > spăla ‘to wash’
EXTORQUERE > stoarce ‘to twist’
EXTRĀNEU(M) > străin ‘foreign’

EXTRA-BONU (M) > străbun ‘ancestor’
EXTRA-LUCĒRE > străluci ‘to shine brightly’
For Dalmatian, there are forms such as44
EX-CALDĀRE > scalduár ‘to heat’ EX-PETRĀRE > spetrár ‘to remove stones’
EXCŬTERE > scútro ‘to lift’ EX-TEMPTĀRE > stentuár ‘to work’
EXPINGERE > spángro ‘to push’ EX-TUTĀRE > stutuár ‘to extinguish’
EXPĔNDERE > spiánder ‘to spend’
The implication is that aphaeresis operated on forms beginning with unstressed
[es-] along with the elimination of the prosthetic alternants which had developed
from s impura words (cf. Densusianu [1901–38] 1975: 107). There are rare instances
where aphaeresis failed to affect forms with prefixal EX-; for example, EX-TEMPER-
ĀRE > astı̂mpăra ‘to quieten, calm’, EX-COT-ĪRE > ascuţi ‘to whet, sharpen’ and
EXSPECTĀRE > aştepta ‘to wait for’. These appear to have retained their initial vowel
because of early prefix-switching EX-> AD-/A(B)-.
The problem remains of establishing what factors may have led to the loss of I-
prosthesis and, by association, aphaeresis in prefixal EX-, EXTRA- forms. Nandriş
(1963: 175) appeals to substratum influence but without offering any substantive
supporting evidence. Other linguists have more plausibly appealed to the action
of internal structural factors, notably the widespread loss of original word-final
consonants in Balkan Romance which resulted in the statistical predominance of
vowel-final words. This would have meant that prosthesis was less frequently
needed to resyllabify the initial /s/ in s impura forms; the prosthetic alternant was
therefore abandoned in favour of its more frequent non-prosthetic counterpart
(cf. 4.2.1 above).
The Vegliote forms are drawn from various sources and appear in Bartoli/Duro 2000.
44
Formal variations, e.g. -ARE > -uár or -ár, reflect the different sources used. No variation in
the outcome of prosthetic or etymological /i-/ is found, however.
I-prosthesis 79
A further factor may also be mentioned. From the beginning of the seventh
century, the Balkans increasingly came under Slav control and, as noted earlier,
Slavic came to fulfil the functions of an H-language in a widely bilingual society. It is
notable that Slavic has always licensed syllable onsets of considerable complexity
and, as a result of borrowing, Romanian has itself developed a range of complex
onset types rarely found in other Romance varieties, for example [ml-, hr-] e.g. in
mlaştină ‘swamp’, hrană ‘food’. Loans with a range of sibilant þ consonant onsets
also figured, such as [sn-, zm-, ´g-] in snop ‘sheaf’, zmeu ‘dragon’, jgheab ‘open
conduit’, and amongst these were numerous words containing the [s] þ voiceless
plosive type that was comparable to the s impura sequences of native Latin words,
such as spor ‘progress’, stană ‘flag’, scump ‘expensive’. Although some phonological
adaptation of unfamiliar onset sequences in Slavic loans did take place as in (Slav.)
tlŭmačı̆ > (Rom.) tălmaci ‘interpreter’, a much enlarged range of possible onsets
evidently became acceptable in early Balkan Romance. One effect of this may well
have been to undermine the motivation for using the prosthetic alternant of original
s impura forms inherited from Latin. Although other factors were doubtless
involved, it seems not unlikely that Slavic played a supporting role in the abandon-
ment of I-prosthesis in Balkan Romance.
Finally, a special case of vowel prosthesis developed in pronominal forms in certain
Daco-Romanian varieties and is attested from the later sixteenth century. This later
development, which has nothing to do with I-prosthesis, is examined in 6.1.4.3.
4.3.2 S O U T H E R N I TA L I A N
The use of prosthetic vowels in southern Italy during the Imperial period is
indicated by inscriptional evidence. Prinz (1938) reported some eleven examples
from this area including EGO ISPERABI ‘I hoped’ (CIL X, 8189) which occurs in an
inscription found at Pozzuoli, near Naples. This example is striking as it offers
evidence that prosthesis could operate post-vocalically as well as in other types of
phonological context where its appearance is more to be expected on theoretical
grounds. However, later linguistic developments in southern Italy suggest that for
most speakers there was usually never more than alternation between prosthetic and
non-prosthetic forms with etymological s impura words in Imperial times and in the
early Middle Ages. But during the course of the medieval period the use of I-
prosthesis progressively disappeared and the non-prosthetic alternant was
generalized to all contexts. Just as in Balkan Romance, the abandonment of the
prosthetic alternant was accompanied by aphaeresis in the phonologically asso-
ciated set of prefixal words containing original EX-, EXTRA-, DIS-, INS- (cf. 4.2.1, 4.3.1).
Evidence confirming the abandonment of I-prosthesis by the later Middle Ages
is provided by the substantial body of vernacular writings which becomes
available for certain southern Italian varieties. Thus, the thirteenth-century
80 I-prosthesis
Neapolitan poem Bagni di Pozzuoli shows no signs of prosthetic and also has
regular aphaeresis of the related etymological prefixal vowel, as in da sturdire (l. 7)
< EX-TURD-ĪRE, per spesse fiate (l. 198), et splena (l. 366), in strectura (l. 391); and the
fourteenth-century prose Cronaca di Partenope, also from Naples, shows a similar
pattern, per spacio, pote stare, fugereno scazati, per stancia de lo papa (Altamura
1949). Late medieval texts may show graphic evidence of the vowel but influence
from the Tuscan-based literary language may well account for this. Thus, the
version of the Libro di Sidrac composed in Salento around 1440 contains a
significant minority of <i-> graphies, non fosse ispessa (20r,32), so’ isparte
(23r,37), la più isnella (31r,21), but it is notable that the vowel is very rarely
found in the most expected context, namely post-consonantally, e.g. non stecte
(5v,25), non sguardano (22v,26), in scripta (49v,21), although one instance with an
initial vowel non escialequare ‘not to squander’ (19r,2) < EXHALĀRE þ AQUA (REW
3011) does occur (Sgrilli 1983). In recent times, it is not without significance that
in linguistic studies of southern Italo-Romance, from Schneegans (1888) onward,
no reference is made to any trace of I-prosthesis.45
As with Balkan Romance, the disappearance of I-prosthesis as a phonological
process can readily be related to the early elimination of word-final consonants
in southern Italian varieties and in consequence the much higher frequency of
occurrence of non-prosthetic alternants leading to their subsequent generalization.
4.3.3 T U S C A N : A P RO B L E M C A S E
Lying just south of the La Spezia-Rimini line, Tuscany is usually classified within
eastern Romance. An early abandonment of I-prosthesis similar to that found in
southern Italian and Balkan-Romance might therefore be expected. Certainly, the
lack of prosthetic vowels in the Florentine-based standard Italian language, e.g.
spesso, stare, and scrivere (< SPISSU(M), STĀRE, SCRĪBERE), would seem to confirm this
expectation. Instances of prosthesis can be found when s impura words are
preceded by a consonant-final monosyllabic grammatical form as in per iscritto,
in ispecie, but such cases are rare and might perhaps appear to represent a residue
of the substantial influence experienced during the early medieval period from
northern Italian varieties which, as types of western Romance, would be expected
to preserve I-prosthesis. However, the textual evidence from medieval Tuscany
presents a rather different picture. Far from being a phenomenon sporadically
found as a result of possible external influence, I-prosthesis was a phonological
45
Vowel prosthesis of another and later type in southern Italy, however, does receive
attention (cf. Chapter 5). The silence over I-prosthesis thus does not simply reflect
scholarly unawareness of prosthetic developments in this Romance area.
I-prosthesis 81
process native to Tuscan and came to enjoy widespread use amongst speakers of
the region. Indeed, by the later Middle Ages it even appeared to be extending the
range of phonological contexts in which it occurred and moving towards
generalized use in certain Tuscan varieties. Only in the following centuries was
it progressively abandoned leaving just a few traces, in a reversal that is compara-
ble though not identical to what occurred in French (cf. 4.4.3).
Looking more closely at historical developments from the collapse of the
Roman Empire onward, we are fortunate in having substantial numbers of
original texts composed in Tuscany dating from the early Middle Ages. These
are legal documents or charters, consisting of donations, testaments, and legal
transactions, which have survived from the period of Lombard control. The
Lombards, or Langobards, entered northern Italy in 568 and established a state
there (capital in Pavia) which also incorporated Tuscany. It lasted until 774 when
it was destroyed by the Franks under Charlemagne. The documents of this
period, which have been edited by Schiaparelli (1929–33), are written in Latin
but their orthography often provides useful evidence on vernacular usage includ-
ing vowel prosthesis. This is because they were written by scribes in a way that
reflected spoken usage, since they would usually be read out loud.46 Over 180 of
the collected documents come from Tuscany and in particular from Lucca which
was a major Lombard cultural and administrative centre. In fact, no fewer than
143 are from Lucca. The incidence of attested prosthetic vowels was as follows:
total of possible
sites for prosthesis +PV -PV %PV
Lucca 370 90 280 24%

Pisa 27 9 18 33%
other 47 13 34 28%
Total 444 112 332 25%
(where ‘+PV’ indicates the presence of a prosthetic vowel and ‘-PV’ its absence).47
FIGURE 4.6. Incidence of prosthetic vowels in Tuscan legal texts of the Lombard period
46
Cf. Everett (2003: 141): ‘Charters were intended to be read aloud, both at the time of
their redaction and when used in court to substantiate a claim . . . Moreover, the structure
of the charter was anchored in orality.’
47
The statistical details presented here differ slightly from those in Politzer and Politzer
(1953: 2, 11), partly because we have included nine texts excluded by them and partly
because their criteria for identifying prosthetic vowels are not identical to ours. Even so,
the discrepancy between the two sets of results is small: P. and P. identify ninety-eight cases
of prosthesis from Luccan documents rather than ninety, and one more (fourteen) in those
from the ‘other’ category which covers documents from towns such as Siena and
Toscanella. The figure of nine for Pisan documents emerged in both analyses.
82 I-prosthesis
The data here indicate that prosthesis remained fairly well established as a
phonological process in early medieval Tuscany. Indeed, they suggest that for
some speakers the use of prosthetic forms may even have been well on its way to
full generalization in all phonological contexts. For cases can readily be found
where the prosthetic vowel appears not only in post-pausal position, e.g. Escripsi
ego Appo (text 97, 750 AD), una cum fondamento, corte, istationem, ortalia (text 193,
765 AD) but also post-vocalically within a phrase as in de istato nostro (text 55, 736
AD), una iscala de uno lato (text 91, 747 AD), modo ispondeo (text 177, 764 AD). No
48
clear evidence is available for prosthesis in post-consonantal position within

phrases, since by chance the documents contain no unambiguous examples of
relevant sites where etymologically s impura forms appear in this context. The
nearest that we find are cases involving et, such as et ispundeo (texts 85 and 86, 746
AD), which are of uncertain interpretation since what is spelt et may well have
been realized as [e], in which case ispundeo would be post-vocalic. However, given
that post-consonantal phrase-medial contexts are the most susceptible to I-pros-
thesis in Romance, we may hypothesize that the presence of prosthetic vowels in
other types of context in a text implies that they would be expected to have
occurred post-consonantally as well.
The impression that the use of I-prosthesis was gaining ground amongst at
least some Tuscan speakers is strengthened when the usage of individual scribes is
scrutinized. Fortunately, this is possible as scribes identify themselves at the end
of each charter, through formulae stating that the agents of the document
appointed a specific individual to draw it up, e.g. Dauid iscriuere rogauimus
(text 138, 759 AD) ‘we asked David to act as scribe’. Comparison of the documents
reveals a good deal of variation between scribes in the representation of prosthetic
vowels. Some consistently indicate them. For instance, Prandulus (texts 220, 286
from 768–773 AD) has all five of five possible cases showing prosthesis, and
Prandulo (texts 178, 227 from 764–769 AD) and David (texts 127, 138, 186 from
757–765 AD)49 each have all eight of eight possible cases. In contrast, Austripert
indicates no prosthetic vowel in thirty-four possible contexts within the fifteen
documents he wrote (767–773 AD), and similarly no instances are found in the
48
The Latin etyma of the relevant s impura words whose graphies contain an initial
vowel are, respectively: SCRĪPSI ‘I wrote’, STATIŌNEM ‘homestead’, STĂTU(M) ‘situation’, SCĀLA

‘ladder’, SPONDEO ‘I pledge’.
49
There is one other document dated 773 which is also written by a scribe ‘David’. This
text however only has one instance of a possible four displaying prosthesis. It is therefore
unclear whether this David is different from the scribe of the earlier documents or whether
in the period between 765 and 773 one and the same scribe received some further training
in Classical-style orthography.
I-prosthesis 83
seventy possible contexts figuring in the thirty original documents drawn up

(753–770 AD) by Osprandus, who was a deacon and hence likely to be more
schooled in Classical-style spelling than many ordinary scribes. In fact the only
occasion when a prosthetic vowel appears in a text written by Osprandus comes
in a copy of a document of 718 that was executed by him in 756–757 (text 22).
Here, he faithfully reproduces three cases: nobis placire cotidie istudis ‘to please us
each day with studies’, per nostram iscriptam ‘through our writing’, and lectori
nostro iscriuere iuss[imus] ‘we instructed him who reads written texts aloud to us
to act as scribe’. As Austripert and Osprandus account for forty-five original
documents, almost one third of the total for Lucca and more than one quarter of
all the Tuscan texts, their more conservative scribal practice has clearly helped to
diminish the proportion of attested cases of vowel prosthesis significantly.
When account is taken of scribal conservatism, a conclusion that may be drawn
from the evidence of the Lombard documents is that vowel prosthesis with
s impure words was probably already a familiar phenomenon of the evolving
spoken volgare of eighth-century Tuscany. Unfortunately, however, the docu-
ments are not numerous and diverse enough to provide reliable information on
its sociolinguistic distribution at this stage.
We must wait some centuries before Tuscan texts written in the volgare and
using vernacular spelling become available. The earliest extant item is a list of
naval expenses drawn up in Pisa, known as the Conto navale pisano, which dates
from around 1100 (Castellani 1976: 123–48, text 128–30). A prosthetic vowel is
indicated on all possible occasions and represented as ; the initial etymologi-
cal vowel from the prefix EX- or DIS- is also present. The relevants items are:
(prosthetic) a lo ispornaio50 which appears four times, aguti ispannali (< Frankish
spanna ‘span’ REW 8117) ‘nails a span long’; and (prefixal) .vi. Iscaricatura, where
Castellani notes that the reading for the opening syllable <Is-> is uncertain, and
finally there is the unrevealing graphy <dis> in e discaricatura. The first surviving
literary text from Tuscany dates from the very end of the twelfth century or
the beginning of the thirteenth, the Ritmo laurenziano a verse composition of
forty lines. It contains just two relevant cases: on the one hand, di paura
sbagutesco ‘I am distressed with fear’ (cf. Ital. sbigottire ‘to dismay; be dis-
mayed’)51 where the loss of initial [i-] may be due to metrical needs, and on
50
Meaning ‘the maker of speroni’, a sperone being the beam projecting from the prow of a
vessel for its defence. The form (i)spornaio derives from Frankish sporo- ‘spur’ (REW 8130a; cf.
modern St. Italian sprone ‘spur’) and the native Tuscan agentive suffix –aio < -ĀRIU(M),.
51
The origins of this word are not clear. Its etymological foundation is generally
assumed to lie in a loan from Old French esbahir ‘to astound’ (mod.Fr. ébahir) < EX-
*BATĀRE with later conjugation change (DHLF, s.v. ébahir). However, it has evidently
undergone subsequent remodelling on the basis of a form or forms whose identity
remains uncertain.
84 I-prosthesis
the other hand, a post-pausal form written <stenettietti> whose interpretation is

disputed. Little can therefore be gleaned from the evidence of this text.
During the thirteenth century, the number of surviving Tuscan texts becomes
substantial. The majority of these are non-literary and often relate to mercantile
activity. The importance of literacy for practical matters was clearly recognized in
Tuscany, and numerous schools and institutions arose in Florence and other
towns to cater for this need. As a result, literacy levels were high and the volume
of written material produced was correspondingly great. In the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries, Italy stands out from the rest of Europe in its prolific output
of documents, and at the forefront was Tuscany ‘una regione con la penna in
mano’.52 In contrast, the use of the volgare for literary writings was slower to
emerge as northern French or Occitan continued to enjoy prestige as the premier
vernacular cultural languages. The literary language which gradually developed,
however, was not founded on general usage but represented a consciously elabo-
rated medium created by the educated intellectual classes. In this way, two related
but distinct written traditions can be broadly distinguished. One was literary-
based and imbued with Classical influences. It was cultivated especially by the
litterati (i.e. those who knew Latin) and would often be set down on parchment.
The other was of a practical character and much closer to general spoken usage.
It was typical of merchants and artisans, the illitterati or idiotae (i.e. literate
in volgare but knowing no Latin), who normally used paper not parchment for
their writings and also developed a special cursive handwriting (mercantesca)
which was exclusively used for their business or private writings and never
for texts composed in Latin (Bartoli Langeli 2000: 41–2). Various formal and
sociolinguistic characteristics therefore serve to distinguish these two broad types
of written Tuscan. A further point of difference emerges in their representation
of prosthetic vowels.
In the emerging literary language, the general practice develops of not indicat-
ing prosthesis. Thus the prose writings of Dante (1265–1321) contain no prosthetic
vowels and also systematically show aphaeresis in prefixal forms originally in EX-.
In his great verse composition, the Divine Comedy, initial prosthetic or
prefixal <i-> is represented, though only on sixteen occasions out of hundreds
of possible contexts.53 Metrical considerations may well explain the presence of
these sixteen cases, particularly as half of them occur in the least expected
phonological context, namely post-vocalically. Thus, O isplendor is found twice
52
This remark was made by Duccio Balestracci, cited by Bartoli Langeli (2000: 45). In
the same spirit, the fifteenth-century architect and man of letters Leon Battista Alberti had
as his watchword ‘sempre scrivere ogni cosa’.
53
This figure is based on the concordance of Lovera, Bettarini, and Mazzarello (1975)
which uses the edition by Petrocchi (1966-7) for the Società Dantesca Italiana. Other
analyses using different editions may yield slightly different results.
I-prosthesis 85
(II, 31, 107 and III, 30, 97), whereas splendor appears with no prosthetic vowel on
twenty occasions and is even used post-consonantally, ch’un splendor (II, 32, 71)
and se non splendor (III, 13, 53).
The vernacular writings of Petrarch (1303–73), which are almost exclusively in
verse, provide even fewer examples. The data from the concordance of McKenzie
(1912) indicate just six relevant cases, all of which involve the retention of the
initial vowel of prefixal EX- or EXTRA-.54 In five of the cases, the vowel appears post-
consonantally. However, this does not reflect a phonological regularity since
prosthetic or prefixal <i-> is far more frequently absent in this context. It is
omitted six times after per (e.g. per strade aperte / onde per strette a gran pena si
migra, in Trionfo d’Amore IV, 149–50), twenty-two times after non, six times after
in and once after con. Furthermore, un rather than uno occurs six times before
s impura forms, e.g. un stil (Trionfo della morte 2: 59), un strido (canzone 360: 147).
The use of an initial <i-> again seems to arise from metrical exigencies.
In the vernacular prose works of the remaining member of the Tre Corone,
Boccaccio (1309–75), more examples of I-prosthesis and prefixal vowel retention
are indicated in the spelling although they still represent only a small minority of
all possible cases. Of the approximately seventy-five instances where scribal <i->
is found,55 more than two thirds appear in a post-consonantal context. However,
there are exceptions in which the vowel fails to occur even in this context; e.g. in
spazio (II, 7, 1) as against per ispazio (II, 7, 40); per non spendere (I, 8, 5) but per
non ismarrirle (VIII, 6, 39); and per speziali ambasciadori (II, 7, 119) but in
ispezieltà (X, 2, 14).
In the prestigious usage of the three great fourteenth-century Florentine
writers, therefore, the presence of the prosthetic vowel and the etymological
vowel from prefixal EX-, EXTRA-, and DIS- was not usually indicated except in
post-consonantal position and even here its appearance was not entirely regular.
This pattern of written usage, which may well have been prompted in part by
Latin where prosthetic vowels had no orthographic representation, concurred
with usage in other parts of Italy. In southern Italian these vowels had undergone
total abandonment, as we have seen. Also, in many types of northern Italian they
had been lost (see below, 4.4.5). This was the case in the influential model for
literary prose first formalized by the Bolognese rhetorician Guido Faba which was
later introduced to Florence by Brunetto Latini and entered documents of the
Florentine chancellery in the second half of the thirteenth century (Schiaffini
54
These are (references follow the 1975 edition of Petrarch’s works published by
Sansoni): come suol fare, iscusilla i martiri (canzone 23: 16); per isfogare (canzone 72: 59;
sonnet 102: 8); per iscolpirlo (canzone 50: 66); per isvegliare (canzone 119: 110); con estrania
voce (canzone 23: 63).
55
Forms deriving from etyma beginning with non-prefixal I- (e.g. istanotte < ISTA NOCTE,
istoria < HISTORIA) have not been included in this total.
86 I-prosthesis
1961: 38). The new mode of prose discourse together with the emerging literary
language used in verse composition came to be viewed as a basis for writing
amongst the literary elites and those in contact with them. Just how closely
spoken usage corresponded to this ideal written model is difficult to establish.
However, the practice of suppressing prosthetic and prefixal orthographic 
everywhere except post-consonantally in the new prestigious style of formal
writing may be assumed to have influenced speech amongst the educated in
Tuscany.
Earlier scholars, basing their interpretations mainly on the evidence of literary
works and non-literary official texts, have concluded that by the fourteenth
century the abandonment of prosthetic [i-] was well on its way to completion
in Florence and other parts of Tuscany.56 However, a very different picture
emerges when non-literary texts of a mercantile and private character are exam-
ined. These are typically the writings of the illitterati discussed earlier and consist
mainly of accounts and letters. Examples of them are available from the beginning
of the twelfth century (cf. the Conto navale pisano considered above) up to the
fifteenth century. They reveal that the use of the prosthetic and prefixal vowel was
much more widespread in everyday usage than literary writings suggest. For
instance, amongst thirteenth-century Florentine texts of a private nature there
is a banker’s account-book of 1211 which has quant’elle isstessero (2, 16), iera
iskritta (4, 10), and ke [dè avire] issterlino (8, 50) ‘sterling’57 (Castellani 1980: II,
82–103). Disregarding proper names, eight forms in all appear with a vowel
present as against twenty-four with no vowel. However, sixteen of the latter
cases are accounted for by repeated occurrences of the phrase se più stanno ‘if
they run beyond’. In this phrase and in almost all the other forms where a
potential word-initial is lacking such as per lo storamento ‘for indemnifica-
tion’ (6, 58), we see that there is a preceding grammaticalized or semi-gramma-
ticalized form present consisting of a vowel-final monosyllable. Such forms
behave as proclitics, i.e. grammatical satellites which attach to a following host
element and effectively form its opening syllable. Where a vowel-final proclitic
form is present, we might expect that a prosthetic or prefixal vowel [i] would be
less likely to occur. In other thirteenth-century mercantile texts from Florence we
56
Cf. ‘In den ordinamenti della compagnia di Santa Maria del Carmine 1280–1298 ist
der heutige Zustand fast durchgeführt’ (Meyer-Lübke 1929: 28), although the more
widespread retention of the prosthetic vowel in Sienese texts is noted. (For the text of
the Ordinamenti, see Schiaffini 1926, text 4.) More circumspectly, Rohlfs (1966: }187)
observes ‘Già nei testi italiani antichi, le forme senza la i prostetica sono in numero
prevalente.’
57
The reading of the bracketed material is uncertain. It appears to mean ‘which he has
to have as sterling’.
I-prosthesis 87
find that the presence of a proclitic form has a comparable effect on the occur-
rence of prosthetic and prefixal [i].58
Alongside the mercantile texts, another source of data exists offering informa-
tion on more popular modes of Tuscan usage of the period, namely private
letters. These are especially valuable linguistically as they tend to be more
informal and spontaneous in their expression.59 Letters in the volgare survive
from the thirteenth century and they serve to shed interesting light on likely
patterns of usage with prosthetic and prefixal [i] amongst ordinary Tuscan
speakers. One collection of early Sienese letters dating from 1253 to 1311 indicates
the presence of the vowel in well over half of all possible cases (90 out of 171), and
here again the great majority of the 81 cases where no vowel was written involve
contexts where there is a preceding vowel-final proclitic word (Paoli and Picco-
lomini 1871). However, of particular interest are the large collections of letters
which become available from the later fourteenth century onward. The authors of
the letters were all born and/or educated in Florence or a nearby town where
linguistic usage was directly comparable.60 Five collections are considered:
(i) the correspondence dating from 1384–1410 between Francesco Marco
Datini (183 letters) and his Florentine wife Margherita (243 letters);61
(ii) 73 letters of Alessandra Macinghi Strozzi (1406–71), widow of the
Florentine banker Matteo Strozzi, which she wrote to her two exiled
sons over the period 1447–70;
58
Thus, in the two account-books of Bene Bencivenni covering 1262–96 the prosthetic
or prefixal vowel is indicated in more than half the possible contexts, appearing for
example post-pausally iscritti (II, 48), ischontatone (II, 50), post-vocalically una ispada
(II, 6), questa iscritta (II, 10) and post-consonantally per ispese (II, 17), per ispelda (II, 45).
Cases of omission of a possible prosthetic vowel arise almost exlusively when a
monosyllabic vowel-final grammatical element precedes, e.g. di spelda (II, 4), e sstanghe
(II, 7). The text of the account-books is in Castellani (1952: 212–28, 363–458).
59
Cf. the remarks by Lodge (2004: 142) in relation to French: ‘The type of data which is
likely to contain the strongest traces of everyday speech is perhaps the personal letters of
people whose normal business was not writing. Less influenced by ingrained habits of a
conventionalised spelling system, inexperienced writers might be expected to show a
higher level of vernacular influence than people like secretaries and clerks, who spent
their professional lives writing.’
60
Francesco Datini was from Prato which was close to Florence geographically and
linguistically. Serianni (1977: 24) observes, ‘La base fondamentale del pratese è dunque
fiorentina.’ Michelangelo was born in Caprese, which lies NE of Arezzo, but came as a
youth to study in Florence.
61
Many letters were dictated and written by amanuenses but approximately a quarter of
Francesco’s 183 letters were in his hand. Margherita, who at first was illiterate, later taught
herself to write and has left nineteen letters of her own among the total of 243.
88 I-prosthesis
(iii) 95 letters of her son-in-law Marco Parenti (1421–97);

(iv) 78 letters of Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527);
(v) 135 letters which Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475–1564) wrote to his
father and brothers.62
These sources provide the following results, where the figure in brackets indicates
the total possible for the particular context concerned:
Overall total of post-vocalic
possible cases <i->present post-pausal post-cons. (after single proclitic) elsewhere
MD 1507 729 = 48% 78 (83) 62 (69) 105 (561) 484 (794)
FMD 1223 537 = 44% 56 (81) 58 (65) 68 (477) 355 (600)
AMS 1183 392 = 33% 53 (67) 29 (30) 18 (481) 292 (605)
MP 1156 208 = 18% 42 (133) 36 (36) 19 (443) 111 (544)
NM 1008 10 = 1% 0 (40) 3 (53) 0 (310) 7 (605)
MB 640 32 = 5% 3 (19) 10 (18) 2 (196) 17 (407)
FIGURE 4.7. Incidence of prosthetic vowel graphies in later medieval epistolary texts
By way of illustration, the following extracts from two letters may be taken. Forms
showing prosthesis are in italics or underlined where no prosthetic vowel is
present.
(a) from a letter of Margherita Datini, dated 28 January 1386
Io non sono achoncio mai di risponderti a niuna chosa che tu mi scriva, se non sopra
questa parte che ttu tti chonsumi bene: questa mi tocha, e l’altre non mi tochano nulla; ma
io non chredo chosa che tu mi scriva . . .
Bernabò è suto qui ed è venuto a me e àmi detto che rivorebe i’ libro suo: io gl’ò detto ch’io
non so dov’egli si sia, ma ch’io te lo iscriverò; se tu vogli che no’ glele diamo, sı̀ llo iscrivi.
Tu iscrivesti a Piero ch’io gli dessi la chiave della chassetta e nonne iscrivesti nulla a me: io
non glele dava volentieri . . . A’ trovato quelle iscritte che gli chiedesti: eravi presente
Nicholò di Piero, e io, Simone, e rimettemovi denttro ongni iscritta, sı̀ che istà bene.63
62
Editions of the letters: Rosati (1977), Cecchi (1990) for the Datinis; Bianchini (1987)
for Alessandra Macinghi Strozzi; Marrese (1996) for Marco Parenti; Gaeta (1981) and
Milanesi (1875) for Machiavelli and Michelangelo.
63
‘I am never in a position to reply to anything that you write to me about, except in
this matter that you are pacing yourself properly: this concerns me and the other things do
not concern me at all; but I don’t believe what you write to me . . .
Bernabò has been here and came to me and told me that he would like his book back: I
told him that I don’t know where it is, but that I will write to you about it; if you want us
to give him it, just write to say so.
You wrote to Piero that I should give him the key of the box and you wrote nothing to
me about this: I was not too willing to give him it . . . Have you found the writings that
you asked for: Nicholò di Piero was there and me and Simone and we put inside it all the
writings, so all is well.’
I-prosthesis 89
(b) opening of a letter by Alessandra Macinghi Strozzi dated 4 November 1448

to Filippo degli Strozzi
Ne’ dı̀ passati ebbi una tua de’ dı̀ 8 d’agosto, alla quale non ho fatto prima risposta perché
ho auto male di scesa più d’un mese; e rincrescemi oggimai lo scrivere, ché forte invecchio,
e divento poco sana più l’un dı̀ che l’altro. E ancora non ho sollecitudine a scriverti perché
fo iscriverti a Matteo; e si perché s’avvezzi a dettare un poco le lettere; ché quando iscrive
adagio e che ponga il capo a quello ha fare, iscrive bene: e cosı̀ dice Antonio Strozzi,
e Marco (che ho mostro loro de’ fogli ch’egli scrive), che ha buona forma di lettera: ma
quando iscrive ratto, diresti che non fussi di suo mano; e tal differenza è da l’una a l’altra,
quanto il bianco dal nero: e no gli posso tanto dire, che voglia iscrivere adagio. Fa’, quando
gli scrivi, ne’l riprenda, ché gioverà; e che sia buono e riverente; ché pure teme quando tu
gli scrivi: e scrivigli ispesso, acciò che abbia cagione di scrivere a te . . .64
The findings suggest that, far from disappearing from use by the fourteenth
century, the prosthetic vowel and the etymological vowel of prefixal EX-, EXTRA-,
and DIS- continued in widespread use amongst Tuscan speakers up to at least the
later fifteenth century.65 And judging from the markedly lower level of frequency
of the vowel in literary texts, we may suspect that it was more normal amongst the
less educated and that in general it was a feature of less formal registers.
Looking more closely at the evidence from our first three sources, we find
that alternation rather than fully lexicalized use of the vowel <i-> was usual.
However, the distribution of the vowel was not determined on simple phonolog-
ical lines. The vowel clearly occurred with very high frequency when post-
consonantal and post-pausal, especially in the first three sources which we have
consulted. In post-vocalic contexts, the use of the vowel is less common but it is
nonetheless well represented in those sources. But there is a good deal of variation
64
‘In recent days I got a [letter] from you of 8 August which I have not answered earlier
because I have had the falling disease for more than a month; and writing is troublesome
for me as I am getting very old and I am becoming sicker day by day. Also I am not
worrying about writing to you because I am getting Matteo to write to you instead, in
order to get him more used to taking down letters. For when he writes slowly and puts his
mind to what he has to do, he writes well and this is what Antonio Strozzo says and Marco
too (because I have shown them some of the pages that he has been writing). He forms
letters well. But when he writes quickly, you would say that it wasn’t his hand(writing);
there is such a difference between one and the other, it’s like black and white. I can’t tell
him often enough that he should write slowly. When you write to him, tell him off about
this, it will help. And (tell him) that he should be obedient and respectful, for he is afraid
when you write to him. Write to him often so that he will have reason to write to you . . . ’
65
Further evidence is provided in a fifteenth-century collection of mercantile 107 letters
from Pisa, which show widespread use of prosthesis. E.g. sia istato, vole istare, io peinso
istarà but a lo stare in a letter dated 1458 by Bartolomeo Gettalebraccia (Biasci 1998).
90 I-prosthesis
in its incidence post-vocalically, depending in large measure on the prosodic

nature of the context (cf. the parameter indicated below).
after monosyll. vowel-final forms after polysyll. vowel-final forms
vowel-final object infinitive after post-verbal

preposition article clitic pronoun modal/causative vb noun, adj. post-pausal post-consonantal
lesser use of I-prosthesis greater use of I-prosthesis
FIGURE 4.8. Parameter showing variable frequency of use of prosthetic forms
As was seen in earlier Tuscan texts, least favourable to the use of the vowel are
those contexts where a monosyllabic unstressed proclitic form precedes. The
next-to-rightmost column of the figures cited in Figure 4.7 above relate specifi-
cally to contexts involving an unattached definite article, single clitic object
pronoun, or monosyllabic preposition. Other contexts containing monosyllabic
grammatical forms such as e, o, ma, che show comparable statistical results. If
these contexts which all involve a proclitic or near-proclitic element are set aside,
the remaining types of post-vocalic context show a picture of fairly high frequen-
cy of occurrence for the prosthetic and prefixal vowel <i->. For Margherita
Datini, it reaches 78 per cent and Alessandra Macinghi Strozzi 67 per cent. Within
the specific sub-category of post-vocalic context types, it appears that particularly
favourable to the occurrence of the vowel <i-> are post-verbal lexical forms
(predicative adjectives and nouns) and infinitives governed by a modal or
causative verb.66 Prosodic considerations thus seem to be significant in deter-
mining whether the prosthetic or prefixal vowel appears or is absent. Where a
monosyllabic unstressed form precedes, the vowel does not usually occur but
where a polysyllabic form containing a partially or fully stressed syllable precedes,
the vowel is typically present. This becomes more apparent when contexts con-
taining a single monosyllabic (near-)proclitic form are compared with those
containing either a sequence of these or a single polysyllabic grammatical form.
In the former, the presence of the vowel <i-> is unusual, as we have seen, but in
the latter its presence is more common. For instance, in letters by Margherita
Datini from 1397 we find (preghomi) te lo iscrivesi ‘he asked me to write to you
about it’ (complex clitic, prosthetic vowel present) as against ti scrivesi; and
e perché istetti as against e stette in two letters of 1465 by Alessandra Macinghi
Strozzi. The implication is that a preceding polysyllabic form would have
contained one syllable carrying at least a secondary stress, so that a phonological
66
In the the letters of Margaret Datini and Alessandra Macinghi Strozzi respectively, the
statistics are: predicative adjective 11 (out of a possible 12) and 21 (21); post-verbal noun 29
(33) and 19 (27); infinitive after modal or causative 64 (82) and 46 (60).
I-prosthesis 91
boundary of some sort was created which would have been sufficient to promote
the presence of the vowel [i-].
The linguistic evidence provided by the other sources of private letters points
to changing usage. From the later fifteenth century onward, it seems that use of
the prosthetic and prefixal vowel [i-] declines rapidly. Thus, in the correspon-
dence of Marco Parenti, a silk merchant who enjoyed a solid reputation for his
learning, the frequency of use of the vowel is a good deal lower than in the letters
of his mother-in-law, Alessandra Macinghi Strozzi, although it is still significantly
represented. It occurs without exception in post-consonantal position, but post-
pausally it occurs in about one third of possible cases only. Post-vocalically, if all
types of context containing a preceding monosyllabic form of (semi-)proclitic
type are excluded, the vowel appears in 32 per cent of possible cases.
The two other collections of private letters show the effective abandonment of
the vowel. In Machiavelli’s letters, even in the most favoured context for the
earlier letter-writers, post-consonantal position, it is only very sparingly used67
and we find numerous cases such as in spirito (letter of 9 March 1498), per scusarsi
(22 April 1499), in Spagna (12 June 1506), in specie (10 December 1513), per starmi,
per scusato (17 August 1525), si metterà in scritto (4 April 1526). In Michelangelo’s
private letters, the vowel appears a little more frequently but, apart from post-
consonantally, its incidence is at best marginal. It is doubtless significant that
both writers were educated and came from families of some social standing,
particularly Niccolò Machiavelli whose father was a cultivated bibliophile.
A doubly interesting picture thus emerges from the linguistic evidence
provided by private letters. On the one hand, it indicates that far from being
abandoned by the fourteenth century, the prosthetic and prefixal vowel [i-]
remained in widespread use amongst Tuscan speakers up to the late fifteenth
century at least. On the other hand, having apparently progressed towards
generalized use in all contexts except following a proclitic or near-proclitic
vowel-final monosyllabic form, the vowel mysteriously appears to have lost
productivity and to have been abandoned with remarkable speed. To explain
these circumstances, it is important to recall that in later medieval Tuscany two
distinct written traditions had developed: the style used by the merchant class for
their letters and accounts, and literary discourse. The former had its roots much
more directly in spoken usage whereas the latter represented a learned, conscious-
ly elaborated medium drawing extensively on Latin and gradually taking on its
definitive form in two stages, in the fourteenth century through the works of the
67
In fact, just one letter (15 April 1520) in the collected edition of Gaeta accounts for six
of the overall total of ten cases where the vowel appears. The explanation for the
exceptionally high incidence of the vowel in this one particular letter is not clear.
92 I-prosthesis
Tre Corone and in the fifteenth century through Humanism.68 The more vernac-
ular-based mercantile style remained in use up to the end of the fifteenth century
when moves towards establishing a codified written standard Italian language
got under way. After a good deal of controversy in the questione della lingua
debate, the model proposed by Pietro Bembo in his Prose della volgar lingua (1525)
found general acceptance in the second half of the sixteenth century. This
advocated taking the usage of the fourteenth-century writers Petrarch and Boc-
caccio (and Dante with some reservations) as the basis for literary Italian. In the
new ideal, the prosthetic and prefixal [i-] vowel had little place. As we have seen,
in the writings of Petrarch and Boccaccio the only context where the vowel occurs
with any degree of frequency is in post-consonantal position. Accordingly,
Bembo only acknowledges the acceptability of the vowel post-consonantally
and states that prosthesis in s impura words ‘fassi per lo più quando la voce,
che dinanzi a queste cotali voci sta, in consonante finisce, per ischifare in quella
guisa l’asprezza, che ne uscirebbe se ciò non si facesse’.69 The only other manifes-
tation of prosthesis sanctioned by Bembo is the use of the masculine definite and
indefinite article alternants, lo, gli, and uno, whose form is due in part to the
earlier presence of an initial vowel.70 Lo appears to correspond to l’ which
developed prevocalically as in l’uomo, l’atto, etc., but before singular s impura
nouns (and later loans with word-initial heterosyllabic onsets) the vowel of lo was
preserved to perform the same function as a prosthetic [i], hence los|pecchio > lo
specchio (and lo psicologo). The normal plural form was at first li whose vowel [i]
regularly developed to [j] when a vowel-initial form followed, hence li atti > [lj]
atti > [L] atti (gli atti). Etymological s impura nouns similarly show [L] as in gli
specchi, indicating that they too were vowel-initial in earlier times (Rohlfs 1966-8:
}} 187, 414; Maiden 1995: 118–19). The indefinite article takes on a comparable
pattern of alternation in the masculine singular form, uno before nouns begin-
ning with s impura or other word-initial heterosyllabic onets (uno specchio and
uno psicologo) where [o] was similarly retained to perform the same role as a
prosthetic vowel and with un elsewhere (un atto, un muro). This arrangement is
likewise established from the sixteenth century.
The prestige of the new literary-based standard was such that the use of the
prosthetic or prefixal vowel [i-] in contexts other than post-consonantally came
68
Cf. Sanga (1995: 86): ‘L’italiano è frutto di un ritorno al latino: è l’elaborazione del
toscano (e più precisamente della sua componente egemone, il fiorentino) sul modello
latino. La latinizzazione del toscano avrà due tappe: la prima e fondamentale col
preumanesimo di Dante, Petrarca e Boccaccio; l’altra con l’Umanesimo nel Quattrocento.’
69
‘it is used mainly when the word which stands in front of these words [i.e. those
beginning with s impura] ends in a consonant, so as thereby to avoid the roughness that
would result if it was not used’ (book I, 11; p. 103 in the edition by Dionisotti).
70
Prose III, 9. Cf. also Rohlfs (1968: }414), and also below.
I-prosthesis 93
increasingly to be shunned by any educated writer from the sixteenth century

onward. Migliorini (1984: 280) reports that the prosthetic vowel ‘was well ob-
served in popular usage’ in the seventeenth century, though he cites no sources of
information but just the examples non istare and per isposa where characteristi-
cally the vowel appears post-consonantally.71 Subsequently, the vowel has become
less and less common even in post-consonantal position. In the nineteenth
century, Alessandro Manzoni still scrupulously observed the ‘rule’ that the
vowel was used post-consonantally in his celebrated novel I Promessi Sposi, e.g.
che non istà bene (6, 36), a non iscriver nulla (9, 75), per istrascinarlo (32, 10)
(Serianni and Castelvecchi 1988: 24). And exceptionally, through reinterpretation
as a result of crossing with prefixal IN- (cf. 4.1.2), the prosthetic vowel has been
lexicalized in individual words, notably in the form istesso which is found in the
verse of Leopardi written prior to 1820 and is also more frequent than stesso is his
prose works Pensieri and Epistolario, although the form istesso was evidently
coming to be judged ‘popolare e dialettale’ in this century (Vitale 1992: 232).72
However, from the later nineteenth century onward after the unification of
Italy had finally been achieved, various sociolinguistic forces served to promote
and diffuse an increasingly standardized form of Italian. These forces included the
establishment of mass education, the introduction of national service, the rise of a
71
In the Italian edition, Migliorini notes that prosthesis ‘è bene osservata nell’uso
popolare,’, but adds ‘mentre qualche volta si sgarra nella scrittura.’ Presumably, ‘scrittura’
here refers to formal, and especially literary, writing.
72
Comparable forms with lexicalized initial [i-] are found elsewhere, in northern Italy
and beyond. For instance, Listess ‘equal, same’ occurs in the Lower Engadinish variety of
Rheto-Romance spoken in Sent, where all traces of regular I-prosthesis have otherwise
been lost (Pult 1897: }169). The initial palatal lateral [L-] is the regular outcome of original
[l-] preceding a high front vowel. In many northern Italian varieties the initial prosthetic
vowel has been reinterpreted as prefixal in-, as in instess in Milanese and Romagnolo
corresponding to <instesso> which appears in late medieval texts from northern Italy
(Mussafia 1873: 95). Other comparable cases of reinterpretation are to be found in medieval
northern Italian texts where etymological [e-] is present. Thus, the northern poet Bonvesin
da la Riva c.1250- c.1315 uses the verb inxir ‘to go out’ (< EXIRE), and the feminine past
participle insida ‘gone out’ appears in a Venetian document of 1313 (Stussi 1965: text 66).
Though sometimes attributed to analogy from INTRĀRE (e.g. Stussi 1965: lix), the verb
probably owes its form largely to the interplay between prosthetic and etymological
prefixal vowels. Similar cases of reinterpretation involving non-prefixal etymological [e-]
are instade ‘summer’ < AESTĀTE(M) which was widespread in earlier times in northern
dialects (Mussafia loc. cit.) and ingual < AEQUALE(M) which appears in the fifteenth-century
Milanese vernacular version of the Elucidarium (Degli Innocenti 1984). Further afield,
Malkiel (1975: especially 505–12) examines in detail the interplay of ens-, enx- (> enj-), and
etymological EX- in Hispano-Romance, as in ensayo ‘test, trial’, enjambre ‘swarm (of bees)’
< EXĂGIU(M), EXĀMINE.
94 I-prosthesis
central bureaucracy, the growth of mass media and major demographic move-
ments, especially from south to north Italy, due to industrialization and the
consequent need for manpower. They encouraged the formation of a non-
literary-based, practical form of Italian in which rarely occurring and variable
phenomena like prosthetic vowels found little place. In the early twentieth
century, school textbooks for Italians were still advocating the use of the pros-
thetic vowel in s impura forms preceded by the consonant-final words in, per, con,
non. One grammar published in 1919, for instance, cites model forms such as in
iscuola, per istrada, con istento, non iscomodare (Tomasini 1951: 116). However,
more recently the use of the vowel has been all but abandoned in written and
educated Italian, although it may appear in literary and other high-register
writings in certain residual set phrases such as per iscritto.73 In addition to the
vowel’s statistical infrequency and the various sociolinguistic forces that would
have militated against its preservation, De Mauro (1993: 410–11) has identified a
further formal factor which may have hastened its abandonment. This relates to
the appearance in modern times of numerous loanwords in Italian which end in a
consonant or sequence of consonants. When such words are followed by another
word with an initial consonantal sequence, the result is a complex consonantal
sequence unthinkable at earlier stages of the language, for example in flirt
pseudoserio, snob straordinario, quiz mnemonico. Speakers have evidently avoided
consonant assimilation, epenthesis, or deletion in such cases—no speaker would
ever say **quiz imnemonico, for instance. Instead, they have sought to preserve the
phonological integrity of each individual word, prompted no doubt by influence
from the written form. However, the individuation of the word seen here runs
counter to the use of sandhi phenomena such as prosthetic or prefixal [i-], and
thus seems to provide a further factor which would undermine use of the vowel.
Nonetheless, despite the almost total abandonment of the vowel in written
Italian and, as a result of this, in the spoken usage of the more highly literate, it
continues to exist in a number of other varieties of Tuscan up to the present day,
particularly in the speech of those of lesser education and in geographically more
rural and peripheral areas. Thus, in his dictionary of the Tuscan of Lucca and
the surrounding area, Nieri (1902: 95) states that prosthetic [i-] was still used
with almost total regularity (‘quasi costantemente’) by ordinary speakers and
especially by peasants, not only post-consonantally where its occurrence is sys-
tematic but also post-pausally, as in Ispingiallo!, Istà fermo!. 74 It is also claimed
73
Cf. ‘Il fenomeno [sc. la prostesi] . . . è oggi in forte regresso, tranne nelle locuzioni in
iscritto, per iscritto’ (Serianni and Castelvecchi 1988: 24).
74
For post-pausal contexts, the ALEIC (map 326) reports non-prosthetic [staf ’f¡rmo]
at pt. 54 Lucca (Mutigliano) for Sta fermo!. However, prosthetic realizations are given for
other items at this location, such as post-consonantal [un is’tavo ’b¡N] Non stavo bene
I-prosthesis 95
that prosthetic forms appear post-vocalically too although no examples are cited.
Drawing on Nieri’s data, Rohlfs (1966: }187) similarly reports the occurrence of
prosthetic [i-] in varieties of Lucchese, identifying post-pausal position as the
preferred context. The linguistic atlas of Corsica, ALEIC, which also includes
responses from three points in Tuscany, Pisa (53), Lucca (54) and Stazzema (55),
provides further examples. For Pisa (Putignano), we find post-consonantal [un
is’tava] non stava (map 322), [per istris’sa] per strizzare (map 906) and [¡n’traya
nis’kP:la] è intrata in iscuola (map 1478). See also footnote 74. Other cases are
cited by Rohlfs for varieties spoken in the NW and E of Tuscany. The presence of
the vowel is also reported for the Tuscan-based varieties spoken on the islands of
Elba and Corsica (see Map 6). The ALEIC, which reports a single locality in Elba
(pt 52, Marciana), cites forms such as [un es’tava] (map 322), sentence-initial [is’
pjana] ‘Roll out . . . !’ (map 1623), and [is’to pper ezve’nimmi] Sto per svenire ‘I
am about to faint’ (map 1833) where [i-] appears to be used sentence-initially and
[e-] elsewhere. In Corsica, the vowel is always realized as [i-] and is reported by
Rohlfs to be ‘molto diffusa’ and especially common when in sentence-initial
position and after the (consonant-final) article un (1966: }187).75 However, the
ALEIC indicates that the use of [i-] is more especially found in an area lying
roughly south of a line from Vescovado across to Galeria and down as far as
Portovecchio and La Monacia but excluding Bonifacio. The vowel reportedly
occurs sentence-initially and post-consonantally only, cf. [una s’tr¡a . . . un is-
tri’Pne] una strega . . . uno stregone ‘a witch, a wizard’ (pt. 27 Guagno, map
1929), and the latter context also includes negative un(n) ([un(n)is’tawa] non
stava ‘he was not’ (pts. 19, 22, 27, 30, etc.; map 322) and other consonant-
final semi-proclitics such as par (= per), cf. maps 906, 1833.
Though use of I-prosthesis is now increasingly restricted to rural speakers
who have been less exposed to standard language influence, urban speakers
may also still preserve traces of the vowel. In the informal local usage of
Florence itself, forms such as [uniz’mette] ‘he is not stopping’ (= non smette)
are found where the use of [i-] has been maintained. Also, forms such as
[Lis’krive] ‘he writes’ [Liz’mette] ‘he stops’ indicate the presence of the vowel
[i-] since the masculine third-person singular subject clitic only appears as [L]
pre-vocalically (pre-consonantally it is realized as [e]). Such forms occur at
all levels of Florentine usage according to Giannelli (2000: 39, n. 85), although
(map 348) and phrase-initial and post-consonantal [is’to per izve’nimmi] Sto per svenire
(map 1833).
75
Curiously, there is no indication of the use of the vowel in the detailed linguistic
studies on Corsican by Dalbera-Stefanaggi (1978, 1991). However, Melillo (1977: 107–8)
notes some cases of I-prosthesis. The first linguistic atlas of Corsica, the ALF: Corse is
unrevealing.
96 I-prosthesis
it seems likely that with more educated speakers they are more usual in informal
styles.
4.4 Type 2 (‘Western Romance’): general development of

unconditioned I-prosthesis
I-prosthesis appears to have become an unconditioned phonological process in

virtually all types of Sardinian and Ibero-Romance during the course of the
Middle Ages. In Gallo-Romance, the great majority of varieties likewise acquired
a rule of prosthesis but in both the langue d’oı̈l in the north and Occitan (or langue
d’oc) in the south there were some exceptions where the rule was abandoned.
Prosthesis has widely continued to be a productive rule where it had become
established by the later Middle Ages, but for various reasons, sociolinguistic and
structural, it has ceased to operate as a regular process in certain varieties.
4.4.1 SARDINIAN
Sardinian represents a dialect complex showing a good deal of diversity from

northern varieties (Sassarese, Gallurese, etc.) through the conservative central
varieties (Logudorese, Nuorese, etc.) and down to Campidanese in the south (see
Map 7). There is no recognized standard variety of Sardinian, although Campi-
danese has come to acquire a certain prestige thanks to the influence of the capital
Cagliari which is located on the south coast.
Despite the many differences between the varieties of Sardinian, a shared
feature is that prosthesis appears to have become established as a phonological
process everywhere during the medieval period (Wagner 1941: }79). The prosthet-
ic vowel has the quality [i] in Sardinian since Latin ı̆ did not undergo lowering to
/e/ as in most other types of Romance. Indications of the vowel are found in the
earliest vernacular texts that were composed between the eleventh and fourteenth
centuries.76 These are all non-literary prose works and include several substantial
condaghi, i.e. official registers of legal acts such as sales, purchases, or judgements
in land disputes, which involve individual monasteries. In the Logudorese con-
daghe of San Pietro di Silki dating from the eleventh to thirteenth centuries
(Bonazzi 1979) we find prosthetic vowels in all context types: (post-consonantal)
in Istefane ‘against (I)stefane (i.e. Stephen)’ (200) and (post-vocalic) a ffiios de
Istefane ‘to the sons of (I)stefane’ (24), and with words other than proper nouns
76
For a convenient inventory and brief characterization of the earliest extant texts, see
Blasco Ferrer (1995: esp. 252–9).
I-prosthesis 97
assa iscala lancinosa ‘to the slippery steep path’ (198), ad iscala (4), prossu istaniu
(i) ‘for the pool’ (64), prossa isclatta (284) ‘for the stock/issue’. As may be
predicted, there has been coalescence between words with a prosthetic vowel
and prefixal forms containing etymological EX-, DIS- þ consonant or IN- þ /sC-/
(cf. 4.1.1), for example non la potho iscoiuuare ‘I cannot unmarry her’ (< EX-/DIS-
CONIUGARE) (66). Prosthesis is likewise regularly indicated in the twelfth-century
condaghe of San Nicola di Trullas (Merci 1992) which also comes from the
Logudoro region: dessa isscala ‘of the steep path’ (63), sos fratres, ki lu iscian
‘the brothers who knew of it’ (14), abe ispelunca tuva ‘from the deep cave’ (50),
and (post-pausal) istande a cclaru su curatore ‘the administrator being in a place
with a clear view’ (179). Rare cases where no prosthetic vowel graphy occurs are to
be found in both texts; for example, the Condaghe of San Pietro di Silki contains
the name Petru de Scanu (439) though this is matched by Jorgi d’Iscanu (25), and
in the other Condaghe there is qui scribo (296) which occurs in a formulaic
latinizing sentence. Exceptional non-prosthetic forms like these are often attrib-
utable to the conscious use of a latinizing orthography or they may just reflect
inadvertent omission by the scribe.77
In other areas of medieval Sardinia, a similar picture emerges with prosthetic
forms being widely found. However, it has been noted that prosthesis was more
sporadically attested in documents written in Campidanese, e.g. maiore de scolca
in a twelfth-century charter from Cagliari (Guarnerio 1906: 207; Wagner 1907:
}50, 1941: }79). In view of later developments in southern varieties of Sardinian,
this may perhaps be seen as an early indication of the retreat from I-prosthesis
which these varieties were to undergo.
After the definitive establishment of the Aragonese as the rulers of Sardinia
in 1478, Catalan took over as the official language.78 Direct attestations of
77
Cf. dessa scala de Gitilesu (113) in the Condaghe of San Nicola di Trullas, where no
orthographic prosthetic vowel is present. In the same section where the form scala appears,
however, there are four other etymological s impura forms attested and each has a
prosthetic vowel indicated: two occurrences of sa iscala and one each of suta iscala and
suta ispelunca. Scribal oversight seems a likely explanation here for the non-prosthetic
form therefore.
78
Already in 1326, the Aragonese had taken over power in the southern part of Sardinia.
Control over the whole island came as a result of the battle of Macomer in 1478 when the
resisting forces of Arborea were finally defeated. Catalan remained the working language of
officialdom after the unification of Castile and Aragon in 1479. It continued to be used
widely, especially amongst the upper classes of the towns, even after Castilian finally was
adopted in 1643 as the exclusive language for laws and decrees. Considerable influence from
Catalan and, later, Castilian radiated northward from Cagliari and the south; Alghero, in
contrast, seems to have remained a rather isolated linguistic area and exercised little effect
on language usage elsewhere in Sardinia (Wagner 1951: 183–244).
98 I-prosthesis
Sardinian became fewer as it ceased to be used as a written medium for adminis-

trative and other high-profile purposes. Knowledge of developments in the
period from the fifteenth century onward is therefore limited until modern
times when systematic linguistic investigations of contemporary Sardinian vari-
eties got under way. These indicate that the use of prosthetic [i-] has continued to
be general everywhere except in Campidanese and Gallurese where extensive
aphaeresis has taken place.79 In the south, the general retreat from I-prosthesis
is especially evident in the variety of Cagliari which probably represents the focal
point for the development. Fostered doubtless by influence from Italian (Wagner
1941: }79), aphaeresis has affected not only the prosthetic vowel in original
s impura words but also the etymological vowel of prefixal EX- and DIS- > /is-/.
Examples are skála, spı́ssu, stái, skrı́ri < SCĀLA, SPISSU(M), STĀRE, SCRĪBERE (Virdis
1978; Blasco Ferrer 1984: 210); skrúttsu < DIS-CĂLCEU(M) ‘barefoot’ with stress vowel
change /á/ > /ú/, skúð iri < EX-CŪTERE ‘to strike’. However, the process of aphaeresis
has not been carried through completely so that prosthetic and prefixal vowels
continue to be used. In the speech of the dialect of Sestu just north of Cagliari, for
example, there appear phrases such as (post-pausal) [’skruttsu | iskorri’au . . . ] <
* DISCŬLCEU(M),80 EX-CORRIGIĀTU(M) ‘Barefoot, ragged . . . ’ and [izbar’kaus] < EX-/
DIS-BARCĀMUS ‘We land’, where a prosthetic or prefixal vowel is variably found
amongst different speakers. However, in post-consonantal contexts a prosthetic
vowel systematically occurs, often realized with a quality [i, a, u] copied from the
preceding vowel [iz is’pPzuzu] < SPŌNSOS ‘the bride and groom’, [’duaz
as’kattuKaza] < It. scatola ‘two boxes’, [ki zi ffuz uspi¡’aða] < It. spiegate ‘if
you explain them to them’ (Bolognesi 1998: 62–4). A comparable prosthetic vowel
is also found before the word-initial sibilant geminates [tts] and [ʃʃ], although
the favoured quality for the vowel here appears to be just [i].81 The facts thus
seem to suggest that in this variety there has been partial retention of the earlier
prosthetic and prefixal vowel, with subsequent generalization of the vowel in
order to resolve other complex word-initial onsets containing sibilants.
Wagner (1941: }80) notes comparable incomplete abandonment of the pros-
thetic and prefixal vowel in varieties lying further north of Cagliari. In particular,
he reports that the etymological vowel [i] of prefixal forms like (i)skúfiri appears
79
In the south of Sardinia, aphaeresis is found in dialects as far north as the
Gennargentu area, e.g. SPĔCULU(M) > (Cagliari) sprigu but (Aritzo) isprigu (Wagner 1907:
}145 and map VI).
80
REW 2662. This unattested form is a variant of DISCĂLCEU(M) ‘barefoot’ but its
existence is indicated by other Romance reflexes such as Romanian desculţ, Engadinish
scuz, Friulian discolts all of which also preserve the original meaning ‘barefoot’.
81
For example, is tsugusu [iz it’tsuuzu] ‘the necks’, at šipiu [að iʃ’ʃippju] ‘has known
(p.p.)’, no šiu [nP iʃ’ʃi:u] ‘I do not know’. The latter two examples illustrate the preference
for [i] rather than a quality copied from that of the preceding vowel.
I-prosthesis 99
to have been deleted less rapidly than prosthetic [i-]. For example, in the dialect
of Villacidro located about 60 km NW of Cagliari, prosthetic [i-] has been
regularly deleted but a prefixal form such as EX-PINGERE gives ispı́nği ‘to press’.
The explanation for this may be that original s impura words still showed /isC-/
/sC-/ alternations in varieties like that of Villacidro when moves towards aphaer-
esis began to operate, so that in contrast to prefixed forms there was already an
existing non-prosthetic alternant which could readily be generalized.
In the north and north-east of Sardinia, Gallurese has similarly experi-
enced general aphaeresis, skala, skola, spećću, sganatu ‘unwilling, lacking
appetite’ (< DIS-GAN-ATU, derived from Germanic gainon ‘to strive’ cf. Sp.
ganar, gana) and, as with Campidanese, the development appears to owe
itself in no small measure to external influence (Bottiglioni 1920: }}35, 51).
The northern area of Sardinia was largely depopulated through wars and
disease in the later Middle Ages and was subsequently repopulated from the
sixteenth century onward by Corsican and Tuscan immigrants (Wagner 1951:
393–5). Gallura received mainly southern Corsicans who had largely aban-
doned the use of prosthesis in their native speech. It seems not unlikely
therefore that this substantial influx of new speakers served to reinforce any
tendency to abandon prosthesis amongst the few remaining native Gallurese
inhabitants.
Elsewhere, the prosthetic and prefixal vowel [i-] has been more generally
preserved. However, limited cases of deletion have been noted in present-day
usage in even the more conservative varieties, Nuorese and Logudorese.
Thus, the use of prosthetic [i-] is general in Nuorese but Pittau (1972: }23)
indicates that post-pausally the vowel can be optionally deleted in words
originally containing more than two syllables, i.e. either in etymological
paroxytones containing a pre-stress syllable (i)sposáre < SPOSĀRE or in pro-
paroxytones (i)strı́nghere < STRINGERE. Corda (1994: 177) reports the same
phenomenon in Logudorese. Prosodic factors may be operating here, as
speakers seek to limit the syllabic structure of polysyllabic words. Also, it
seems not unlikely that this constraint on the scope of prosthesis may be due
in part to influence from the prestigious usage of the capital Cagliari and
other southern varieties where non-prosthetic realizations are normal, as has
been noted. However, it is not clear why [i-] deletion has so far been limited
to post-pausal contexts only.
Finally, attention might briefly be called to a highly distinctive phonetic
development found in varieties of Sassarese in the NW of Sardinia, where
sequences of /s/ þ consonant undergo major phonetic change. In these varieties,
the contrast between /s/ and the liquids /l/, /r/ was neutralized in pre-consonantal
position and the resulting sound thereafter developed differently according to the
100 I-prosthesis
place or articulation of the following consonant. Thus, in the dialect of Sennori

(Jäggli 1959):82
/l, r, s/ þ velar consonant > [xx] or [ªª] SCĀLA > [ix’xa:la]
/l, r, s/ þ labial > [j] þ geminate labial SPĪN(U)LA > [ip’pilla]83
/l, r, s/ þ coronal > [¸]84 þ coronal STĀRE > [i¸’ta:re], STRINGERE >
[i¸’triNgere]
Prefixal forms follow the same path of change, EX-BATTULĀRE > ibbattulare ‘to whip
(liquids)’. And despite the substantial phonetic change undergone in the opening
sequence of these forms, later borrowings have been adapted to conform with
them, e.g. Catalan estimar > [i¸ti’ma:re] ‘to love’, Italian scarpa > [ix’xappa].
The present-day status of I-prosthesis as a truly productive process in Sassarese
and other northern and central varieties of Sardinian remains uncertain, however,
as available descriptions seldom make clear whether it still continues to operate
with loanwords as it did in earlier times.85 Also, the increasing influence in
education, the mass media and general social interaction from standard Italian
where this phonological process has been effectively abandoned seems likely to
pose an ever stronger threat to its stability in northern and central Sardinian
varieties. Also, at a regional level, the disuse of I-prosthesis in the influential
variety used in the capital Cagliari can only further contribute to this destructive
influence.
4.4.2 I B E RO - RO M A N C E
In Ibero-Romance, the use of the prosthetic alternant was progressively

generalized during the first half of the Middle Ages. By the thirteenth century
at the latest, a systematic rule of vowel prosthesis had become fully established
and it has continued to operate in all eastern and central varieties. However, in
some western areas of the Iberian Peninsula more recent change has led to the
weakening and even elimination of the prosthetic vowel in speech although it
82
Directly comparable reflexes are found in the nearby dialect of Sorso (p.c. Amina
Kropp).
83
Where a preceding [i] is present, there is merger with the following yod, [ij] > [i].
The regular creation of yod is confirmed by the evolution of words such as VESPA > [¡jppa]
‘wasp’.
84
This is a voiceless lateral fricative similar to the sound spelt ll in Welsh.
85
Loporcaro (1999: 137), for instance, states that Sardinian resembles modern French in
no longer having a productive rule of prosthesis with s impura words. However, there is
some uncertainty as to whether just ‘standard’ Sardinian based on the usage of Cagliari is
being referred to or whether the conservative central varieties are also being characterized.
I-prosthesis 101
continues to find representation in spelling and to maintain a presence at an

underlying level.
Turning to the stages of evolution of I-prosthesis, we have noted (4.1.3) that
there are comparatively few signs of prosthesis in the surviving Latin epigraphical
record for Hispania.86 However, in the early Middle Ages, written evidence of
various sorts points to the growing use of prosthetic vowels, although their
presence can often be concealed either as a result of such vowels being viewed
as predictable sandhi phenomena which could therefore be ignored, or because
scribes tried to abide by conservative Latin spelling conventions thanks to the
preservation of relatively high educational standards in Visigothic Spain, at least
among the elite of the Church. Various revealing sources of data exist for this
early medieval period: (i) texts composed by the less educated, such as legal
writings, e.g. istatuimus and hypercorrect sta lex = ISTA LEX, legis stius = LEGIS ISTIUS,
or inscriptions on coins, hypercorrect Spali for HISPALI ‘in Seville’ (Gil 2004: 156);
(ii) medieval inscriptions, as in ispiritum and hypercorrections like Spalis =
HISPALIS and ste = ISTE (Vives 1969: 439, 273 respectively); (iii) false etymologies,
as in Isidore’s identification of the contemporary forms ESCARUS and ISCURRA with
the word ESCA ‘bait’ rather than with Classical Latin SCARUS, SCURRA (Etym. 10,152
and 12,6,30; cf. also n. 13 above); (iv) inscriptions on slate which contain forms
such as ispe, istare (Velázquez 2000: items 29, 40); (v) rhythmic hymns with a
fixed number of syllables per line, e.g. (5 þ 7 syllable line) septem stellae || micant
agni dextera where a prosthetic vowel must occur at the beginning of stellae to
satisfy syllabic structure (Stotz 1996: 103).87
The disintegration of Visigothic Spain in 711 led to some decline in levels of
education in the Christian-held areas of the Peninsula, but the spelling tradition
where prosthetic vowels had no visual representation continued to influence scribal
habits in the way texts were written. In particular, set legal formulae tended to
preserve their original Latin form. In other linguistic material, there is a good deal of
variability in the representation of prosthetic vowels, dependent on how formal and
official (and hence latinate) the document is and the degree of training of individual
scribes. The variability extends throughout the period up to the thirteenth century
86
Carnoy (1906: 110) lists thirteen examples, some hypercorrective; Prinz (1938)
identifies just seven reliable cases of prosthesis of which five are from Christian
inscriptions; Gaeng (1968) confirms the latter figure.
87
The dating of these hymns is problematic and some doubtless date from post-
Visigothic Spain. The use of prosthetic vowels in them is not systematic but appears to
provide an optional strategy for meeting metrical demands. Thus, in one six-line verse in a
ninth-century hymn there are two lines containing words written with initial
s þ consonant—one shows evidence of prosthesis, the other does not: (5 þ 7) Percalcans
pede || velut spurcissima and Sibi aeterna || acquirens stipendia, respectively (Wright
1982: 69).
102 I-prosthesis
when substantial numbers of texts written in vernacular rather than Latin-based

orthography start to become available. For example, in a legal document dated
approximately 1100 from the province of Burgos in Castile,88 various non-prosthetic
forms occur: there are the Latin formulae ita dicit scriptura, Ihoanes Galindez
presbiter scripsit and the proper name Stefan Fannez (a witness to the document).
However, che aesso extidiesent is also found, where the final word which derives from
STETISSENT ‘might be (3rd pl. imp.subj.)’ is of interest. Evidently, the scribe was used
to hearing an initial vowel element [e-] in this form and he has interpreted it as being
the reflex of a Latin verb containing prefixal EX- (cf. 4.1.1).
A similar picture is found in western and eastern areas of Christian Spain.
For instance, the Latin texts of the cartulary of San Julián de Samos in Galicia,
though showing significant signs of vernacular influence, typically have non-
prosthetic forms such as frenos et sellas et duas spatas et II scutos (982–90), una
strectura (1074) (Lucas Álvarez 1986; Lorenzo Vázquez 2003: 166–7). But in the
cartulary of San Vicente de Oviedo in Asturias, prosthetic forms such as
escripsit (890), espontanea (1037), and estant < STANT (1069) are reported
(Jennings 1940: 82). In the east, Aragonese texts written in Latin contain
only sporadic examples of prosthetic vowels up to and including the thir-
teenth century, e.g. Esteuano in a document of 1164 and espunia ‘river bank’ <

SPOND -ULA (1216) from Sobrarbe (Alvar 1953: }85, 1973: 85). And in Catalonia,
prosthesis is likewise indicated only sporadically in Latin texts. Thus, in a
collection of legal documents from the Barcelona region edited by Russell-
Gebbett (1965), there is no indication at all of prosthetic vowels in, for
example, texts 6 (1028–47), 9 (1043–117), and 11 (1131). Yet, in text 13 (1076)
which is from the same region and of comparable content, three out of four
possible contexts show latinizing hypercorrections, ab ipso extret ‘gorge’ <
STRICTU(M), per ipsa exponna, illa exponna ‘river bank’ < SPONDA .89
Finally, in Al-Andalus, the area of the Peninsula under Islamic control,
Romance-based varieties collectively referred to as Mozarabic remained in
use after 711 and continued to be spoken up to the end of the fourteenth
century. However, our knowledge of the use of prosthesis in these varieties is
very limited. This is because all surviving evidence of them is written in
Arabic or, more rarely, Hebrew script which often fails to indicate vowels,
especially unstressed ones. Amongst the few pieces of relevant data that are
available there are two late twelfth-century Toledan Mozarabic documents
written in Arabic script (González Palencia 1926-30: texts 71 and 1039), in
which there appears a form deriving from SANCTU(M) STEPHANU(M) ‘St Stephen’,
88
Text in Menéndez Pidal (1966: 195).
89
The only other item containing a potential context for prosthesis is in ipsa Spulga de
Franculi, a place name corresponding to present-day L’Espluga de Francoli.
I-prosthesis 103
corresponding to Castilian San Esteban, which may be transcribed as šnt ištābn

or šnt ištēbn.90 The initial vowel of the second word is fortunately clearly
indicated in the text by the scribe, but the appropriate interpretation of its origins
is not without problems. In particular, it is not clear whether the vowel represents
the direct result of I-prosthesis within the Late Latin of southern Spain, or whether
it owes itself in large part to influence from Arabic. For the Arabic language did not
permit any complex word-initial onsets, a fact which explains forms like kireyo (=
Cast. creo) in the verse of Ibn Quzmān (c.1080–1160) and iqridu, ikridu in six-
teenth-century writings of Valencian moriscos (Galmés 1983: 29, 336), where
interestingly both epenthesis and prosthesis were used as alternative strategies
for onset restructuring. We may note that in modern Egyptian Arabic a similar
double strategy still regularly operates with loanword adaptation: prosthesis with
word-initial [s] þ obstruent onsets, #istadi < Engl. study, but epenthesis elsewhere,
tiransilet < Engl. translate (Broselow 1991). As both Ibero-Romance and Arabic
had developed similar prosthetic processes for eliminating complex s impura
onsets, the assumption that a vowel was normally introduced at the beginning
of forms with such onsets in Mozarabic seems reasonable, particularly as most
Mozarabic speakers were doubtless effectively bilingual in Arabic by the twelfth
century.
Leaving aside the circumstances in Al-Andalus, we find that as a result of the
almost exclusive use in the Peninsula of latinizing spelling conventions for
the composition of texts and also the possibility that prosthetic vowels may still
have been understood as predictable and hence omissible sandhi phenomena,
the representation of prosthetic forms remained somewhat unsystematic in the
period up to the beginning of the thirteenth century. It is therefore difficult to
make safe judgments on how generalized I-prosthesis had become in this period.
Also, few reliable conclusions can be drawn on the process of actualization with
I-prosthesis, e.g. whether it first occurred post-consonantally and post-pausally
before spreading to post-vocalic contexts. Even when vernacular items are found,
as in the Glosas Emilianenses and Glosas Silenses of the later eleventh century91 which
90
Galmés (1983: 93) reads the original as šnt štēbn. The vowel ē is justified by the general
use of the spelling for long [a:] to represent [e:] in Al-Andalus (Galmés 1983: 50). However, the
written form for the second word in the Arabic text appearing in González Palencia’s
compilation clearly contains a word-initial vowel. In fact, Galmés recognizes this in his
transcription on p. 50 where he indicates the vowel as [a], but curiously he omits the vowel
in his reading on p. 93. In the Christian Arab world of Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and
Jordan, the name Stephen is rendered in Arabic as Ustufān, the quality of the first vowel
evidently copying that of the following vowel. My sincere thanks go to Abi Mnatzaganian, a
native speaker of Arabic, for his invaluable assistance in clarifying the linguistic details here.
91
Much debate has surrounded the dating of these two compilations of Latin
ecclesiastical texts into which later scribes have inserted (vernacularized) Latin glosses to
104 I-prosthesis
are commonly claimed to provide the earliest direct indications of Castilian, the
evidence is unrevealing about prosthesis. In fact, no words of appropriate structure
to undergo prosthesis present themselves in the 147 vernacular glosses of the former
text, and in the latter there are just eight of the 368 glosses where a prosthetic vowel
might be expected to be indicated. However, it never is, and instead the attested
forms are scuitare (120), scuita (125), scriptura (313); speret (212), streita (201), stiercore
(332), stranglatos (319), studiosamientre (350) (= mod. Cast. eschuchar, escucha,
escritura, espere, estrecha, estiércol, estrangulados, estudiosamente, respectively).92
It is not until we have running texts which seek to represent vernacular usage
using a vernacular-based rather than a Latin-based spelling system that I-pros-
thesis begins to be more faithfully represented. Significant numbers of texts first
appear in the thirteenth century although, in more formal and official writings in
the vernacular, residues of the conservative latinizing spelling tradition can still be
apparent. The general picture which emerges from the available doumentation is
that I-prosthesis has become generalized in all Peninsular varieties. In Castilian,
evidence of this generalization is present in the earliest vernacular texts of the
thirteenth century. For example, in the two versions, Castilian and Leonese, of
the Tratado de Cabreros which date from 1206, prosthesis is general93 (Wright
2000). And although verse writings often provide less reliable evidence on the use
of prosthesis, as the addition of a vowel clearly has metrical implications, it is
notable that in the earliest substantial verse composition, the Cantar de Mio Cid
dating from 1207,94 prosthetic vowels are represented with almost total regularity.
clarify Latin words presumably incomprehensible to trainee clerics. Menéndez Pidal

(1964a: 2, 9) dates them to the mid-tenth and to the second half of the tenth century,
respectively. This view has been challenged on paleographical and linguistic grounds,
however, and it is now generally accepted that they both date from the eleventh century,
and perhaps the second half of it (although this later dating has in turn been contested by
Garcı́a Turza and Garcı́a Turza 1998).
92
In addition to these, a clearly latinate gloss statim appears twice (214, 357), and to
gloss STILLAM there is a prefixal form destello (14) that sheds no light on possible prosthesis.
93
There is in fact one case in the Castilian version where an expected prosthetic vowel is
lacking, <como scpto> (with a superscript contraction diacritic on ). But it is
significant that, if we leave aside the concluding formulae which are traditionally written
in latinate style, all five other instances of forms of the verb escribir in the text show
prosthesis. The exceptional case may therefore owe itself to scribal influence from Latin.
94
The dating of the Cid has been much discussed. In 1908, Menéndez Pidal proposed
1140 as the original date of composition, a view which gained universal acceptance.
However, from the 1970s there have been increasingly dissenting voices and today it is
generally accepted that 1207 represents the date when the present version of the poem was
written down (cf. Smith [1972] 1989: esp. 37–46). Smith, p. 38, sees Per Abbat (cf. Per Abbat
le escrivio, l. 3732) as the poem’s author, while others view him as just the scribe who set
I-prosthesis 105
There are just four lexical items yielding twelve tokens which have word-initial
s þ C- graphies.95 Three are etymological s impura forms where the expected
prosthetic vowel is not written, spirital (always in the latinizing set phrase Padre
spirital), parts of (e)sperar ‘to hope, wait’ and the place name Spinaz de Can, and
the fourth involves hypercorrected aphaeretic forms of espedirse ‘to take one’s
leave’ (< EXPĔTERE þ SE). However, all these lexical items except for the place
name96 appear elsewhere in the same poem with the expected initial <e-> , a
fact which suggests that those tokens where the vowel has not been written
probably reflect scribal omission due to Latinizing influence rather than phonetic
reality.97
Prosthetic vowels continued to be faithfully represented in the enormous
Alfonsine corpus of texts compiled later in the thirteenth century (Kasten and
Nitti 1978, 2002).98 There are few items written with word-initial s þ consonant
but those that do appear are predominantly Latin words cited as such; for
example, in the General Estoria I (fol. 199r, 69) we find ‘ . . . & por aquellos
vasos dize el latin dela biblia sciphos. Et por aquellas maçanas. sperulas. ca en el
latin dizen otrossi spera por rondeza o por çerco.’99 However, Latinisms that have
been incorporated into Castilian usage appear only with graphies containing a
prosthetic vowel, estulto, escolástico, escándalo, especificar. The practice of system-
atically representing prosthetic <e> in prose emanating from the royal court
may well have been encouraged for sociolinguistic reasons as well as phonetic
ones. In the culturally and ethnically diverse society of later thirteenth-century
Castile there were three languages in widespread use, two of which were strongly
down the text possibly from live recitation by a performing juglar (Wright 2000: 98). The
sole extant manuscript of the poem dates by general consent from the mid-fourteenth
century.
95
The exceptional items, with line numbers, are: spirital (300pv, 372pv, 1102pv, 1651pv);
sperare (1194pv), sperar (1457pv), speró (1481pc), sperando (2239pc); Spinaz de Can (393pv);
and spidios (226 pp, 1307 pv), spidies (1252 pc), where ‘pv’ = post-vocalic, ‘pc’ = post-
consonantal, ‘pp’ = post-pausal.
96
Attested forms of this place name with a prosthetic vowel present do occur in other
vernacular texts from the thirteenth century, however (cf. Menéndez Pidal 1964b: I, 41,
n. 2).
97
An alternative explanation is that the omission is due to metrical constraints.
However, metrical constraints do not appear to be strict in this poem since there is
significant variation in the syllabic composition of its individual verses.
98
Alfonso X ‘el Sabio’ reigned 1252–84. Under his leadership, a number of scholars
including Alfonso himself compiled a great range of prose texts in Castilian on historical,
legal, scientific, religious and even recreational topics.
99
‘and for those containers the Latin of the Bible says sciphos. And for those apples,
sperulas, for in Latin they also say spera for roundness or for circle.’
106 I-prosthesis
associated with specific religions, Arabic with Islam and Latin with Christianity.
In contrast, Castilian provided a religiously neutral language that would be
acceptable to all citizens (Penny 2002: 20–1). As the prosthetic vowel was a
characteristic and highly familiar Castilian phenomenon which clearly distanced
it from Latin, it is possible that its rapid acceptance and integration within the
orthographic system that was sanctioned for the formal writings of the king and
his scholars may have been in part politically motivated.
From the thirteenth century onward, I-prosthesis remains a fully productive
phonological rule in Castilian. Even in the Renaissance period when strong
latinizing tendencies arose which militated against the continued use of pros-
thetic vowels in the spelling and pronunciation of words of Latin origin,
Castilian was not affected in the same way as other Romance varieties. The
dominant figure in linguistic matters in the later fifteenth and early sixteenth
centuries was Antonio Nebrija (1464–1512), the leading Spanish Humanist
scholar of his day. In various works that pioneered the restoration of Classical
Latin in Spain, Nebrija considered the problem of the appropriate pronuncia-
tion of Latin and the view which he adopted was also applied to the appropri-
ate pronunciation of Castilian. This was that ‘ası́ tenemos descreuir como
hablamos y hablar como escriuimos.’100 The use of prosthetic vowels in Castil-
ian, which had been established in all styles of writing and speech since the
thirteenth century, was therefore not challenged. It was not until the early
seventeenth century that supporters of the etymologizing approach to spelling
and pronunciation began to raise their voices. This led to a conservative trend
that developed strongly from the eighteenth century resulting in the restora-
tion of ‘silent’ etymologically justified consonants in the standard pronuncia-
tion of more learned words, as in -ct- and –pt- in doctor, concepto (Claverı́a
Nadal 1991: esp. 99–109). However, the converse process of eliminating etymo-
logically unjustified sounds like the prosthetic [e] did not gain ground. Struc-
tural factors doubtless played a part in preserving the vowel. Castilian had
developed a simple syllable structure with a maximum of two consonants,
plosive þ liquid, permitted in word-initial onsets and at most one consonant in
word-final codas. Abandonment of the prosthetic vowel would have resulted in
this long-established simplicity at word edges being destroyed. Since there were
no other structural changes under way which would have similarly created
greater syllabic complexity at word edges, the chances of vowel prosthesis
being abandoned were slight (cf. Sampson 2005, and also standard French in
4.4.3.1 below).
100
‘Thus we should write as we speak and speak as we write’, Ortographı́a [1517] 1977:
Principio segundo, f. 3v. The same doctrine appears in his Gramática española (1492: I, chs 5
and 10).
I-prosthesis 107
In eastern varieties of the Peninsula, the thirteenth century likewise brings for the
first time numerous texts written in a vernacular orthography, and these reveal the
generalized use of prosthetic vowels. The earliest known prose text in vernacular
(albeit with various Latin interpolations) is the Homelies de Organyà which dates
from about 1200 and contains over a dozen examples of prosthetic vowels, e.g. les
espines, senes escarn, no estaue, al seu espirit, as against the formulaic latinate la sancta
scriptura which appears twice (Molho 1961). Later prose writings, whether technical
or creative in character, similarly point to the generalized incidence of prosthesis
although scribal inconsistency can obscure the evidence. For instance, in the Libre de
Evast e Blanquerna by Ramón Llull (1233–1316) dating from 1285 but surviving in
fourteenth-century manuscripts only, we find a good deal of variation; for example,
Nastasia estava, per espos, Tota aquella nit estech but tota aquella nit stech, per spos,
que stegues which all occur in the same chapter (19).101 Nonetheless, the widespread
presence of an unetymological initial <e> whatever the nature of the immediately
preceding phonological context indicates that prosthesis has been established as a
regular phonological process, and, just as in Castilian, it remains productive to the
present day. The quality of the prosthetic vowel is [‰-] in standard Catalan, which is
based on the eastern variety of Barcelona (Badia 1981: 160). It is also realized as [‰] in
Roussillonnais and in Mallorcan and parts of other Balearic islands (Fouché 1924:
134–5; Wheeler 2005: 250), whereas in western varieties it appears as [e-] or often as
[a-],102 which is also the usual outcome in Valencian. Further west, in Aragonese,
the reflex is [e-], as in the dialects of Gistaı́n (Mott 1990) and Bielsa (Badia 1950).
Beyond the Peninsula, the Catalan variety spoken in Alguer (Alghero) in north-west
Sardinia also preserves the rule of prosthesis systematically but the vowel used has
taken on the phonetic value [a] as part of a more general change affecting all
occurrences of earlier unstressed [e], for example astómak, asperá, askrivı́ ‘stomach,
to hope, to write’ < STOMACHU (M), SPERĀRE, SCRĪBERE (Blasco Ferrer 1984). The
treatment of more recent loans in Alguerès from Italian shows prosthesis to be
still as productive here as in Peninsular Catalan (cf. 1.2), stitico > astı́tik ‘constipated’,
scarlattina > askarlatı́na ‘scarlet fever’.
Turning to western varieties, we find that vernacular texts in Galician-Portu-
guese also begin to appear in the thirteenth century.103 However, it is only from
the middle of that century that the use of vernacular for documents of a non-
literary character gains ground. Exceptionally, there are two isolated non-literary
101
The forms cited are taken from the edition by Galmés (1935).
102
Badia (1981: 160) claims that [a-] is the normal reflex in western dialects, but Veny
(1987: 130) is more circumspect, ‘La /e/ àtona inicial del romanç primitiu, especialment
formant part dels segments es- i en-, tendeix a confondre’s en una [a].’
103
The earliest known cantiga, by the Portuguese poet Joán Soares de Paiva, has in fact
been dated to 1196 (Lorenzo Vázquez 2003: 161). But this forms a rare if not unique example
of a vernacular work pre-dating 1200.
108 I-prosthesis
texts which were written much earlier in the century, the Notı́cia de Torto (a draft
of a notarial document dating from 1205–11) and the will of King Afonso II
of Portugal from 1214. In these, there is just one form that offers a possible site
for I-prosthesis to occur, namely sten < STENT ‘may they be’, which occurs in the
royal will in post-pausal position. The absence of a prosthetic vowel here may be
attributed to Latin influence, since a preliminary draft in Latin was very probably
composed prior to the writing of the vernacular version.104 In contrast, the
growing body of vernacular non-literary texts that appear from the middle of
the century do provide evidence of prosthesis although it is less systematically
attested than in the Castilian of the period. This may reflect a greater retentive-
ness of the conservative tradition of using latinizing spelling amongst scribes or it
could also be due to the relatively weak phonetic realization of the prosthetic
vowel in certain varieties. Examples of the inconsistent representation of pros-
thesis in non-literary writings from Galicia are este scrito ‘this text’, i stauel,105
firme i stauel (twice) in a text from Portomarı́n (1255) where no prosthetic vowels
are indicated, whilst in a 1283 document from Temes there is systematic represen-
tation, Santo Esteuáó, a carta estando sempre and i escriuj. Many texts offer
evidence that lies between these extremes, prosthesis being represented in some
but not all possible contexts. Thus, we find en esta carta scriptas (‘written (f.pl.) in
this document’), pera aquesto specialmente but i escreui in a text of 1265 from
Betanzos, and in two texts from Sobrado a carta ste ‘let the (this) document be’
twice but i escriuj (1281), and para aquisto speçialmente but ffize escriuir, Eu Johan
Paris escreuj (1300).106
Literary texts of the thirteenth century indicate prosthesis much more consis-
tently, in part because latinizing scribal traditions were less pervasive here than in
formal legalistic writings, and in part because these texts were often founded on
vernacular literary genres such as, notably, Occitan troubadour verse where
prosthetic vowels were regularly indicated. Thus, in the Cancioneiros prosthetic
vowels are usually represented except occasionally in post-vocalic contexts, and
prose works of creative literature similarly attest to generalized prosthesis.107
104
In fact, the use of vernacular in this text is curious since King Afonso subsequently
made other wills in 1218 and 1221, these being written not in vernacular but in Latin. He
died in 1223.
105
The conjunction here and in the other Galician examples is written using a
conventional abbreviation which we have resolved.
106
All the examples are taken from the collection of early Galician documents in Maia
(1986).
107
For example, estou (verse-initial), mal estar and en un estrado in the Cancioneiro da
Ajuda, XCV 20, CXL 10, CLXX 17, respectively (Carter 1941); and vejo estar (post-vocalic),
as estrellas (post-consonantal), esperança (post-pausal in a list) in the fourteenth-century
Vida de Sancto Amaro (Klob 1901).
I-prosthesis 109
In the adjacent Asturo-Leonese area, non-literary vernacular texts appear from

the later twelfth century and already in one of these, dated 1171 from Sahagún,
several prosthetic forms are found, namely the proper names Esteuan Rocha
(three times, once with Roca) and de Espinel twice (Staaff 1907: text 1).108 In the
thirteenth century, when many more vernacular texts become available, prosthet-
ic vowels commonly appear although orthographic practice can vary a good deal
from scribe to scribe, as happens elsewhere in Romania continua109 (cf. the
striking scribal variation in medieval Tuscan documents, see 4.3.3). The variation
is increased by the growing politico-cultural influence from Castilian in the
Asturo-Leonese area which leads to literary production in local varieties becom-
ing increasingly linguistically hybridized and unrepresentative of spoken usage.
In the period leading up to the present day, the fate of I-prosthesis differs
across these varieties of the Peninsula. It has usually continued to be productive in
the more conservative linguistic areas of Galician and north-western dialects of
Portuguese, whereas in other types of Portuguese and in some dialects of Asturo-
Leonese, progressive phonetic weakening has taken place in prosthetic vowels
which has even led to their deletion sometimes, thereby restoring surface word-
initial /s/ þ consonant sequences. It is not clear whether this later difference in the
treatment of prosthetic vowels reflects in any way the earlier linguistic rift that has
been noted between Galician and NW Portuguese dialects on the one hand, and
the more innovating Asturo-Leonese and other Portuguese dialects on the other
hand (Lindley Cintra 1963a, 1963b).110
Looking more closely at the data, we find that in the more conservative
varieties the prosthetic vowel is widely found although individual high-frequency
forms may show aphaeresis. For instance, in the Galican dialect atlas (ALGa I, 2,
maps 245–253), inflexional forms of verb estar are recorded as being realized
without the original initial syllable in a number of peripheral varieties spoken in
NW La Coruna, the extreme NE of Lugo including NW Asturias, a few points in
far SW Pontevedra and one isolated point in the south of Ourense, whereas
108
The clear indication of prosthesis in this text is matched by prosthetic forms
appearing in earlier Latin texts, e.g. de sanctu Isteban in a document dated 996 also from
Sahagún (Menéndez Pidal 1964a: }59,2).
109
Thus, amongst the documents emanating from the Leonese monastery of San
Esteban de Nogales, there is a text dating from 1267 scribe where the scribe Aparicio
writes que studioron, Rodriguez scudero with no prosthesis indicated, while Gonçalvo
Migueliz in a 1275 text freely uses prosthetic vowels, especial mientre, fiz escriuir, escriui,
escriuanos (Staaf 1907: texts 89, 90).
110
Cf. ‘Cette différence entre le Portugal [du nord et surtout du nord-ouest] peuplé de
longue date, essentiellement renfermé et conservateur, et le Portugal reconquis et repeuplé
pendant les XIIe et XIIIe siècles, essentiellement innovateur, a du point de vue linguistique
une importance sur laquelle je crois qu’on n’insistera jamais assez’ (1963b: 72).
110 I-prosthesis
in central Galician varieties the vowel usually remains present. However, it

is uncertain just how lexically generalized such aphaeresis is in these peripheral
varieties. Retention of the prosthetic vowel is also found widely in non-standard
Portuguese varieties spoken in the adjacent Minho area of north-western Portu-
gal111 and, as of the late nineteenth century, in Beira Alta (Leite de Vasconcellos
1970: 87).
Amongst the more innovating varieties, perhaps the most familiar example of
the loss of prosthetic vowels comes in standard Portuguese where forms such as
estar, espaço, escuta [ʃtaɾ], [’ʃpasu], [’ʃkutN] are found (standard Portuguese is
based on educated usage in the central part of Portugal including Lisbon and
Coimbra). This development is evidently of fairly recent date as it is not found at
all in Brazilian Portuguese (cf. Mateus and d'Andrade 2000: 45). The first stage in
the weakening of the prosthetic vowel appears to have been part of a more general
process affecting unstressed /e/ which led it to adopt a short, centralized, high-mid
value [i] by the end of the eighteenth century (Teyssier 1980: 78). Subsequently, the
prosthetic vowel and other types of unstressed [i] continued to weaken further and
since the early twentieth century they have come to be deleted altogether in the
usage of growing numbers of standard speakers. Phonetically, the result may be
complex word-initial onsets that include not only restored s impura sequences but
also new hypercomplex sequences which often override the sonority sequencing
generalization, e.g. telefone [tlfPn] ‘telephone’, merecer [mɾseɾ] ‘to deserve’,
desprevenir [dʃpɾvniɾ] ‘to fail to provide’ (Mateus and d'Andrade 2000: 44). The
development here can be compared with the pre-stress vowel reduction and loss in
northern Italian and Rheto-Romance varieties which had direct relevance for a
different type of prosthetic vowel usage there (see 6.1.1).
Amongst non-standard varieties in Portugal, the prosthetic vowel has also
undergone similar deletion in a number of areas. In the Algarve in the south,
loss is widely reported (Hammarström 1953: 140; Maia 1975-8),112 while in the
north-east frontier area between Portugal and Spain, there is systematic deletion
111
Cf. Santos Silva (1961: 315) who states that prosthetic e- ‘é geralmente pronunciado’
in Minhoto dialects. However, at the end of the nineteenth century, deletion was also
evidently found in these dialects especially with forms containing standard est- (Leite de
Vasconcellos 1970: 86). The preferential deletion here in initial est- sequences resembles the
circumstances reported for the dialect of the Verı́n valley, located in SE Galicia just north of
the Portuguese border, by Taboada (1979: 77), see below.
112
Hammarström (loc. cit.) states that where deletion of unstressed /‰/ occurs, a
phonetically syllabic consonant results. His description of certain Algarve dialects, which
draws on earlier detailed investigations by Armando de Lacerda and himself, indicates a
possible syllabic value not only for the initial pre-palatal fricative of words like espina but
more generally for all types of consonant which precede (or sometimes follow) unstressed
[‰] irrespective of context.
I-prosthesis 111
in the essentially Leonese dialect of Miranda and the nearby dialects of Rio
d’Onor and Guadramil (Herculano de Carvalho 1958; Leite de Vasconcellos
1929a, 1929b).113 Delicate variability between major weakening and deletion is
also found in the transitional variety of the commune of Sabugal which lies on the
frontier adjacent to the province of Salamanca (Maia 1977). And in the Verı́n
valley, located in SE Galicia just north of the border, the prosthetic vowel is
reported to be realized as a very weak schwa, estrume [‰s’tɾume] ‘dung’ <
STRĀMEN, estopa [‰s’topa] ‘tow’ < STŬPPA, and especially before st it may be
imperceptible with the result that the sequence [st] forms a complex s impura
onset (Taboada 1979: 77). The similarity between this development and the
aphaeresis reported for some Minhoto and Galician varieties (see above and n.
111) is striking. Further to the north-east, deletion of the prosthetic vowel was
noted for Asturian varieties in the later nineteenth century, as in spinu, streitu,
scalera (Munthe 1887: 23, 72). In the unfortunately unidentified varieties
concerned,114 the loss of the prosthetic vowel had presumably occurred fairly
early on since spinu has developed like other two-syllable words such as vinu in
that it preserved its final [u], whereas trisyllabic words like camin(u), padrin(u)
regularly lost their final vowel. However, this of course presumes that when
apocope began to operate, the prosthetic vowel had already come to receive the
same degree of (secondary) stress as that of the etymological initial vowel in
words like camin(u). More recently, loss has been reported for the Asturian
varieties of Babia and Laciana, [sku’ðjeʃa] < SCUTĔLLA ‘bowl’, as part of a general
weakening process affecting unstressed pre-stress /e/, although it is also observed
that often prosthesis does now occur (Alvarez 1985: 210). This may in part reflect
the growing influence of Castilian on Asturian over the past century as a result of
powerful centralizing factors such as the introduction of obligatory education (in
Castilian), the rise of the media, and national conscription. One expected conse-
quence of this would be some phonological convergence favouring the retention
and even restoration of prosthesis. Significantly, the standard bable prescribed by
the Asturian Academy (founded in 1909) and now promoted as an official
regional language in the statute of autonomı́a for Asturias in 1981 contains solely
prosthetic forms; for example, espeyu, esfollar, estraordinario, esquı́, espontaneu
113
Forms cited include staka “stake”, spiga “ear of corn”, skila “cowbell”, striga “handful
of flax”, skrenča “parting of the hair”. Here, the initial consonant is apico-alveolar as in
Castilian and it can be weakly articulated, notably in parts of the verb star the opening
syllable of which Herculano de Carvalho phonetically represents as [sta].
114
Some uncertainty reigns as to which varieties are affected. For instance, Zamora
Vicente (1967: 148) cites a form speillo < SPECULUM “mirror” for the dialect of El Bierzo in
NW Asturias. However, in his dictionary of this variety Garcı́a Rey (1934) gives no
indication at all of the occurrence of non-prosthetic forms.
112 I-prosthesis
which appear in the official Normes ortográfiques (third edition, 1990) promul-
gated by the Academy.
4.4.2.1 Summary
For most of its history, Ibero-Romance as a whole has maintained and
generalized the use of I-prosthesis. The only exceptions have been certain As-
turo-Leonese dialects and the more innovative types of Portuguese including the
standard variety. In standard Portuguese, the disappearance of prosthetic vowels
at a phonetic level is a recent phenomenon caused by the general weakening of
unstressed vowels. Phonologically, however, there may still be grounds for pos-
tulating a rule of prosthesis (cf. 1.4). In Asturo-Leonese, certain varieties evidently
did abandon the use of I-prosthesis but more recently these have been increas-
ingly subject to influence from Castilian leading to possible restoration of the
process.
4.4.3 G A L LO - RO M A N C E
The early history of I-prosthesis in Gallo-Romance closely resembles that of

Ibero-Romance. Prosthesis evidently began to operate in all varieties and it
went on to establish itself as an unconditioned process in most types of Gallo-
Romance during the period up to the twelfth century. In the period from the
twelfth century onward, however, there has been major change in its incidence.
For it has been wholly abandoned as a productive process in a large number of
varieties including standard French. This development occurred at different times
and for different reasons in the varieties affected. Today, I-prosthesis remains
productive but, it seems, in certain types of Occitan only.
In contrast, a number of Gallo-Romance varieties and especially those spoken
in the north-east followed a quite distinct path of change from early on. In these,
use of the prosthetic vowel was abandoned early on and the non-prosthetic
alternant was generalized. Subsequently, in Walloon dialects of the far north-
east, there was further change whereby a new alternation arose in s impura forms,
with /sC-/ in post-vocalic contexts and an epenthetic sequence /sVC-/ elsewhere
(where ‘V’ represents the epenthetic vowel). The epenthetic vowel typically has a
high front quality /i/ or /y/; for example, (epenthetic) one supène [Pnsyp¡n] ‘a
thorn’, on ôte sutâve [Pno:tsyta:v] ‘another shed’ vs (non-epenthetic) dès spènes
[d¡sp¡n] ‘thorns’, è stâve [¡sta:v] ‘in the shed’ (Remacle 1948: 41). The circum-
stances of the exceptional developments in north-eastern Gallo-Romance are
explored below (4.4.3.3).
Looking more closely at the ongoing development of prosthesis, we may begin by
recalling that Gallo-Romance inscriptions in the Imperial period show the same
I-prosthesis 113
relative lack of evidence for the process as was noted for Ibero-Romance
(4.1.2). However, early medieval Latin documentation from the Merovingian
period offers some signs that prosthesis was becoming established, although
direct representation occurs much less frequently in texts written by the
more educated. Amongst the few individuals at the upper end of the scale
of learning is Gregory of Tours (539–94) who became metropolitan bishop of
that city in 573. In his writings there are no direct examples of prosthetic
vowels, but there are indirect indications of their existence such as the
frequent interchange of prefixal and simplex verbal forms attributable to
hypercorrection, e.g. spoliarent expoliarent, spectat (= EXSPECTAT) populus
‘the people await’ rather than ‘look at’, spiravit ¼ EXSPIRAVIT ‘he died’ rather
than ‘he breathed’ (Bonnet 1890: 148; cf. 4.1.1 above). However, legal docu-
ments written by scribes of a lower level of education often provide more
revealing evidence of contemporary speech habits. A significant number of
such texts emanating from the royal chancellery during the seventh and early
eighth centuries have survived and these contain various prosthetic forms,
some with initial such as istabilis (657–673 AD) but much more
commonly with <e> , estipbulacione (682 AD), estudiant (709 AD), esperare
(716 AD). ‘Internal’ prosthesis is also attested in prefixal forms, conestructus
(695–711 AD), supraescripthis (709 AD), etc. These are complemented by numer-
ous examples of hypercorrect forms akin to those noted above for Gregory of
Tours, such as structus = INSTRUCTUS (693 AD), strumentum (691, 697 AD) and
extromento (716 AD) corresponding to INSTRUMENTUM (Vielliard 1927: 102–3). A
further source of information comes in inscriptions on Merovingian coins.
Coins could be struck not only by the royal mint but also by other authorized
institutions such as the palatine school and churches. Examples drawn from
Prou (1892) are ESCOLA RE[GIA] MONE[TA] item 704 from Paris (cf. SCOLA RE[GIA]
item 705 of same origin), ESPANIACO item 1980 from Corrèze (cf. SPANIACO item
1981 of same origin), where the vowel is represented as <E> , and there are
also cases using which was commonly adopted in Merovingian script to
represent the mid front vowel /e/: ISCOLA RI[GIA] item 76 from Paris, ISPIRADUS
item 496 from Rennes, and ISTEPHANUS MUNI[TA] item 1330 from Geneva.
Though difficult to date precisely, these inscriptional forms go back mainly
to the seventh century. However, a couple of cases from Chalon-sur-Saône
(Saône-et-Loire) definitely date from the second half of the sixth century,
although they both involve abbreviations: EPISCOPUS ESTN (item 163) and EPIS-
COPUS ESTNU (item 164) where the name ESTEPHANUS is doubtless being indicated
(cf. Prou 1892: liv).
Substantial change occurred during the eighth century in the written repre-
sentation of prosthetic vowels. The Carolingian reforms, whose earliest stages
date from the middle of the century, led to the restoration of a more Classical-
style orthographical system and pronunciation for the Latin used in official state
114 I-prosthesis
and Church matters. The effect was that attested examples of prosthetic vowels
became ever rarer. The analysis carried out by Pei (1932) on forty-seven docu-
ments appearing in Tardif (1866) revealed the following:
Date of Total Possible cases of þ Prosthesis Prosthesis
document documents prosthesis
700–17 11 28 10 18115
750–70 11 19 4 15
And in Pei’s analysis of twenty-five texts dating from the following period up to
812, the scribal suppression of indications for prosthetic vowels was found to be
almost complete.116
However, when texts written in a vernacular-based rather than a Latin-based
orthography begin to appear, a clearer picture becomes available of the incidence of
I-prosthesis in spoken usage. The two earliest texts, both from northern Gallo-
Romance, date from the ninth century but these only offer one possible site, in une
spede (Eulalie, l. 22) where no prosthetic vowel is indicated (spede < SPATA ‘sword’).
The generally accepted explanation for the absence of a prosthetic vowel in this form
is that at that period there was still alternation between prosthetic and non-
prosthetic forms, the latter occurring post-vocalically (Fouché 1966: 695; cf. 4.2.1).
It is only from the eleventh and twelfth centuries when substantial numbers of
vernacular writings become available that prosthesis is systematically attested in all
phonological contexts. Textual evidence for this appears a little earlier in langue d’oc
than in langue d’oı̈l. In the subsequent development of I-prosthesis, there are
important differences between northern and southern Gallo-Romance. The two
linguistic blocks will therefore be treated separately.
4.4.3.1 Langue d’oı̈l

The evidence from vernacular texts indicates that I-prosthesis had probably been
generalized in most varieties by the end of the eleventh century.117 With few
115
Of this subgroup, one text (c. 700, or earlier) has ten potential sites for prosthesis,
only one of which directly attests the vowel. If this text is excluded, the statistics for this
subgroup would of course show a significantly higher proportion of attested prosthetic
forms.
116
Just one apparent case appears: estrumenta (775 AD). However, the initial vowel here
may reflect the prefix of the Latin etymon INSTRUMENTA.
117
The last text still showing any signs of alternation is the Vie de Saint Alexis, written
probably in the second half of the eleventh century. The earliest manuscript is L (first
found in the German monastery of Lamspring) which dates from the first quarter of the
twelfth century. However, only one originally s impura lexeme is found without a
prosthetic vowel, spuse, which always occurs in post-vocalic position, ma spuse, ta spuse,
I-prosthesis 115
exceptions, texts of the twelfth century consistently contain forms with the
prosthetic vowel indicated irrespective of phonological context, whether in
verse or prose works and creative or official writings. Thus, the mid twelfth-
century Anglo-Norman Oxford Psalter shows generalized prosthesis: post-conso-
nantal in tutes esteilles (< STĒLLAS), il establit (< STABIL-ĪVIT) in Psalm 148; post-
pausal in sentence-initial espeirent (< SPĒRANT), establis (< STABIL-ĪSCE) in Psalm 9;
and post-vocalic in tu establiras (< STABILĪRE-HABES) in Psalm 17 and la meie
esperance (< SPĒRANTIA) in Psalm 83 (Michel 1860). Similarly, the earliest legal
charters in vernacular typically show just prosthetic forms; for example, a
charter dated 1191 from Maubeuge (dép. Nord) has soit estaule (< STĀBILE) and
et escrit (< SCRĪPTU(M)).118 A rule of unconditioned I-prosthesis appears therefore
to have been established, just as in Ibero-Romance. The presence of this rule is
also confirmed by the fact that whenever loanwords originally containing s impura
were adopted during the medieval period up to the thirteenth century they
systematically underwent I-prosthesis:
Frankish (6th–8th cent.)

skum > escume (écume) ‘foam’; sparanjan > esparnier (épargner) ‘to
spare’
speut > espiet (épieu) ‘spit’; streup- > estreu (with suffix change >
étrier) ‘stirrup’
Norse (10th–11th cent.)
skipa þ -er > équipe(r) ‘(to) crew’; stafnbord > estambor (étambot) ‘stern-
post’
stafn > estrave (étrave) ‘stem’; Sten-hūs ‘stone house’ > Étainhus (place
name)
Middle Dutch (11th–13th cent.)
skope > escope (écope) ‘bailer’ ; splissen > espisser (épisser) ‘to splice’
stapel > estappe (étape) ‘stage’; staeye > estaie (étai) ‘prop’
As the bracketed forms from modern French indicate, these items were subject to
the same deletion of pre-consonantal /s/ that occurred in native words inherited
from Latin. Voiced [z] which appeared before voiced consonants was deleted in
most varieties of langue d’oı̈l by the beginning of the twelfth century, and voiceless
etc. Other relevant items in the text indicate that the prosthetic alternant has been
generalized, as in s’espethe rather than ** sa spethe ‘his sword’ (< SPĀTA).
118
The full text of this charter appears in Woledge and Clive (1964: 54–5) and Sampson
(1980: 138–9).
116 I-prosthesis
[s] which occurred before voiceless plosives119 disappeared in the later twelfth or
thirteenth century (Pope 1952: }377, Fouché 1966: 861–2). Only in eastern dialects
was /s/ preserved pre-consonantally.
In the late medieval period a major change occurred. Prosthesis began to be
abandoned as a productive process. No clear signs of this development however are
to be found in many literary works of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Thus,
in the verse of Charles d’Orléans (1394–1465), just prosthetic forms such as l’estude,
mon esperit, on escript are found. Similarly, prosthetic vowels are consistently
indicated in the verse of François Villon (1431– d. after 1463); the only example of
a non-prosthetic form is le roy Scotiste ‘the Scottish king’ referring to James II
of Scotland (Testament l. 365), although later in the same poem there is d’Ecossoys
‘of Scots’ (l. 1216). In literary prose of popular type, a similar picture emerges with
little evidence of the loss of productivity for I-prosthesis. For instance in Les Cent
nouvelles nouvelles of the mid-fifteenth century, there are no examples of forms in
<st-> ; just one lexical item special(e)ment with <sp-> although especial and
especialement are also found; and only three items with initial <sc-> (= [sk-])
scabelle, scandale, scribe (Dubuis 1996). Otherwise, forms with a prosthetic vowel
such as esclandre, espirituel, estable (adjective and noun) consistently appear.
Indications of the change in the status of prosthesis come predominantly from
non-literary writings of a technical or professional type and to a lesser extent
from highly cultivated literary prose. This is because one of the factors triggering
the change120 lies in the phonological treatment of learned Latin borrowings and
these are to be found most commonly and with ever-increasing frequency in such
writings. The first serious moves towards the displacement of Latin in favour of
French in formal domains, such as the law and the royal chancellery, took
place during the course of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. But to
enable French to operate in these domains, significant elaboration of linguistic
resources was necessary which was achieved through the wholesale incorporation
of Latinisms.121 Further Latinisms came in the many works of translation that
were commissioned by the monarchs Jean II (Le Bon) 1350–64 and Charles V
(Le Sage) 1364–80 (Monfrin 2001). For instance, items such as scandaleux,
119
It appears that [s] may have weakened and been lost before [f] earlier than before
other voiceless obstruents. Evidence for this comes from English borrowings, feast, espouse,
descry (< OFr. feste, esposer, descrier) with [s] preserved but defeat, effort (OFr. desfaite,
esforz) with [s] deletion. The earlier weakening of [s] before [f] is perhaps due to a greater
assimilatory tendency operating in a sequence of two voiceless fricatives [sf].
120
The causation of the abandonment of I-prosthesis is explored in the next subsection
below.
121
On ‘elaboration’ see Haugen (1972) and, for French, Lodge (1993: 118–52). For the
importance of the fourteenth century for Latinisms, cf. ‘Le XIVe siècle est véritablement
l’époque où se constitue le vocabulaire savant’ (Brunot 1966: 566).
I-prosthesis 117
sphérique, stérile, stoı̈cien are first found in the translations by Nicole Oresme
(Taylor 1965: 735).
As these examples indicate, the spelling adopted for such loanwords usually
respected the orthography of the Latin original except in their final part which
had to conform to French morphological structure. Hence, s impura words were
written with initial <s> þ consonant rather than reflecting the possible contem-
porary French pronunciation with a prosthetic [e-], unlike the situation in
Castilian where the spelling of cultismos normally reproduced vernacular pro-
nunciation. From the later thirteenth century, the etymologizing tradition in-
creasingly prevailed over the previously dominant phonemic type for writing the
vernacular, to a large extent because the band of praticiens or professional legal
clerks who wrote down the texts came from a Latin-writing tradition. In the
burgeoning bureaucracy of the French state, the number and linguistic influence
of these clerks grew significantly. Unfortunately, there is no clear indication of
how Latinisms like scandaleux, stérile were actually pronounced in the fourteenth
century. It has been claimed that all such words containing an initial <s>
þ consonant sequence were systematically articulated with a prosthetic vowel
until the sixteenth century.122 But this seems questionable since by the start of
that century the use of non-prosthetic forms was undoubtedly very well estab-
lished amongst educated speakers, as we shall see. Instead, it is likely that such
speakers had come to be increasingly influenced by the spelling of the many
prestigious Latinisms that entered higher-register French from the thirteenth
century onwards. As a result, whether for affectation123 or to achieve a greater
perceived authenticity, non-prosthetic pronunciations for words written with
initial <s> þ consonant were doubtless used by literate fifteenth-century speak-
ers and perhaps even some fourteenth-century speakers when pronouncing
words like scandaleux, stérile. The publication of the important work by Erasmus
on the pronunciation of Latin and Greek in 1528, which advocated a spelling-
based approach, served to give definitive endorsement to this practice.
122
Cf. ‘where an initial consonant cluster of this type whatever its source came to be
used in actual speech before the sixteenth century, it assumed an [e] on-glide’ (Hope 1971:
II, 585). The emphasis is in the original.
123
A fine example of the affected use of Latinisms is cited by Rickard (1976: 112–13). It is
an anonymous letter dating from c. 1450 in which the writer apologizes for not being able
to attend a wedding. It begins Maistre magnifique et eminent en faculté de prospicue
eloquence, aourné de rethorique, tout preambule de recommendacion presupposé, vueillés
sagacement concepvoir que . . . and contains the non-prosthetic Latinism speculant. As
Rickard notes, the sort of overblown latinate style affected here was later to be the butt
of pastiche by Rabelais in the celebrated episode of the Limousin scholar in Pantagruel
published 1532 (ch. 6).
118 I-prosthesis
In the first half of the sixteenth century, therefore, it seems probable that
prosthesis was no longer operating as a truly productive process for many if
not most speakers of the nascent standard variety of French. Strong direct
evidence for this comes in the earliest detailed analysis of French published in
1530 by the Englishman John Palsgrave. His description, which reflects educated
usage of the first decade of the sixteenth century, contains three sections or
‘books.’ In the first of these, where he deals with pronunciation, Palsgrave focuses
attention on words that are well established in the lexicon of the emerging
standard language. The prosthetic vowel is present in all of them, but they fall
into two groups depending on the phonetic realization or non-realization of the
pre-consonantal <s> appearing in the orthographic form of the words. With
items such as escrı́pre, estudiér, escóle, espée, estoı́lle, he indicates (Book I, ch. 25)
that the first consonant is not pronounced. The other group emerges in chapter
43, where words are identified whose orthographic pre-consonantal <s> is
pronounced. These include escabeáu, escláve, espéce, esperér, estimér in which
modern French has continued to preserve pre-consonantal [s].124 However, a
third group of words showing a quite different treatment of etymological initial
[s] þ consonant is also apparent in Palsgrave’s account although no direct men-
tion is made of it in the section on pronunciation. In this group, vowel prosthesis
does not occur. Occasional examples appear by chance in the first book; for
instance, sphére is reported to be pronounced ‘sfere’ (ch. 23) and scovlptúre as
‘scouture’ (ch. 26). But it is in the substantial dictionary of French that occupies
more than 80 per cent of the overall text that the widespread existence of non-
prosthetic forms really emerges, e.g. scrupuleúx, (je) specúle, spectácle, statión,
stı́le. This third category consists overwhelmingly of learned words, many of
which were doubtless viewed as high-register forms that were not part of the
core lexical structure of French of the period. Nonetheless, their phonetic treat-
ment indicates that prosthesis can no longer have been a productive process
amongst users of the emerging standard variety. We may once again compare the
phonetic circumstances here with those in Castilian where learned forms have
continued to be subject to prosthesis, cf. the counterparts to the forms just cited:
escrupuloso, (yo) especulo, espectáculo, estación, estilo.
In the following year 1531, the first grammar of French compiled by a French-
man for French readers (albeit written in Latin) was published. Its author Jacques
Dubois (1531: 57–8) formally distinguishes the same three categories of pronunci-
ation for words containing etymological initial s þ consonant as those identified
rather less clearly by Palsgrave:
124
The ambiguous phonetic value of orthographic pre-consonantal <s> is only
resolved in 1740 when the third edition of the Académie dictionary formally abolished
the letter in words such as esclat, feste where it does not represent [s].
I-prosthesis 119
(i) with prosthetic [e-] and with deletion of etymological [s]: épine, étude,
etc.
(ii) with prosthetic [e-] but with retention of etymological [s]: espérer, espoir,
etc.
(iii) without prosthetic [e-] and with retention of etymological [s]: scribe,
station, etc.
The distribution that is indicated here corresponds almost exactly to that found
in modern standard French. The only significant exceptions occur in the words
espace and espèce where the sibilant <s> is reported to be silent, and in escabeau
for which the pronunciation scabeau is given and escabelle which is cited along
with the alternative form scabelle (modern French has escabeau, escabelle both
with initial [¡sk-]). In formally identifying the category (iii), Dubois is confirm-
ing Palsgrave’s observation that prosthesis no longer operates with learned loan-
words in the ‘best’ usage of French.
Thereafter, during the course of the sixteenth century the use of prosthesis was
evidently abandoned by all speakers who sought to conform to the norms of the
crystallizing standard variety of French. In established items of vocabulary, the
prosthetic vowel [e-] became lexicalized, but neologisms and especially Latinisms
that began with /s/ þ consonant were no longer subject to prosthesis. Acceptance
of this model of pronunciation could however be obstructed for some standard
speakers as a result of interference from their own local Gallo-Romance variety.
This was particularly evident with speakers from southern France since I-pros-
thesis remained fully productive in almost all varieties of langue d’oc at that time.
Thus, in his Traité de la conformité du language françois auec le grec (1565), Henri
Estienne reports that in Dauphiné and Languedoc many users of the standard
variety said estatuts, estatue, espectacle, espacieux (Thurot 1881 [1966]: I, 216).
Southern writers also sometimes carried over traces of their native use of pros-
thesis in their works, as with the memorialist Brantôme (1540–1614) who was
from south-west France and used numerous non-standard prosthetic forms in his
writings such as escrupule, espectacle, espacieux, estérille ‘sterile’ and even hyper-
correct stase ‘ecstasy’ (Lalanne [1880] 1970).125
Against the background of the general abandonment of prosthesis, the treat-
ment of Italian borrowings in the sixteenth century appears anomalous at first
sight. For of the forty-three borrowings beginning with [s] þ consonant in
standard Italian which are first attested in French in this century, no fewer than
thirty-five emerge with a prosthetic vowel, e.g. escompte, escopette, espadon,
125
Huguet (1925-67) provides evidence of widespread polymorphism with forms in
(standard) /sC-/ (regional) /esC-/ in sixteenth-century writers, for example (e)scorpion,
(e)scrupule, (e)specifier, (e)special, (e)sp(h)ère, (e)spirituel, (e)spacieux, (e)spectacle,
(e)splendeur, (e)spongieux, (e)statut, estable stabile, (e)stile.
120 I-prosthesis
estafier, cf. It. sconto, scoppietto, spadone, staffiere (Hope 1971: I, 187–93). However,
the French forms do not reflect the continued productivity of prosthesis in the
sixteenth century. Rather, the presence of the prosthetic vowel can be attributed
to the action of two factors (Sampson 2004a). The first of these concerns the
mode of transmission of the loanwords. Before entering the standard language, it
appears that many Italianisms passed through a southern French linguistic filter.
Particularly affected were technical words connected with professional activities
and trade which were acquired, orally in most cases, by French people interacting
with Italians. Southern French speakers were particularly likely to be involved in
this linguistic interchange for obvious geographical and commercial reasons.126
Borrowings with initial s impura onsets were therefore liable to I-prosthesis since
this rule was still normally operating in most varieties of langue d’oc. The
resulting forms were then diffused northwards into the standard variety with a
lexicalized initial [e], alongside similarly prosthetic native Occitan forms like
escalier and escargot which also entered standard French in the sixteenth century.
The other factor explaining the anomalous appearance of prosthesis in Italian-
isms relates to the precise linguistic source of these words. It is customary for
linguists to cite standard Italian forms as the basis for the French loanwords but it
is likely that many items did not derive directly from standard Italian but instead
came from, or via, non-standard Italo-Romance varieties spoken in Piedmont
where not only was there a long-term French military presence but also vowel
prosthesis has enjoyed continuing currency in the local speech (cf. below,
4.4.5).127 A prosthetic vowel may therefore have been present in the original
form of certain Italianisms that passed into French.
By the beginning of the seventeenth century, the rule of I-prosthesis had
certainly ceased to be productive amongst standard French speakers. In a century
when French linguistic purism was taken to new heights, even writers such as
Chifflet and Hindret128 who are specifically concerned with identifying ‘correct’
pronunciation for speakers aspiring to master the standard variety make no direct
126
Reflecting the strong commercial and artisanal presence of Italians, Lyon for
example was known as the ‘French Florence’ at this time.
127
A curious problem arises in the treatment of Italianisms in two celebrated dialogues
by Henri Estienne, both dating from 1578, which attacked the excessive Italianization of the
language found at the royal court. Pastiching the affected overuse of Italianisms, Estienne
has forms such as spurquesse ‘dirt’, spaceger ‘to stroll’, straque ‘tired’. Most, like these
examples, have no prosthetic vowel. The probable reason for this is that Estienne was
basing the Italianate forms he cites on words appearing in the literary standard form of
Italian where I-prosthesis was moribund by the 1570s (Sampson 2004a).
128
In the introduction to his detailed 1687 work, the Breton Jean Hindret identifies
seventeen features of ‘bad’ pronunciation found ‘à la Cour aussi bien qu’à Paris’, a
further sixteen are attributed to ‘la petite Bourgeoisie de Paris’, and eleven others are
I-prosthesis 121
reference at all to prosthetic vowels—a fact which suggests that amongst such
speakers the inappropropriate use of prosthesis was not seen to be a problematic
issue. Instead, writers who do allude to the (unacceptable) use of prosthesis
usually direct their remarks to provincials especially those from the south of
France and, even more particularly, to Gascons whose pronunciation was evi-
dently often affected by local non-standard usage and was consequently held
up for censure. Thurot (1881 [1966]: I, 216) cites two cases, Ménage (1675)
who criticizes Gascons for saying estomacal, estupide, and estatuts, and Dumas
(1733) who claims that Gascons ‘font entendre un e devant le s initial’ in words like
estile.
In non-standard varieties of the langue d’oı̈l (leaving aside the special case of
eastern dialects), there has also been a general retreat from the use of I-prosthesis
though it is not clear how rapidly it occurred across the different varieties.
Already by the end of the sixteenth century, prosthesis seems to be on the way
to abandonment amongst the less educated from Paris and its environs even
though there is only ex silentio evidence for this assumption. Thus, the journal of
Jean Héroard which provides a record of the speech of the young dauphin, later to
be Louis XIII, in the first decade of the seventeenth century contains many
examples of informal and substandard use. But in the few contexts where
prosthesis would be possible, there is no indication of its presence: une scabele
(August 1605), la sphaere and une sphaere (July 1606), bon sculteur (April 1608)
(Ernst 1985).129 Later in that century, literary pastiche of linguistic features
characteristic of substandard pronunciation came to enjoy great popularity, for
instance in Cyrano de Bergerac’s Le pédant joué (1654) and Molière’s Don Juan
(1665), and in the anonymous mazarinade known as Agréables conférences of the
mid-seventeenth century (Deloffre 1999).130 However, amongst the thirty-four
features of substandard pronunciation and grammar identified by Lodge (1996)
as forming particular objects for condemnation or derision from writers of the
period, the inappropriate use of I-prosthesis does not figure at all.131 There seems
described as being characteristic of ‘gens de Provinces’. Nowhere, however, is mention

made of prosthesis.
129
The only form showing prosthesis is escluseau ‘kind of mushroom’ (= écluseau, now
archaic but included in the dictionary of Littré). This is clearly not a learned word but part
of the popular wordstock. The prosthetic vowel here has of course been lexicalized.
130
Though generally viewed as anonymous, the work is tentatively attributed by
Deloffre to L. Richer, the author L’Ovide Bouffon.
131
For example, Jean Gareau in Le pédant joué has usage with prosthesis that is identical
to that of the standard language, l’espoisseur, qui espousit, grande espée, l’escriture but du
scandale (not ** de l’escandale). The ten letters making up the Agréables conférences have
just three contexts involving words with etymological /sC-/: (i) . . . pour avoir dé
Comedian, dé Murissian, dé Stature é dé bilboquette pour boutre dans son Palai (letter 1);
122 I-prosthesis
good reason to believe therefore that by the end of the seventeenth century at the
latest the influence of the prestigious standard variety was steadily undermining
the use of I-prosthesis amongst the inhabitants of the capital and the area
immediately surrounding it, and also in other Paris-influenced urban centres of
the langue d’oı̈l except those of the north-east where prosthesis never fully
developed (see below). Speakers of non-standard varieties of langue d’oı̈l who
lived at some remove from Paris and other regional urban centres doubtless
preserved the use of I-prosthesis for rather longer.
However, moves towards the abandonment of I-prosthesis in regional varieties
gain ground particularly from the nineteenth century onward when various
centralizing forces began to exercise ever greater sociolinguistic influence pro-
moting standard French. These include the introduction of mass education,
military conscription, the establishment of an increasingly intrusive bureaucracy,
the development of speedy and effective means of transport, and the rise of mass
media. These influences were to have the same destructive effect on the produc-
tive use of I-prosthesis in growing numbers of langue d’oc varieties as well (see
below 4.4.3.4, and cf. Italian 4.3.3). Unfortunately, clear contemporary data on the
status of prosthesis in individual non-standard langue d’oı̈l varieties are not
available before the later nineteenth century. Until then, we only have rather
imprecise characterizations such as that found in the ‘dictionary’ by Desgranges
(1821) in which numerous forms are cited showing prosthesis with etymological
s impura words, e.g. escandale, escorpion, espatule, espectaque, estupide, estation.
Desgranges merely observes that this is how ‘les gens du peuple’ pronounce such
words, but no indication is given of where these speakers came from. However, it
is of interest that Nisard (1872: 271) calls attention to the practice amongst the less
educated of Paris and its environs of using the prosthetic vowel /e-/, ‘L’e est attiré
par les consonnes combinées sc, sp, st: escrupule, escorie, escorbut, espectacle,
espécial, estyle, estatue . . . Cette prothèse est maintenue dans la prononciation
de nos compatriotes du midi. Mais partout le peuple a pour elle plus ou moins de
penchant.’ It seems likely that the massive immigration from the provinces to the
cities of France that occurred during the nineteenth century goes some way in
explaining the presence of the prosthetic vowels observed by Nisard. Nonetheless,
(ii) je visme de belles statuses toutes dosées (letter 10); (iii) avec des grands escritiau (letter 10).
Again, usage of the prosthetic vowel here is just as in standard French. In (iii), the vowel
has clearly been lexicalized as in standard French écriteau, while cases (i) and (ii) show the
learned form stature (= statue). Item (ii) also has hypercorrect [z] for [r], the development
of intervocalic [r] > [z] being a stigmatized and widely pastiched substandard feature of
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The use of the forms appearing in (i) and (ii),
rather than ** des Estature(s), ** belles estatuses, once more suggests clearly that there was
no longer any productive rule of prosthesis in the substandard variety or varieties of langue
d’oı̈l being pastiched in the text.
I-prosthesis 123
the observation suggests that the abandonment of the rule of I-prosthesis was a
prolonged process in northern France even amongst urban speakers. In more
rural areas, the abandonment was slower still and forms with a prosthetic vowel
are still reported for certain varieties in second half of the twentieth century. For
example, Schortz (1998: 69) cites [¡n ¡staty] ‘une statue’ for Senneville-sur-
Fécamp in Normandy. However, it is not clear whether I-prosthesis has remained
a genuinely productive process in this variety and others like it. It may be that it is
only in established lexical items that we find a prosthetic vowel which has now
become lexicalized, whereas new words containing word-initial s impura onsets
no longer undergo prosthesis.
4.4.3.2 Causation of the loss of I-prosthesis in French

It is curious that whereas the background to the rise of I-prosthesis has been
the subject of considerable investigation by linguists, far less attention has been
given to the circumstances leading to its subsequent abandonment in standard
French and other Gallo-Romance varieties. In fact, only two types of explanation
appear to have been proposed. In the more familiar one, the key factor under-
mining prosthesis is taken to lie in the prestigious spelling-based system
of pronunciation which Erasmus had proposed in 1528 for Latin and Greek
(e.g. Pope 1952: }653). It is assumed that by extension this spelling-based approach
to ‘good’ pronunciation was adopted by the educated classes when articula-
ting learned words in French, and from there it spread to the bourgeoisie before
finally reaching the mass of the population, especially in Paris and other urban
environments where there was a strong cultural presence. In this new system
of pronunciation, prosthetic vowels had no place since they were not orthograph-
ically represented. In the other explanation, it is suggested that French prosthesis
may have ceased to be productive as a result of the regular deletion of pre-
consonantal [s] in the langue d’oı̈l during the later medieval period as a result
of which O.Fr. espine, espee were transformed into [epin], [epe] (Posner
1996: 290–1). This change would have caused the resulting word-initial sequence
[e] þ consonant- to be in some sense ‘stranded’ from etymological [s] þ conso-
nant-, thereby destabilizing the previously more transparent productive rule
of prosthesis.
Neither explanation appears entirely acceptable, however. As we have seen,
there are clear indications that prosthesis had already been effectively abandoned
in the usage of ‘good’ speakers of French well before 1528 when the celebrated
work of Erasmus was published. The Erasmist reforms can therefore be viewed at
most as a powerful force confirming existing practice amongst the educated.
More generally, there are difficulties in interpreting the abandonment of
124 I-prosthesis
prosthesis in late medieval French as, in Labovian terms, a purely ‘top-down’

change.132 For it seems very doubtful whether a change initiated by a small if
prestigious minority of speakers could have been diffused so completely down
through the population of Paris and environs in the timescale envisaged such that it
left so little discernible trace by the end of the sixteenth century, particularly in view
of the sociolinguistic circumstances of the sixteenth century when perhaps as many
as 90 per cent of the population of France were illiterate (Glatigny 1989: 18).133
The other explanation, which interprets the loss of prosthesis as a ‘bottom-up’
development, also encounters problems. First, there is a significant time-lag between
the loss of pre-consonantal [s] which is generally recognized to have occurred by the
later twelfth or the thirteenth century (Pope 1952: }377; Fouché 1966: 861–2; Zink
1986: 122–3) and the abandonment of vowel prosthesis which probably got under-
way from the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century. Second, when French
speakers were confronted with learned or other foreign words beginning with
s impura, we might have expected them in most cases to have incorporated them
by adapting the complex onset to a sequence compatible with existing patterns in
the language.134 It is therefore surprising that these speakers should instead have
relicensed a heterosyllabic onset sequence which had been prohibited for centuries.
In fact, it seems likely that no single factor brought about the abandonment of
I-prosthesis in northern France. Rather, this development was probably
prompted by the action of several quite separate factors operating in conjunction
with one another. First, a major ‘top-down’ factor was the adoption for prestige
reasons of a spelling-based pronunciation by literate speakers when they articu-
lated learned loanwords. As was noted above, this mode of pronunciation was
already current amongst the educated in the fifteenth century and received
powerful endorsement from Erasmus’s influential work published in 1528. Verna-
cularized pronunciations of Latinisms certainly continued to occur amongst less
educated speakers into the sixteenth century but they enjoyed no prestige and
even became the butt of humour.135 A modern parallel may be found in pastiche
pronunciations of recent Anglicisms in French such as meeting [met~¡´].
132
For discussion of ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ change, see Labov (1994: 78 and 2001:
272–5).
133
Unfortunately, it is not made clear whether this figure relates to individuals able just
to read or those able both to read and write, nor is there any indication of possible
geographical variation in literacy levels.
134
Compare what happens amongst modern Andalusian speakers of Spanish where pre-
consonantal [s] has been deleted in many if not most varieties. Here, s impura loans are usually
adapted to [eC-], just like native words with etymological s impura (cf. Sampson 2005).
135
Occasional present-day French words like quolibet [kolib¡] ‘jibe’ (< QUO LIBET), cancan
~ kA
[kA ~ ] ‘(slanderous) gossip’ (< QUAMQUAM) recall vernacularized pronunciations of Latinisms.
The writer Étienne Tabourot (1547–90) from Dijon provides entertaining and sometimes
I-prosthesis 125
Second, various formal factors also appear to have played a role. Amongst
these, the deletion of pre-consonantal [s] may have been of significance but this is
uncertain, as we have seen. More important seem to be broader changes taking
place in syllable structure in the later medieval period. For, although a number of
changes occurred in popular speech which resulted in greater simplicity of
syllable structure, notably the progressive deletion of coda consonants [r], [k],
[t], and (word-final) [s] during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,136 various
other developments were taking place which led to greater complexity in syllable
structure. Amongst these was the ongoing incorporation of loanwords such as est,
ouest (first attested in twelfth century) from English, lest from Dutch (thirteenth
century) along with the many learned words such as gest (thirteenth century, later
geste), laps, pact (fourteenth century, later pacte) which increased the complexity
in codas especially. But more significant was the gradual abandonment of schwa.
Fouché (1969: 509–27) describes in some detail the stages of this long-running
process which, depending on phonetic context, operated from preliterary times
up to the late seventeenth century when word-final schwa ceased to be used in
ordinary speech, as in la port(e). Schwa deletion was unlikely to have been at first
a characteristic of educated usage, however. It probably represented a feature
originating in popular speech so that there is every chance that in informal usage
amongst the less educated it already enjoyed some currency before the sixteenth
century when a number of grammarians call attention to the phenomenon
(Thurot 1881–3: I, 162–4). As a result of schwa deletion, not only would more
complex codas have developed, as in words like arme, triste, farce, porche, more
complex onsets would also have arisen. Numerous observations by grammarians
of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries indicate that word-initial sequences
of fricative þ [‰] þ consonant were particularly susceptible to deletion of schwa
(cf. Fouché 1969: 526). This is confirmed by the appearance of attested forms
such as stier ‘a measure of grain’ < SEXTĀRIU(M), squenie ‘a smock’ < Middle High
German sukenı̂e, and the demonstratives c’t, c’tte, c’tui (also spelt st, ste, stui)
in sixteenth-century writings (= modern French setier, souquenille, cet, cette,
and archaic cestui). The deletion of schwa in such items doubtless played a
role in re-establishing /sC-/ sequences as possible onsets in the usage of less
obscene pastiches of such pronunciations, e.g. DUCUM EST AMOR RUS COELI AQUILAE VITAM
represented as Du con est amoureux celui à qui le vit tend. The representation of SI CUM STIPE
TU ES as Si constipé tu es is of special interest as there is no sign of a prosthetic vowel. The reason
for this appears to be that such vernacular pronunciations only reflected letters that were
actually present in the Latin form; examples from Tabourot 1970 [1588]: 45, 47.
136
Such changes clearly tie in with a general Romance tendency to unblock syllables
through the weakening of coda consonants, as has long been recognized by Romanists, e.g.
Granda (1966) and Sala (1976: 21–50).
126 I-prosthesis
educated speakers. The presence of a /sC-/ initial sequence in demonstrative

forms was particularly important since these occurred with high frequency and
would have familiarized the new onset type for these speakers. Indeed, although
spellings like st, ste for cet, cette and (presumably) the corresponding pronuncia-
tion were condemned by some sixteenth-century grammarians such as Jacques
Peletier (1550: 200), st and ste went on to establish themselves as acceptable
variants of the demonstrative adjective for use in informal conversation by
educated speakers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as is noted by
many grammarians (Thurot 1881–3: I, 210).137
In this way, both ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ factors conspired to re-establish
complex onset sequences of the form /sC-/ across the different social subgroup-
ings in Paris and its environs and also, doubtless, in other langue d’oı̈l varieties
that were subject to the same factors. Thereafter, any remaining varieties (exclud-
ing those of the east and north-east) which preserved I-prosthesis came progres-
sively to abandon the process as a result of growing influence from the prestigious
standard French language.
4.4.3.3 An exceptional case: eastern and north-eastern dialects

In Wallonia, eastern Lorraine and Romance-speaking Alsace, I-prosthesis failed
to become established as it did in varieties spoken elsewhere in the langue d’oı̈l
area.138 During the early medieval period, prosthetic vowels appear to have
developed but at some stage in the later pre-literary period (i.e. prior to the
twelfth century) prosthesis was abandoned as a process. Subsequently, a further
development came to affect words beginning with initial /sC-/ sequences in the
varieties of central and eastern Wallonia but not those found in western Wallonia
or in Lorraine and Alsace. This was the appearance of a rule of epenthesis whose
effect was to create a new type of sandhi-conditioned alternation that still
operates today, as in spène sipène, süpène ‘thorn’ (< SPĪNA). The non-epenthetic
alternant appears after a vowel-final word and the other alternant elsewhere, e.g.
dès spènes [d¡sp¡n] ‘some thorns’ but avou’n sipène [avunsip¡n] ‘with a thorn’ or
post-pausal sipènes [sip¡n] ‘thorns’ in Liégeois.
137
For instance, Thomas Corneille (1625–1709) writes, ‘Dans le discours familier on
prononce st homme, ste femme, et ce seroit une affectation vicieuse de dire cet homme, cette
femme, quoy que dans la chaire on doive prononcer ainsi ces mots’ (1687: II, 164), and
Pierre Restaut (1696–1764) similarly observes, ‘Cet se prononce st, & cette comme ste. Ainsi,
quoiqu’on écrive cet oiseau, cet honneur, cette femme, il faut prononcer stoiseau, sthonneur,
ste femme’ ([1730]1773: 449).
138
To the west, prosthesis regularly operated in Picard, except in Rouchi which is
spoken around Valenciennes in French Hainaut (Gossen 1970: }47).
I-prosthesis 127
The epenthetic vowel usually has a high front quality. It appears as [i] in the
majority of central varieties including that of Liège as we have seen, but [y] is
found in dialects of the extreme east (e.g. Herve and Verviers) and also in a
narrow belt in the extreme south of the epenthetic area. More unusually, a
lowered front unrounded value [e] or [¡] occurs in parts of the north-west and
far south-west of the epenthetic area, and a short front schwa-like rounded vowel
[] is reported in a few varieties in the extreme north-west and south (cf. Map 2).
The predominant choice of a high front quality accords with the principle of
minimal saliency (1.6). The expected quality for an epenthetic vowel, namely [‰],
was not possible in these dialects since existing instances of schwa were them-
selves in the process of being systematically deleted, as we shall see. The quality
adopted by the epenthetic vowel was based on that of a more stable existing vowel
type. High front vowels are the least salient; the selection of [i] or, less expectedly,
[y] is therefore understandable. The mid front quality found in a small minority
of varieties would seem to represent a localized development of earlier [i], for
reasons which are not immediately obvious.
The historical background to the abandonment of prosthesis and to the
later appearance of epenthesis in eastern and, particularly, north-eastern
varieties is not fully understood. There are significant numbers of texts from
the areas concerned dating from the second half of the twelfth century onward
which might be expected to shed useful light. However, it is generally accepted
that they fail to give a faithful picture of local usage, as they are very often
marked by linguistic influence from other varieties of northern French that
enjoyed cultural prestige and, in particular, the variety used in the area
centred on Paris.139 One consequence of this outside linguistic influence has
been the frequent scribal use of prosthetic vowels at a time when they were
doubtless not in general use in local speech. Thus, in one of the first literary
prose writings, the Psalter Commentary composed between the 1160s and 1180s
for Laurette of Alsace, we find many forms contining an initial <e> ; for
instance, l’estoile, la veraie esperance, saint Estevene, des espeies, et estroites
occur in just one psalm (Gregory 1990: psalm 36). In other texts of this
century ostensibly prosthetic forms appear with similar frequency.140 More
139
This has been established for Walloon as a result of the close textual analyses carried
out by Remacle (1948) and others.
140
For instance, the translation of the sermons of St Bernard dating from the end of the
twelfth century has numerous cases although a minority of non-prosthetic forms do occur,
especially involving learned words. Thus, sermon 26 has li espouse, des estoiles, ki espirs,
ceste estroite, ki escrite est but est stoile, plus splendianz, parmanable splendor, bele spirituel, si
studioet, la celeste sperance, etc. (Gregory 1994). In the verse Poème moral of c.1200,
‘normalement, il y a prothèse de e devant s þ cons.’ according to Bayot (1929: lxx), as in
bone esperance (l. 410), n’i espargniez (l. 1287). As regards the dozen non-prosthetic forms
128 I-prosthesis
revealing of local usage in Walloon are non-literary vernacular documents.

These first appear in 1236 and they become available in significant numbers
from the second half of the century (Boutier 1995: 291), although often they
too betray linguistic influence from central forms of langue d’oı̈l.
In view of the limited usefulness of much textual evidence, use must also be
made of internal linguistic evidence to clarify likely patterns of pronunciation. In
particular, the treatment of forms originally containing prefixal [es-] < EX- is
suggestive. These forms have systematically undergone aphaeresis and their
onsets have become formally indistinguishable from those of s impura words,
e.g. (dialect of Neuweiler, Lorraine) SCĂNDULA > [åadr], EX-CALDĀRE > [åad¡]
(Horning 1887: 66) and (dialect of Liège) STĒLLA > steûle (siteûle), EX-TĔNDERE >
stinde (sitinde) (Haust 1933). The aphaeresis here is part of a more general
deletion process affecting word-initial unstressed etymological [e-] in these
dialects (cf. similar changes in Old Occitan, 4.4.3.4). Evidence of this develop-
ment is present in the 1236 charter where we find two forms <glise> ‘church’ and
<le veke> ‘the bishop’ which correspond to later medieval Walloon gléhe and
vèke.141 The implication is that forms in prefixal EX- > es- became identified with
etymological s impura words which had developed a prosthetic vowel, and when
aphaeresis operated both the prefixal and prosthetic vowel were lost, in a parallel
way to what happened widely in eastern Romance (cf. 4.3). It seems not unlikely
that at the stage when this development got under way, prosthesis was still
conditioned in etymological s impura forms. The change would therefore have
involved the generalization of the non-prosthetic alternant in these forms, ac-
companied by parallel aphaeresis in words containing prefixal EX-.
The [s] þ consonant word-initial onsets which had been re-established have
subsequently undergone various phonetic changes. In the late nineteenth century,
dialects in Lorraine showed word-initial [s]C-, [ʃ]C-, [x]C- and, very rarely, even
C- with deletion of any trace of the earlier sibilant (Horning 1887: 66–9), and
almost a century later various dialects of western Haut-Rhin (Alsace) and SE
Vosges (Lorraine) continue to have comparable onsets.142 However, in varieties
that are found, there is almost always a vowel-final word preceding, as in sa speie (ll. 127,
452) or de strain ‘of straw’ (l. 199).
141
The text of the charter is in Remacle (1948: 110–11). The apheretic form glise ‘church’
also appears frequently in the twelfth-century Psalter Commentary and the translation of
the sermons of St Bernard (Gregory 1990, 1994). Cf. also the names of the communes
Gleixhe and La Gleize, prov. of Liège (Remacle 1948: 129). The form vèke survives in the
place-name Plérvèke < pré l’ vèke ‘bishop’s meadow’ in present-day Jupille.
142
Cf. ALA especially pts. 111, 112, 113, 114, 128 (maps 97, 210, 744, 914). Point 113 is
Ranrupt for which a detailed monograph is also available (Aub-Büscher 1962). Both
sources report the reflex [x]C- for etymological s impura onsets in this locality, as in
[xpı̃Nk] ‘thorn’, [xkv] ‘broom’, [xtop] ‘tow, oakum’ < SPĪNA, SCŌPA, STŬPPA.
I-prosthesis 129
where the original fricative of word-initial [s]C- sequences underwent phonetic

change of some sort, the previously operative rule of change may not apply to
lexical items containing [s]C- which have been borrowed more recently. Thus, in
the Alsatian dialect of Ranrupt, original [s]C- > [x]C- but in later lexical loans
containing [s]C- this sequence remains unchanged, [sk‰l¡t] ‘skeleton’, [skr¡]
‘secret’ (Aub-Büscher 1962). In Wallonia, comparable phonetic adaption of
etymological SC- sequences has also occurred, giving [h-] or [ʃ-] (cf. ALW I:
map 32 écume). However, [sk-] onsets have later re-appeared through borrowing.
The reasons for the abandonment of I-prosthesis in these north-eastern
varieties of Gallo-Romance remain uncertain. However, they were geograph-
ically peripheral dialects spoken in transition areas between Romance and
Germanic where a substantial proportion of the population has long been
bilingual to varying degrees. As Germanic languages have always readily permit-
ted word-initial s impura onsets, the abandonment of the prosthetic alternant
may well have been partly promoted as a result of interference between the two
language systems. This view finds some support from other cases where pros-
thetic vowels have been lost in Romance areas exposed to linguistic interference
from Germanic or other languages (cf. 4.3.1 Balkan Romance, 4.4.4 Rheto-
Romance).
In eastern and central Walloon, following the abandonment of I-prosthesis and
the re-establishment of [s] þ consonant sequences as licensed onsets (including
[sk-] in borrowings), these underwent further change through epenthesis.
The earliest reported attestation of this development is the place-name Sitiers
(< STIRPUS) which appears in a document dated 1211 (Boutier 1995: 295). Further
examples are found in the following century in the Registre des Échevins de Revin
(Revin lies in the north of département of Ardenne), sepale = French épaule
c. 1350 ‘shoulder’ (< SPĀT(U)LA) and sekevins = French échevins from 1363 ‘deputy
mayor’ (< Frankish *skapin ‘judge’; cf. Old High German scaffin, mod. German
Schöffe ‘juror’); Bruneau (1913a: 389), Remacle (1948: 40–2). Epenthesis appears to
have arisen as a means of resolving the problem of syllabifying the heterosyllabic
s impura word-initial sequences which had been re-established. A crucial factor in
the use of epenthesis rather than some other repair strategy, however, lies in a
broader development that occurred in medieval Walloon. This was the weakening
which regularly affected vowels in unstressed syllables and led first to vowels
taking on a schwa-like quality. Subsequently, further weakening caused wide-
spread deletion, but in contexts where an unsyllabifiable consonant sequence
would arise, the schwa vowel was strengthened and assigned a more salient
quality (see Map 2 for the various qualities found). The result has been the
appearance of alternation between forms where deletion was able to occur and
forms where deletion of the vowel has been blocked and strengthening has taken
130 I-prosthesis
place.143 This alternating pattern is still to be found across central and eastern
Walloon varieties to the present day, as in:
with strengthening without strengthening
pol tchüvô ‘for the horse’ lü tch’fô ‘the horse’
por lü vinde ‘in order to sell it’ i l’mindje ‘he is eating it’
These appear in the south-eastern dialect of Bastogne (about 70 km south of
Liège) where [y] is used as the realization of the strengthened vowel (Francard
1981). As the examples indicate, proclitic forms as well as lexical words could be
affected. And since weakening to schwa never occurred in absolute word-initial
position, the alternating vowel is only found after the initial consonant of the
word concerned: l’ ! lü, tch’fô (with regressive assimilation of [v] > [f] following
voiceless tch) ! tchüvô, c’nüche ! cünüche ‘to know’, etc. It seems likely that the
same pattern of alternation was applied to s impura forms like scole ‘school’. As a
result, in contexts where a consonant-final word preceded in the same phonolog-
ical phrase or where there was a preceding pause, a new alternant was created
through the insertion of the same high vowel [i] or [y] that had developed in
forms which had experienced regular schwa strengthening. And, just as the new
high vowel was located after the word-initial consonant with forms like tchüvô, so
too epenthesis was adopted for s impura forms like scole ! sücole rather than
using prosthesis (** üscole).
Alternations of the type illustrated above are certainly still in evidence in
present-day Walloon, but the genuine productivity of the rule of epenthesis
with s impura forms is equivocal. Francard (1980: 197, n. 49), who bases his
observations specifically on the dialect of Bastogne, states that ‘cette règle est
toujours productive’ and cites alternations such as scole sücole. But it is also
noted (loc. cit.) that ‘les mots français d’introduction récente (scarole, scapulère,
scarlatine) ne sont plus régis par cette règle,’ i.e. they have no epenthetic alter-
nants. This would appear to indicate that the rule operates only with a closed set
of established lexical items and hence is no longer truly productive.
4.4.3.4 Langue d’oc

In southern Gallo-Romance, the development of I-prosthesis appears to
have followed the same path during the Middle Ages as it did in all langue
143
There is a clear affinity between the Walloon situation described here and one type
of prosthesis found in the nearby Picard speech area. In the latter case, regular deletion of
schwa has occurred in many proclitic forms and in unstressed initial syllables of lexical
items, e.g. those beginning in prefixal re-. To enable syllabification a prosthetic vowel, [a]
or some type of mid front vowel [e], has been introduced (cf. sections 6.1.4 and 6.1.5).
I-prosthesis 131
d’oı̈l varieties except those of the east and north-east. During the course of the
pre-literary period (i.e. pre-eleventh century), the great majority of Occitan
varieties evidently acquired a generalized rule of prosthesis for s impura words
and by the end of the medieval period the rule seems to have become established
throughout the langue d’oc area with the exception of three zones: a compact
central area lying SE of Clermont-Ferrand and two bands of peripheral dialects,
one located in the far east of Provence and the other adjacent to the central
Pyrenees. Outside these zones, the rule continued to be productive and
has remained so in many varieties up to the present day. However, in recent
times with the ever more invasive presence of standard French, the integrity of the
rule has been increasingly undermined in the varieties where it had continued to
operate.
Looking more closely at historical developments, we find that at the beginning
of the literary period the earliest extant texts indicate that there may still have
been residual alternation between prosthetic and non-prosthetic forms in some
varieties. Alternation certainly seems to be indicated in the two oldest extant
literary works although both of these are in verse and hence would be subject to
metrical constraints likely to influence the inclusion, or omission, of unstressed
vowels at word edges. Even so, it is notable that non-prosthetic forms are found
solely after a word ending in unstressed /-a/.144 Thus, in the Chanson de Sainte Foi
d’Agen (c. 1060) there are five non-prosthetic forms attested, e.g. la spina (l. 56),
umbra streins (l. 62), and all occur after a preceding word-final /-a/; these contrast
with sixteen prosthetic forms which appear in other phonological contexts.
Similarly, in the Boeci of c. 1100 (Schwarze 1963: 11–15) a preceding unstressed
/-a/ provides the only context which fails to trigger a prosthetic form, riqueza star
(83), a ferma schala (l. 149), etc., with just one anomaly auia escript (l. 205). The
many charters and official documents of the twelfth century from Quercy and
Albi show a comparable situation, with non-prosthetic forms regularly being
used after the article la but not elsewhere (Grafström 1958: }21). Thus, in an
Albigeois text dated 1120 (Brunel 1926–52: text 20), ella strada appears (96)
although prosthetic forms are also found, post-vocalically in so escriot (66) and
post-pausally in Esteves (93).145 The question therefore arises whether I-
144
If a preceding [a] is stressed, prosthesis is found as in fa estar (l. 162).
145
The same document also has a non-prosthetic form in II.as. stairadas (56–7).
Grafström (loc. cit.) suggests that stairadas ‘measures of grain’ may owe its lack of a
prosthetic vowel to haplology in syntagmas like tres s(es)tairadas (< SEXTARI-ATAS).
However, reflexes of non-derived SEXTARIUS frequently appear in early texts without a
prosthetic vowel; cf. Brunel (1926-52: text 34) from Quercy where forms such as II. steirs,
I. steir (11), IIII. sters (21) although VI. sesteirs (9) is also found.
132 I-prosthesis
prosthesis at this period was still becoming generalized in all post-vocalic con-
texts, or whether generalization of prosthesis had already occurred but subse-
quently aphaeresis had operated on prosthetic forms preceded by words ending
in unstressed /-a/. The aphaeretic treatment of la gleisa < EC(C)LĔSIA (8, 34) in this
text (and many others) together with other attested cases of aphaeresis like la
spleita, sa spleita ‘farmstead’ (< EXPLICITA) in a text of c. 1140 from Quercy (Brunel
1926-52: text 34, 10, 13, 14) suggest that the latter interpretation may be more
appropriate. However, it remains unclear why specifically unstressed final /-a/,
and not other final unstressed vowels, should provoke aphaeresis. If a tendency
for aphaeresis to operate was starting to get under way, the impression is that it
was soon abandoned in most (though not all) varieties and, crucially, in the
developing Occitan literary koinè (cf. Wunderli 1969: 54).
In the later Middle Ages and into the early modern period, two major tendencies
affecting prosthesis appear to have operated in the langue d’oc. On the one hand, in
the great majority of varieties I-prosthesis remained (or became established) as a fully
productive rule operating in all linguistic contexts including post-vocalically, just as
in Castilian and many other varieties of Ibero-Romance, cf. 4.4.2). Thus, Mushacke
(1884: }10) reports that prosthesis is regularly attested in medieval non-literary texts
from Montpellier and that it was still operative in the nineteenth century. Similarly,
the mainly fifteenth-century Thesaur del hospital de Sant Sperit from Marseille
shows widespread use of prosthetic forms, notwithstanding the final word of its
title. But occasionally prosthesis is not represented in forms following a word ending
in [s] and also sometimes post-pausally. Otherwise, items lacking a prosthetic vowel
represent either latinisms or graphies influenced by the traditional non-prosthetic
scribal usage of Provence (see next paragraph); cf. Glessgen (1989: 272).
On the other hand, a minority of Occitan varieties experienced aphaeresis
leading to the loss of the rule of prosthesis. Cases of aphaeresis of prosthetic and
etymological [e-] can be found in medieval documents. Texts from the far eastern
area of Provence are notable in this respect,146 and in the medieval Occitan variety
146
Wunderli (1969: 52–4) notes widespread aphaeresis in Occitan Bible translations
dating from the twelfth to sixteenth century most of which are of Provençal origin.
Zufferey (1987: 210) also reports aphaeresis in the fourteenth-century Guiraud
chansonnier (MS f) which was probably composed in the Arles area (e.g. speransa, star,
stage, spauen), and also in medieval documents from the arrondissement of Digne (Alpes-
Maritimes), in two epic poems preserved in a compilation made by a notary from Apt
(Alpes-Maritimes), and in some manuscripts of the Vie de Saint Honorat. Ronjat (II: }451)
notes that aphaeresis can be found in modern varieties of parts of the Pyrenean area and
eastern Aquitaine. Here, interestingly, aphaeresis occurs in prosthetic words when they are
preceded by a feminine singular definite article. No rationale is offered for this
phenomenon, however, and its possible link with the linguistic conditions found in the
earliest Occitan texts, noted above, remains unclear.
I-prosthesis 133
used by the Waldensians in south-eastern France, a similar loss of the vowel has
been reported.147 The present-day dialects of this area continue to provide
evidence of aphaeresis. Thus, the ALF pts 889 (Menton) and 890 (Fontan,
Breil) show non-prosthetic reflexes for SCĀLA, SPĪNA, STĒLLA, STRICTA (maps 436
échelle, 476 épine, 494 étoile, 524 (trop) étroite, and this is confirmed in the more
recent detailed dialectological study of Alpes-Maritimes by Dalbera (1994) which
found aphaeresis to be regular in the varieties of the Roya valley down to
Menton.148 The close proximity of this region to Liguria in north-western Italy
is highly significant, as the varieties spoken in the latter area likewise show
evidence of early aphaeresis (4.4.5). As a result, delicate interplay has occurred
in these transitional dialects between the conflicting patterns of prosthetic vowel
use that developed in medieval Occitan (where use of the vowel was generally
productive) and Ligurian. The fluid political history of the region heightened the
interplay. Nice and the territory which it controlled passed to the County of Savoy
in 1388 but this reverted to France in 1860, while Tende in the upper Roya valley
passed to Savoy in 1626 and became part of France once more in 1947.
Some equally peripheral varieties of Gallo-Romance lying further to the north
in the valleys of Vaud also continue to have aphaeretic forms (Wüest 1995: 439),
although in the adjacent area of Piedmont prosthetic forms were reported to be
usual in certain varieties at the end of the nineteenth century.149 Nauton (1974: 53,
223) reports a zone in southern Puy-de-Dôme and north-western Haute-Loire
where words beginning with unstressed a- and e- have been systematically
affected, as in [tsatar~¡] ‘we will buy (= French achèterons)’. As a consequence of
this change, previously occurring prosthetic vowels have been deleted, as in skòla
‘school’. Other varieties also undergoing aphaeresis are reported in parts of the
147
‘Sembra assente la protesi dinanzi a S þ consonante, anche in situazione
etimologica’ (Cornagliotti 1995: 470). The examples cited indicate that the absence of
prosthetic vowels is due to the action of aphaeresis: EXTRĀNEU(M) > strang, EXPRESSA-
MĔNTE > spresament, Germ. skirn- þ -TŌRE(M) > scarnidor.
148 , *SCŪRIU(M) emerge with a prosthetic vowel, [skola], [eskiro‰] in
However, SCOLA
Fontan, although Menton has non-prosthetic forms reported for these items (ALF 441
école, 450 écureuil). Ronjat (II, }321) provides a detailed overview of localities showing
aphaeresis and generalization of the non-prosthetic alternant.
149
Morosi (1888) records forms such as [ej’ka:lo], [ej’piNo] [ejly’Ja] < SCĀLA, SPĪNA, EX-
LUNGIĀRE ‘ladder, thorn, to move to a distance’ for the dialect of Prali (Germanasca Valley).
However, a little to the south, the dialect of Bobbio and Villar-Pellice (Pellice Valley) had
undergone aphaeresis to give [’ste:la] etc. and further down the same valley at Torre Pellice
aphaeresis was also general, although lexicalized prosthetic forms remain in the more
isolated mountain areas, such as [es’te:la], [es’pina]. The motivation for the drift towards
aphaeretic forms in these Piedmontese dialects is not clear.
134 I-prosthesis
Pyrenean area and eastern Aquitaine (Ronjat II: }451). The reasons for the
occurrence of aphaeresis in all these varieties, however, remain uncertain.
While the two opposing tendencies affecting the occurrence of I-prosthesis
were operating across different varieties of the langue d’oc, a further force for
change began to make itself felt from the late medieval period onward, namely the
influence of standard French. The increasing pressures of centralization in the
crystallizing French state led to ever greater use of standard French in the south.
Socially more advantaged speakers from urban areas were generally the first to be
affected by this new linguistic presence while speakers from rural areas, less
exposed to standardizing influences, have maintained the integrity of their
Occitan speech longer. An obvious source of tension for speakers of the many
Occitan varieties where prosthesis functioned as a fully productive rule was the
absence of prosthetic vowels in standard French pronunciation. Such was the
sociolinguistic pressure to conform with standard usage that sixteenth-century
southern speakers were already adapting to the new norm when using standard
French, at least in their writings. Nonetheless, traces of prosthetic usage still
appear not infrequently in the works of southerners such as Monluc and espe-
cially Brantôme (cf. 4.4.3.1). Less clear is how standard French was actually spoken
by southerners whose native Occitan variety had a productive rule of prosthesis.
Occasional comments, usually censorious, are made by sixteenth- and seven-
teenth-century grammarians on this question but these shed little clear light on
contemporary patterns of usage. Thus, Henri Estienne writes of the ‘vice’ of
saying estatuts, espectacle, espacieux, etc. and of hypercorrecting estomach (sic) to
stomach, and he attributes this pronunciation to speakers from Dauphiné, Lan-
guedoc, and ‘ces quartiers là.’ Also, as noted earlier, the grammarians Ménage and
Dumas single out Gascons for their ‘inappropriate’ use of a prosthetic e- as in
estupide, estile (Thurot I: 216).
In more recent times, the increasing exposure of southern speakers to the
standard language has tended progressively to undermine the use of I-prosthesis
in the langue d’oc area. In the regional French found there, the incidence of
prosthetic vowels has been reduced although indications of their continued presence
are given in twentieth-century studies. For instance, Brun (1931: 38) noted their
occurrence in words like esculpture, espécial, escrupule as ‘bien connu et toujours
persistant’ in Marseille, and a little later Séguy ([1950] 1978: 18) reported that
speakers of the français régional of Toulouse were still commonly saying estatue,
estylo. Standard French influence has also served to undermine the rule of prosthesis
in Occitan varieties where it had previously been productive. Thus, in the Gascon
dialect of Donzac there has been recent loss of productivity in prosthesis: ‘The Fr.
clusters made up of /s/ plus consonant were avoided in the past when word-initial by
a prosthetic [e-]; hence Donzacais /espektatýr/ ‘spectateur’ (15th cent. Fr. word),
/eskeléto/ ‘squelette’ (16th cent.). In more recent loans like /spesjalı́sto/ ‘spécialiste’
I-prosthesis 135
(19th cent.), /standardizá/ ‘standardizer’ (20th cent.), such initial consonant clusters
have become permissible sequences’ (Kelly 1973: 74).
A complex pattern with prosthesis seems to exist in the dialect of Notre-Dame-
de-Sanilhac in the Dordogne (Marshall 1984). Long-established s impura words
have undergone unconditioned prosthesis and subsequently pre-consonantal [s]
> [j], as in [ei’salP] [ei’pinP] [ei’kolP] < SCALA, SPĪNA, SCHOLA. Speakers evidently
view the initial vowel of these words now as part of their underlying form. More
recent loans beginning with /sC-/, however, are subject to conditioned prosthesis
with partial palatalization of the sibilant, as in [¡ʃtP’ty] ‘statue’, [¡ʃk¡’l¡tP]
‘skeleton’ (post-pausal citation forms) vs [ynPʃtPty] ‘a statue’, [ynPʃk¡’l¡tP] ‘a
skeleton (f.sg.)’ (post-vocalic) where [ynP] is the feminine singular definite
article. Speakers are reportedly conscious of the alternation in such words.
In other varieties, however, I-prosthesis may remain a fully productive process
irrespective of context. This is the case in the modern standardized forms of both
Provençal and Languedocian (based on usage in Toulouse). For the former,
Coupier (1995) cites examples such as escrupule, esculta ‘to sculpt’, escri ‘script’,
escrable ‘scrabble’; espountaniéu, espoutnik, espirau ‘spiral’, esfèro; estati ‘static’,
estatut, estatuo, estendardisto ‘switchboard operator’. For the latter, contemporary
newspapers in Languedocian offer cases such as Escandinaus, estagi (= Fr. stage),
estatisticament, especialista, estructura, estereotip alongside the forms belonging to
the inherited lexicon such as escala, espatla, escriure, estrech, estat.
4.4.4 R H E TO - RO M A N C E
Although individual varieties of Rheto-Romance may show considerable differ-

ences in their phonetic history, there is a high degree of similarity in their
treatment of I-prosthesis. The facts suggest that prosthesis did occur in the Late
Latin of the Rheto-Romance speech area, though it is unclear whether it ever
came to operate unconditionally. In the course of the medieval period, however,
aphaeresis evidently operated and unstressed word-initial [e-] in prosthetic and
other forms was deleted. As a result, no modern variety of Rheto-Romance
contains forms showing I-prosthesis nor are there attestations of such forms in
surviving texts. We can therefore only infer their possible existence in pre-literary
times from two types of persuasive internal linguistic evidence. On the one hand,
the common treatment of s impura forms and prefixal words beginning with EX-,
e.g. STĒLLA, EXTĔNDERE > (Upper Engadinish) štaila [’ʃtajla], štender [’ʃtender]
(Walberg 1907), is consistent with an interpretation that s impura forms under-
went vowel prosthesis in Late Latin before losing the vowel again later on. On the
other hand, the relatively high level of preservation of word-final consonants in
Rheto-Romance suggests that in the early Middle Ages I-prosthesis would prob-
ably have remained a productive process just as in other types of Romance where
136 I-prosthesis
final consonants were equally retentive, such as Ibero-Romance and Gallo-Ro-

mance. As we have seen, these showed a strong tendency to make systematic use
of I-prosthesis (4.4.2, 4.4.3).
The lack of any attestation for prosthetic vowels indicates that they were
deleted well before the end of the medieval period. In Friulian, where vernacular
texts become available from the fourteenth century, the earliest documents
contain only non-prosthetic forms. Thus, a private letter dated c. 1300 contains
(post-vocalic) ti scriv, ti scrif and (post-consonantal) par scriviti ‘to write to you’,
and the fourteenth-century ballad Piruç myò doç inculurit contains a strit ‘in
dispute’ and the phrase dut stoy ardit ‘I am all full of life’ five times in the refrain
(Sampson 1980: texts 67, 68). Substantial texts in the vernacular of the Grisons
only date from the sixteenth century (and, for Ladin, the eighteenth century;
Kuen 1995: 62), and by then no direct trace of earlier prosthetic vowels remains.
For example, in Jakob Bifrun’s translation of the New Testament into Engadinish
published in 1560, we consistently find non-prosthetic forms being used in all
phonological contexts: (post-consonantal) schi füs sto pussibel dalg scriver ‘if it
had been possible to write it’, (post-vocalic) la sanchia scritüra ‘the holy scripture’
(post-consonantal and post-vocalic) chi saien stôs stampôs ne scrits ‘that may have
been printed or written (m.pl.)’ all of which appear in the Prologue, and (post-
pausal) Stêd dimê cun vos flaungs schintôs ‘Stand therefore (having) your loins girt
about’ in Ephesians 6. 14.
Given the relative lack of medieval vernacular documentation in Rheto-
Romance, it is difficult to identify the reasons for the early abandonment of I-
prosthesis. Certainly, in a Romance perspective the general preservation of Latin
word-final consonants in the Grisons and the Ladin area might be expected to
have encouraged the maintenance of prosthesis there, at least as a sandhi process
operating when original s impura forms occurred post-consonantally or post-
pausally. Nonetheless, this has not happened. A possible factor to account for this
might be sought in the linguistic interference that resulted from the increasingly
widespread bilingualism with Germanic during the Middle Ages in the Grisons
and the Ladin area, particularly as Germanic has always permitted word-initial
/sC-/ sequences. Indeed, it has been observed that where one language commu-
nity exerts strong cultural pressure on another, ‘moderate structural borrowing’
including the introduction of new syllable structure constraints can and does
occur (Thomason and Kaufman 1988: 75).150 In view of the cultural and linguistic
150
The interference between Germanic and Grisons Rheto-Romance has been much
studied, notably in the classic study of Weinreich (1953). In this work, some aspects of
phonological interference are addressed but unfortunately these relate exclusively to
phonemic systems. Nothing is said on areas such as syllable structure or sandhi
phenomena.
I-prosthesis 137
pressure long exerted on Rheto-Romance varieties by northern Italian and

especially Germanic in both of which word-initial s impura onsets were licensed,
appeal to linguistic interference from these outside sources would seem to offer at
least a partial explanation for the abandonment of prosthesis. A parallel may be
found in the retreat from I-prosthesis in other more peripheral Romance areas
similarly exposed to intense outside linguistic interference, Balkan-Romance
(4.3.1) and north-eastern Gallo-Romance (4.4.3.3).
4.4.5 N O RT H E R N I TA LO - RO M A N C E
The history of I-prosthesis in northern Italo-Romance is problematic. As north-

ern Italy is a non-peripheral area in western Romance, we might expect that the
use of prosthetic vowels with s impura forms generally extended during the
Middle Ages and commonly led to the establishment of an unconditioned rule
of I-prosthesis, as was the case in Ibero-Romance and most of Gallo-Romance.
However, this evidently did not happen. The earliest vernacular texts, which
appeared in the later medieval period, already suggest that in general I-prosthesis
had failed fully to take root as a phonological rule, although some cases of
(typically contextually conditioned) prosthetic vowels do continue to occur in
certain medieval texts, especially from the north-west of Italy. Complicating our
understanding of the use of I-prosthesis in this area has been the gulf that has
often existed since the medieval period between actual spoken usage and written
conventions which have generally ignored prosthetic vowels even when it seems
highly probable that in reality they were present. Even in more recent times,
although brief mention is occasionally made by linguists of the existence of
prosthetic vowels in certain northern Italian varieties, no formal account seems
to have been attempted of their incidence. Against this background, it is particu-
larly difficult to obtain a faithful picture of the history of I-prosthesis in northern
Italo-Romance.
The philological evidence relating to the use of prosthesis in the Imperial
period in northern Italian varieties is equivocal. Inscriptions from CIL V, which
covers Cisalpine Gaul, contain just seven cases (three pagan and four Christian)
showing vowel prosthesis according to Prinz (1938: 106). However, although the
total of seven is modest, it is the same as, for example, the Iberian Peninsula where
subsequent generalization in the use of I-prosthesis has occurred. Evidence of a
more revealing nature comes from early medieval texts, for here we find markedly
fewer indications of prosthesis than in comparable texts from early medieval
Spain or France (cf. 4.4.2, 4.4.3 above). For instance, in the set of official papyri
written between 445 and 700 and edited by Tjäder (1955), there are very few
instances of prosthetic vowels or of aphaeresis in texts composed in northern
Italy. All the relevant examples of prosthesis occur in the signatures (i.e. formal
138 I-prosthesis
depositions) of witnesses and are matched elsewhere by corresponding forms

where prosthesis or aphaeresis has not been indicated. Prosthetic forms appear in
two northern texts from Ravenna both of which date from about 600: expathario
and ØÆÆæ[ . . . ] (= ispatar[ . . . ]) < SPATĀRIU(M) ‘weapon bearer’ in papyrus 16
(both are post-pausal), and sipraiscripta < SUPRA-SCRĪPTA twice in papyrus 20. The
latter, which seems to show internal prosthesis, occurs in the signature of the sixth
and final witness where interestingly other signs of less Classical-style usage are
also found, such as donacionis as against the spelling donationis appearing in
other signatures. There is just one example of aphaeresis, in non amplius spectata
(papyrus 8, Ravenna 564 AD), where the final word derives from EXSPECTĀTA
(cf. 4.1.1).151
Prosthesis is even more poorly attested in the corpus of thirty-two legal
charters dating from 568–774 which come from Lombard northern Italy.152
They contain only one example of a prosthetic vowel, and cases of aphaeresis
are equally rare with just two examples occurring (Politzer and Politzer 1953: 2,
11). The circumstances in this northern subset of Lombard legal documents are
thus in marked contrast to those apparent in the corresponding subset composed
in Tuscany where prosthetic vowels are widely indicated, as we have seen (4.3.3).
The relatively low level of attestation for prosthetic vowels in early medieval
northern Italian texts is striking and difficult to explain. It may reflect superior
and more widespread knowledge of Classical Latin-style spelling conventions
amongst local scribes. Alternatively, it could indicate that already the use of
prosthesis in speech was already becoming more limited in the geographical
areas or social circles that the scribes came from, though the reasons for this
are not clear. Perhaps a combination of these two explanations comes closest to
the truth.
Significant numbers of vernacular texts start to appear in northern Italy
from the thirteenth century onward and these reveal significant variation in
the incidence of I-prosthesis. Regional differences are evident, particularly be-
tween Piedmont in the north-west where a productive rule of (contextually
conditioned) prosthesis has become established and varieties of the centre and
east where the incidence of prosthetic vowels appears more restricted and indeed in
some varieties I-prosthesis may already have been abandoned altogether. Complex
sociolinguistic factors were to lead to further differences. In particular, the
development of prestigious latinizing written linguistic models, much influenced
151
In a detailed linguistic study based on the documents in Tjäder (1955), Carlton (1973:
203–6) reports eight examples of prosthetic vowels. However, five of these are found in a
text composed in Rome in the early seventh century (papyri 18–19), the relevant form being
ab Istefano five times. Such data are clearly not helpful in determining linguistic patterns in
northern Italy.
152
The documents appear in Schiaparelli (1929-33).
I-prosthesis 139
by literary Tuscan, and their increasing top-down diffusion acted against the use of
I-prosthesis since this linguistic phenomenon enjoys at best a marginal status in any
of the models.
Looking at the different outcomes of I-prosthesis in northern Italy, we may begin
with the north-west. Here, there seems to have been a rapid abandonment of
prosthesis in Liguria, but in Piedmont the process has continued to be productive.
The earliest substantial vernacular text from the latter area is the Sermoni subalpini
dating from about 1200 and containing in all twenty-two sermons.153 These have
seventy-seven direct examples of prosthetic vowels such as en escrit (19, 46), la
sainta Escritura (19, 17), avem esperanza (11, 59), tote le especie (16, 67), sore le espine
(17, 23), dis l’espos (8, 120), qui estan (9, 266 and 277), where the references are to the
edition of Clivio and Danesi (1974). If sections of text written in Latin are excluded,
there are only three cases where prosthesis was possible but is not indicated;
all involve learned latinizing forms, speciosa (8, 54), spiritali (12, 73), spiritalment
(6, 11). In the prosthetic examples, the vowel is indicated as being of a mid quality,
either [e] or perhaps centralized [‰].154 As might be expected, the prefixal vowel
[e-] is consistently represented, esforcer (16, 83), esgarder (4, 4), esteigner (5, 129),
esveiller (3, 43), < EX-FORTIĀRE, EX-ward-ĀRE, EXTINGUERE, EX-VIGILĀRE.
Thereafter, prosthetic vowels are only directly indicated on rare occasions in
Piedmontese texts. Isolated examples are found in fourteenth- and fifteenth-
century writings (Clivio 1971: 338 n. 11) but the practice of representing the
vowel orthographically generally disappears, perhaps as a result of a combination
of factors: the preferential use of a Latinizing spelling, the phonologically
conditioned nature of the prosthesis (post-consonantal only), and later on the
influence exerted by standard literary Italian. However, even if the vowel ceased to
be represented in writing, it evidently remained in productive use in spoken usage
although it was never extended in distribution to include more than just post-
consonantal contexts. The evidence of the Sermoni subalpini is therefore curious
since prosthetic vowels appear in post-vocalic contexts too. This exceptional
characteristic of the Sermoni may reflect influence from adjacent Gallo-Romance
varieties where, as we have seen, I-prosthesis had come to operate in all phono-
logical contexts by the end of the twelfth century.
Despite the near-total absence of indications of I-prosthesis in later medieval
and early modern texts, linguistic studies of modern Piedmontese show that I-
prosthesis remains a productive process not only in the koinè based on Turinese
but also across almost all local varieties in Piedmont. The phonetic value of the
prosthetic vowel varies a good deal, appearing as [‰] in the koinè and [a], [A], [N]
153
On the basis of internal phonological and lexical evidence, Danesi (1976: 99)
identifies the south-west of Piedmont as the place of composition of the sermons.
154
In the sermons, there is just one example of the graphy <i->, istà (10, 52).
140 I-prosthesis
etc. in other varieties. However, it is represented uniformly in spelling as <ë>

following its somewhat belated (re)introduction to written Piedmontese thanks
to spelling reforms dating from around 1930. In modern usage, I-prosthesis with
s impura forms continues to be contextually determined, operating only when the
preceding word is consonant-final. Thus, in the koinè we find la stèila ‘a star’ but
set ëstèile ‘seven stars’, mi i scrivo ‘I write’ but ti it ëscrive ‘you (sg.) write’ and për
ëscrit ‘in writing’ (Brero 1971: 23). However, in contexts where the preceding
consonant is a rhotic or a glide, i.e. a maximally sonorous and vowel-like
segment, the appearance of the prosthetic vowel is reported to be optional
‘without any ascertainable conditioning factor, other than perhaps the speed at
which one is talking,’ as in [‰n ’f¡r (‰)s’pPrk] ‘a dirty iron, knitting-needle’
(Clivio 1971: 338). No prosthetic vowel appears in post-pausal contexts; for
instance, [le ’trPp ‰str¡jta] ‘it’s too tight (f.sg.)’ but [le ’trPp # str¡jta] l’é tròp . . .
strèita where an intervening pause blocks the use of a prosthetic vowel (Clivio loc.
cit.). Citation forms are therefore always non-prosthetic. This distributional
limitation, if it directly descends from original patterns of usage in Late Latin,
would offer support to the three-stage view of actualisation in I-prosthesis (4.1.4).
The same distributional pattern found with s impura forms is adopted in the
Piedmontese koinè by words containing complex heterosyllabic onsets created by
later syncope of an initial unstressed vowel, e.g. [doi ’pnas] ‘two tails’ but [ses
‰p’nas] ‘six tails’ < *DUI / SEX P(I)NN-ACIOS (Clivio 2002: 161; cf. also 6.1.4).155 And
predictably, in the Piedmontese koinè as elsewhere in Romania continua, the
evolution of the prosthetic vowel has been directly related to that of prefixal
[e-]. Thus, the same pattern of alternation is found in forms such as zbarüé ‘to
frighten’ as against gat ëzbarüà ‘frightened cat’ (< EX-PAVORĀRE), with an initial
vowel in post-consonantal contexts (Aly-Belfàdel 1933: } 45).
In other Piedmontese varieties, differences exist in the details of the application
of I-prosthesis. For instance, in the transitional Piedmontese-Ligurian dialect of
Cairo Montenotte the prosthetic vowel may sometimes be omitted following a
word ending in a sonorant as in [a suN ’ʃtPja ’li] ‘I (fem.) have been there’ where
[’ʃtPja] < STĀTA (Parry 2005: 95). In the northern Piedmontese dialect of Viver-
one spoken NE of Turin, phonetically the difference between prosthetic and
155
This is not true for all Piedmontese varieties. For example, in the variety spoken in
Cairo Montenotte, I-prosthesis remains a productive process typically involving a front
vowel [i], [e], or [¡], as in ra sc-pala ‘the shoulder’ but in isc-pala ‘on one’s shoulder’ where
sc- indicates [ʃ] (Parry 2005: 95–8). The prosthesis arising from the later creation of
complex word-initial onsets involves [a-] which has now been lexicalized in the forms
Ð
concerned, e.g. amsuria [am’surja] ‘scythe’, avgè [av’q¡] ‘to watch over’ (< MESSŌRIA,
VIGILĀRE).
I-prosthesis 141
non-prosthetic forms is reported to be more evident when the preceding

conditioning word is a grammatical particle (article or clitic pronoun) as in
l’ëskulé ‘the schoolboy’, kwatt ëskulé ‘four schoolboys’ but elsewhere skulé.156 In
the Valsesia in NE Piedmont, the occurrence of the prosthetic vowel has been
limited to just contexts where a proclitic article precedes, as in l’aspós ‘the
husband’, n’askü ‘a shield’ < SPŌNSU(M), SCŪTU(M) (Spoerri 1918: } 119).
Elsewhere in northern Italo-Romance, I-prosthesis has tended to be less reten-
tive than in Piedmontese. It has widely lost ground in more formal registers and
amongst more educated speakers, but nonetheless it appears to have remained in
productive use in many areas as a low-level sandhi feature in more informal
registers. In the north-east of Italy, the earliest surviving Venetian texts from the
late thirteenth and fourteenth century provide evidence of the retreat of prosthe-
sis. Notarial documents, which form the majority of non-literary writings, show
generalized loss. For example, in a deposition dating from 1299 there are no
examples of the vowel even post-consonantally, è stado, per spensarie, ai scrito, da
Meo speciale (Stussi 1965: text 19). A rare instance of a prosthetic vowel being
represented in writing comes in a private text, a mercantile record of accounts
from 1307, where per Istefanotto occurs (Stussi, text 42). Yet, in the same text we
also find per Stefanoto. Various explanations are possible for the scribal variation
here: (i) that the prosthetic vowel was a current feature in speech but not
normally indicated in writing except through inattention, (ii) that its occurrence
was unusual in speech and occurred only (variably) in post-consonantal contexts,
(iii) that the individual concerned may have come from another part of Italy
where vowel prosthesis was normal at this time, e.g. Florence, and would have
called himself Istefanotto, so that a writer might sporadically choose to represent
this pronunciation.157 The last two possibilities are perhaps more likely than the
first. At all events, moves towards the general abandonment of I-prosthesis in
Venetian appear to be well under way by the later Middle Ages. The reasons for
this remain unclear. Here, as in other northern cities, we may suppose that an
important factor in helping to hasten the abandonment, at least in written usage
and presumably in more formal spoken registers too, in later medieval centuries
was the growing influence of the emerging standard written Italian language
where prosthetic vowels (and prefixal [e-]) had only a very marginal status.
156
Data from Nigra ([1901]1973: 253). The relative salience of the prosthetic vowel
depends on the degree of syntactic cohesion between the s impura form and the
preceding word. When the s impura form follows a semi-lexical rather than proclitic
consonant-final word, the prosthetic vowel (“vocale copulativa” or link vowel, as Nigra
terms it) is reported to be scarcely perceptible. This explains the superscript representation.
157
A counterpart can be found in the practice followed in the correspondence of the
Datinis when they refer to Francesco Datini’s assistant Stoldo di Lorenzo di ser Berizo. His
name appears variably as Istoldo or Stoldo depending on context (see also 4.3.3).
142 I-prosthesis
However, there may already have been internal forces in Venetian that were
undermining the process of I-prosthesis. We can only speculate on what these
might have been.158
Beyond the city of Venice and ‘good’ usage there, however, I-prosthesis seems
to have survived as a productive process in at least some local forms of speech of
the Veneto. Thus, in the transitional area between western Veneto and eastern
Lombardy the form [nel es’p¡tʃ] ‘in the mirror’ is reported for pt. 248 (Limone)
in AIS 4, map 675, where a prosthetic vowel appears characteristically in post-
consonantal position.159
In Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna, a similar picture emerges. In the former
area, latinizing practice and (from the thirteenth century) influence from the
emerging Tuscan-based literary language coloured written vernacular usage
amongst the cultivated elites of major cities like Milan and this doubtless affected
educated spoken usage too.160 Already in the earliest surviving vernacular texts
from Lombardy there are no direct indications of prosthetic vowels. Thus, in the
2440 line poem known as the Sermone composed in 1274 by the Milanese poet
Pietro da Barsegapè (< Basilica Petri), no prosthetic vowels are directly indicated
and there is widespread aphaeresis. For example, we find in scoso ‘in the bosom’
(l. 1200), con spade (l. 1372), per scampare ‘to escape’ (l. 1997), se lagaven scortegare
‘they let themselves be flayed’ (l. 2080), where the relevant etyma are (Langob.)
skauz (REW 7986), SPĀTHAS, EX-CAMPĀRE, EX-CORTICĀRE, respectively. The only graphy
that suggests the possible presence of prosthesis is the form inestabile ‘unstable,
variable’ (l. 386). There is a clear resemblance between this item and graphies found
in other regions dating from Late Imperial and early medieval times where
‘internal’ prosthesis appears as in INISTANTE for INSTANTE (cf. 4.1.1). It may therefore
be that we have here a rare residual example of the early tendency to restructure
sequences of consonant þ s impura by vowel insertion. If so, the implication is that
the tendency was abandoned in Lombardy more rapidly across word boundaries
158
For instance, it may be that the greater levels of preservation of word-final vowels in
the Veneto area was significant as this would statistically have favoured the use of non-
prosthetic alternants. However, the contemporary circumstances in popular medieval
Tuscan usage (cf. 4.3.3) would prove problematic for such a hypothesis.
159
Pt. 248 stands out in bold relief, since nearby locations all have forms with no trace
of a prosthetic vowel; [alʃp¡tʃ] for pts. 427 (Baura, Ferrara) and 443 (Tizzano), and
[intalsp¡tʃ] for pt. 423 (Parma).
160
Cf. Lurati (1988: 499), ‘Almeno dal Duecento il milanese non ha cessato di
avvicinarsi al modello fonetico italiano, abbandonando progressivamente tratti locali.’ In
turn, the enormous linguistic influence of Milan on usage elsewhere in western Lombardy
over many centuries doubtless played some part in the disappearance of the rule of I-
prosthesis in varieties of this area (1988: 489–91).
I-prosthesis 143
than word-medially.161 A similar situation is found in the works of the poet

Bonvesin da la Riva (d. c. 1315), also from Milan. For example, his De Sathana
cum Virgine contains no examples of prosthesis and many instances of aphaeresis,
no’m lassa in stao ‘does not let me be’ (l.14), strabello e in grand splendor ‘very fine
and in great splendour’ (l. 115), e trop stragrand desnor ‘and very great dishonour’
(l.199).162 The fifteenth-century prose text Elucidario, although of less certain
geographical background but certainly from the Milan region (Gasca Queirazza
1995: 103), likewise has forms such as mete in scrigo ‘put in writing’ (Prologue), cazé
del prumer stao ‘he fell from the first state’ (I, 36), per scampare (II, 13), illi in
scampay ‘they have escaped’ (II, 29), con spagurose contegne ‘with fearsome appear-
ances’ (III, 12), but cases of non-aphaeresis are found which may reflect learned
influence, e.g. per esperienza (I, 87), cotale ustruminti (II, 9).163
In eastern Lombardy, there are comparable indications of the abandonment of
I-prosthesis in written usage. A fourteenth-century verse composition from
Bergamo on the Ten Commandments contains graphies such as in sperzur ‘in
perjury’ (l. 21), se trova scripto (l. 31), no posemo stare (l. 83), in scifi ‘in vileness’
(l. 91), s’ol strasinava ‘he dragged him’ (l. 92) (Lorck 1893), and a fifteenth-century
document on notarial practice includes per stipulatió, lasarà star, del spectabel
miser lo zudes ‘of the respectful lord judge’ (Tomasoni 1985). And the two earliest
known vernacular prose texts from Brescia which date from 1393 and 1412 contain
forms such as gom scomés ‘we began’, tu fos stath ‘you had been (subj.)’, de queli
plagi spander el to sanc ‘from those wounds to shed your blood’, in special (Bonelli
and Contini 1935).
To the south, the situation in the peripheral usage of Cremona and Mantua is
broadly comparable. Cremonese is not well attested until the later Middle Ages, and
when texts do become available from the mid fifteenth century, the representation of
their phonology and morphology is already ‘fatalmente condizionata dal modello
toscaneggiante’ (Grignani 1980: 55). Thus, in surviving financial accounts of build-
ing works, there is no sign of prosthesis and numerous instances of aphaeresis: per
spaltar el stadiol ‘to floor the wooden loggia’ (IV, 27), per stange ‘for bars’ (IV, 21), per
spazadurra ‘for sweeping’ (V, 12). Mantua, in contrast, has texts in volgare from the
thirteenth century. Five letters written between merchants survive, the earliest
dating from about 1282. These provide evidence of the abandonment of prosthesis,
in stanfortin ‘in stamford (type of prized woollen fabric originating in Stamford)’
(I, 21), per sbrigà (II, 10), in quator stanforti (I, 23). A little later, in the first decade of
161
Keller (1934: 86), it may be noted, suggests a possible etymon in þ instabile rather
than IN-STABILE for this word. This seems less plausible.
162
Examples from the edition of Contini (1941). All the readings cited concur with the
reading of Gökçen (1996).
163
Examples drawn from the edition by Degli Innocenti (1984).
144 I-prosthesis
the fourteenth century, a vernacular version of a medieval Latin encyclopaedic work

was composed by the notary Vivaldo Belcalzer. Here too, prosthesis is absent and
aphaeresis normal, as in the section on thunder where forms are found such as col so
sforzoso impet squarza e fend le nuvolie ‘with its violent blast it shreds and splits the
clouds’, el splendor, and adus sonor, strepit e fragor ‘it brings din, uproar and
shattering’ (Schizzerotto 1985: 13–18, 37–8).
However, at an informal spoken level there is evidence to suggest that I-
prosthesis remained productive, albeit contextually determined. For instance, in
a compact group of varieties spoken around Trento a prosthetic and prefixal
vowel [e-] has continued in use, occurring exclusively in post-consonantal con-
texts, as in per escriver ‘to write’, per estrada ‘on the way’, per escomésa ‘as a wager’,
son estrac ‘I am tired’, l’aven espaventà ‘we frightened him’, piat espars ‘spilled dish’
(Tomasini 1951). The distribution here is therefore directly comparable to that
found widely in Piedmont.
In Emilia-Romagna, a similar picture to that of Lombardy emerges. Textual
evidence suggests a relatively early retreat from I-prosthesis in more formal usage,
as in a Bolognese proclamation dated 1294 which contains the forms d’onne
condizione e stato and en scripto twice (Frati 1900: 249). In this text, there are
other unmistakable signs of Tuscanizing influence, as in forms like trovato,
cuocho.164 Bolognese texts from the following century offer further apparent
evidence of the abandonment of I-prosthesis and are also marked by Tuscan
influence. There are three business letters dating from 1320–50 which each contain
the formulaic phrase averme per scluxà (= per scusato) ‘to excuse me’ (Stella
1969),165 while a mid fourteenth-century medicinal work contains e schiva ‘and
avoids’, grogo scropollo ‘one twenty-fourth of an ounce of saffron’, toi stercho ‘take
(imper.) droppings’, and post-pausal scorçe de mele granate ‘pomegranate peel’
(Longobardi 1994). There are no instances of I-prosthesis in either text. The
available evidence therefore appears to suggest that the rule was steadily losing
productivity in more educated, formal usage during the Middle Ages in this area
of northern Italy too. Though the original motivating force leading to the
elimination of I-prosthesis in the formal registers used by the more favoured
literate classes of society are unclear, the later influence of the Tuscan-based
literary standard language doubtless contributed to the non-prosthetizing ten-
dency.
164
The evident influence of Tuscan has been noted in an even earlier document dated
1260 which survives from Imola (Bertoni 1908–11).
165
Cf. the Tuscan counterpart appearing in the slightly later Datini letters, e.g.
Francesco (17.4.1397) tera’mi per ischusatto ‘you will excuse me’, Margherita (23.11.1398)
che voi l’abiate per ischusato ‘that you excuse it’.
I-prosthesis 145
However, amongst the less uneducated majority of Emilia-Romagna, there is

some evidence to suggest that the use of I-prosthesis with s impura forms
continued in post-consonantal contexts. Particularly significant are more recent
reports by linguists of varieties in which the continued occurrence of
conditioned prosthesis is noted (usually rather perfunctorily, unfortunately).
For example, in the late nineteenth century, Gorra (1890: 153) mentions that in
the variety of Piacenza the prosthetic vowel [a-] still appeared with s impura
forms in post-consonantal contexts. In the variety of Travo, spoken some 27 km
south of Piacenza, [a-] continues to operate as a prosthetic vowel before
s impura forms occurring post-consonantally, as in [ern astrak] ‘they (m.pl.)
were tired’ (Zörner 1989: 64). And in the variety of Grizzano Morandi (located
40 km south of Bologna), the structure of clitic verb phrases such as [al
ti’stofen] ‘they (f.) are boring you’ vs [at’v¡den] ‘they (f.) see you’ indicates
the operation of prosthesis, this process occurring when a consonant-final clitic
precedes an s impura form (Loporcaro 1998). However, here as in other north-
ern Italian varieties, the action of I-prosthesis has overlapped with U-prosthesis
which applied later in the Middle Ages to words containing new heterosyllabic
word-initial sequences that had developed in various parts of northern Italy,
especially Piedmont and Emilia-Romagna (see Chapter 6). The result was that
normally a common vowel type was generalized for both categories of prosthe-
sis; for instance, in Grizzanese, the prosthetic vowel [i] in forms such as [al
ti’vde:ven] ‘they (f.) saw you’ which was triggered by U-prosthesis is identical to
that of [al ti’stofen]. As a consequence, this later prosthetizing process has
served to mask to some extent the operation of the change specifically brought
about earlier on by I-prosthesis.
In sum, it seems that I-prosthesis has operated in an unbroken way from Late
Latin times across a range of varieties of northern Italo-Romance, and especially
those of Piedmont and Emilia-Romagna. However, there is no solid evidence to
indicate that it ever came to apply systematically in other than post-consonantal
contexts. The factors which limited its generalization to other contexts remain
unclear. From the later Middle Ages onward, a pattern not unlike that in later
medieval Tuscan appears to have developed, whereby the use of I-prosthesis was
progressively abandoned in more formal written registers while in informal
spoken registers and in the usage of the less educated majority it continued to
operate widely as a conditioned process. This pattern has continued until recent
times, but it remains to be seen how far the prosthetizing lects will be affected in
the future by the various sociolinguistic forces which have been increasingly
promoting familiarity with the standard variety in Italy where of course I-pros-
thesis is effectively absent.
5
A-prosthesis
5.1 Introduction
A-prosthesis appears to have arisen somewhat later chronologically than I-pros-

thesis, which was discussed in the preceding chapter. Nevertheless, there is evi-
dence to show that it had become an active phonological process in some varieties
of Romance before the end of the first millennium AD. Its typical effect has been to
introduce a low vowel [a-] (hence our term ‘A-prosthesis’), although occasionally
a different vowel quality may develop. Illustrative examples appear in Figure 5.1.
Gasc. Sardinian Arom.
RĪDERE ar'riðe ar'ri:ði a'rîdire1 ‘to laugh’
RĪVU(M) ar'riu ar'ri:u a'rîu 2 ‘river’
RĀMU(M) ar'ram ar'ra:mu a'raru< RĀRU(M)3 ‘branch’ ‘rare’
RŎTA ar'roðo or'r :ða
c a'roat e ‘wheel’
RŬBEU(M) ar'rui or'ruβiu a'roı̆bu ‘red’
FIGURE 5.1. Romance examples of A-prosthesis

Sources: Gascon: ALG pt. 697NE (Barèges); Sardinian: AIS pt. 959 (Baunei) and Böhne
(2003); Aromanian: Papahagi (1974)
At first sight, A-prosthesis differs significantly from both the other major
categories of prosthesis found in Romance. For whereas I-prosthesis and
1
Papahagi (1974) also reports a variant infinitival form [ari’dĕare] which presumably
derives from paroxytonic RIDĒRE. It will be recalled that the Classical Latin infinitive form
was also paroxytonic (RIDĒRE) but that this form underwent widespread restructuring in
Late Latin to proparoxytonic RĪDERE, hence Fr. rire, Ital. ridere, etc. Whether the modern
paroxytonic Aromanian form shows faithful preservation of the Classical infinitive stress
pattern or whether it represents a later restructuring back from the Late Latin
proparoxytonic form is uncertain.
2
Here, as in subsequent transcriptions of Aromanian, [u] serves to indicate a short
non-syllabic vocalic off-glide. In all Aromanian varieties except Farserotic, which is spoken
in northern Greece, word-final unstressed –u is non-syllabic after simplex consonants but
syllabic after consonant groups, e.g. aspargu [as’pargu] ‘I sprinkle’; cf. Daco-Romanian
sparg (Caragiu Marioţeanu 1977: 176–7).
3
There appears to be no reflex of Latin RĀMU(M) in Aromanian.
A-prosthesis 147
U-prosthesis (to be discussed in Chapter 6) can be seen to represent transparent

restructuring processes which serve to simplify complex heterosyllabic word-
initial syllable onsets, no such interpretation seems possible for A-prosthesis
since it operates on words whose initial syllable originally contained a simple
onset composed of a single consonant. Indeed, the development here might even
be seen as destroying simplicity since it led to the replacement of a word-initial
syllable containing an optimal CV structure by a new onset-less syllable contain-
ing a coda: CiV->VCi-CiV- (where ‘Ci’ indicates a given type of consonant),4
although the coda consonant has subsequently been eliminated in some, but not
all, of the Romance varieties concerned. However, as we shall see, the structural
basis to A-prosthesis probably has more similarities to that of the other two
categories of Romance prosthesis than appears to be the case.
5.1.1 I D E N T I F I C AT I O N
Before examining the nature and historical development of A-prosthesis in more

detail, we may address the problem of how genuine cases of this phenomenon in
Romance can be safely identified. In many instances, the presence of A-prosthesis
appears clear and uncontroversial. Thus, in Gascon, the historical derivation of
items like RĪVU(M) > [ar’riu] ‘river’ cited above would seem to provide an
indisputable instance, since not only is there addition of a word-initial [a-] to
the etymological form but precisely the same modification is found occurring
systematically in other words similarly beginning with etymological R-. Since the
process has operated irrespective of grammatical properties of the words
concerned, e.g. their syntactic word-class, (cf. RĔM > [ar’reN] ‘nothing’, ROTA >
[ar’roðo] ‘wheel’, RŬBEU(M) > [ar’rui] ‘red’, RĪDERE > [ar’riðe] ‘to laugh’, etc.), it
may be assumed to have a phonological basis just like the two other major
categories of Romance prosthesis.
However, as has been noted (1.7), it is not uncommon for a new word-initial
[a-] to arise in Romance as a result of non-phonological factors. These include (i)
prefixation; (ii) morpheme-boundary reinterpretation where the final vowel [-a]
of determiners, especially reflexes of UNA, ILLA, or IPSA in noun phrases, is inter-
preted by speakers as belonging to the start of a following (feminine) noun; (iii)
analogical remodelling, as in Sp. avispa ‘wasp’ (< VĔSPA) which was re-formed on
4
In Optimality Theory terms, A-prosthesis would thus cause a violation of two
constraints: ONSET and, in medieval varieties at least, NOCODA.
148 A-prosthesis
the model of abeja ‘bee’ (< APICULA); and (iv) lexical borrowing from another
variety where words with initial [a-] were widespread. A well-known example of
(iv) is to be found in the numerous loans from Arabic into Ibero-Romance, the
great majority of which were nominals borrowed with the Arabic definite article
a(l)- that was subsequently interpreted as part of the stem.5 However, undoubt-
edly the most statistically significant of these non-phonological sources of new
words containing an unstressed initial [a-] has been type (i) involving the prefix
AD-. Prefixal forms of this sort (typically verbs) have continuously been created
across Romania continua from Roman times, as in AD-RIPĀRE ‘to reach the shore’
) ‘to arrive’>(Fr.) arriver, (Port., Sp., Cat.) arribar, (Gasc.) arribà, and right up
to the present day as in (It.) ap-prezzare ‘to value’, (Fr.) ap-parenter ‘to ally, link’,
(Rom.) a-lăpta ‘to suckle’, etc., where the prefix has increasingly come to serve as
a marker of transitivity. Although prefixal forms can often be identified on
morphosyntactic, semantic, or philological grounds, there can sometimes be
difficulty even so in distinguishing between cases where a word-initial [a-] has
arisen through prefixation and those where it can be attributed to the phonologi-
cal process of A-prosthesis. This is particularly true for Romance varieties such as
Gascon where not only are there forms containing a non-etymological initial [a-]
which can be plausibly attributed to prosthesis (i.e. purely phonologically
conditioned), but there has also been widespread use of prefixation with [a-]
< AD-. Thus, the appropriate interpretation of verbs such as arraubà ‘to steal’ and
arroustı̀ ‘to roast’ poses problems, as their initial [a-] could be taken to be the
result of either A-prosthesis or prefixation. For this reason, evidence provided by
verbal forms or by transparently deverbal derivatives containing [a-] needs to be
evaluated with special care before safe conclusions can be drawn over whether
they have undergone true A-prosthesis.
A rather different type of problem is posed by, for instance, northern
Italian forms such as R(E)CIPERE ‘to receive’ > (Bolognese) arzaver [ar’tsavv‰r],

R(E)-CORDO ‘I remember’ > (Romagnolo, dialect of Forlı̀) arcord [Nr’koNrt],6 where
there has been insertion of a new word-initial vowel in forms containing etymo-
logical R-. There is an evident similarity between these examples and the cases of
A-prosthesis noted above, but in reality the circumstances here are quite different.
Crucial for the introduction of the new initial vowel in the Italian forms has been
the action of syncope affecting the original pre-tonic vowel, this being the
hallmark of what we shall term U-prosthesis (cf. Chapter 6). In contrast, vowel
5
The lateral of the definite article was regularly assimilated to a coronal stem-initial
consonant in Arabic (e.g. ar-ruzz ‘(the) rice’, an-nafı̂r ‘(the) trumpet’, az-zâ’uq ‘(the)
mercury’ > Cast. arroz, añafil, azogue). This may have played some modest role in
obscuring the identity of the article to non-native speakers.
6
Data here and elsewhere in this paragraph are drawn from Coco (1970) for Bolognese
and Schürr (1919) for the dialect of Forlı̀.
A-prosthesis 149
prosthesis is not found in these Romance varieties in words which contain

etymological initial R- if there has been no syncope of the vowel immediately
following this consonant; for example, RĒTE(M) ‘net’, ROTA ‘wheel’ > (Bolognese)
raid [rajd], roda [’ro:da], (Forlisano) reda [’rejdN], [’roNdN]. If it is assumed that
true A-prosthesis is a process that is phonologically conditioned by the presence
of a given type of word-initial simplex consonantal onset, typically /r-/, then the
restricted type of prosthesis which is found solely before complex word-initial
consonantal onsets arising from syncopated forms like R(E)CIPERE in Bolognese
and other Romance varieties would not be interpreted as a case of A-prosthesis.
These are best treated under a separate heading, U-prosthesis.
Finally, further difficulties remain with certain types of Romance such as
Gascon where a new word-initial vowel [a-] may appear both in words which
have undergone syncope of the original pre-tonic vowel and in words where there
has been no syncope, as in (Gasc.) arceber ‘to receive’ and arriu ‘river’, respective-
ly. Two interpretations for such forms are possible:
(i) they reflect the action of two distinct (though sometimes overlapping)
categories of prosthesis, which need to be treated separately;
(ii) despite appearances to the contrary, the prosthetic vowel in words such as
arceber is due to the same process of A-prosthesis that gave rise to arriu,
the assumption being that the development of unstressed initial RE- in
Gascon was RE- > arre- > arr(e)- > ar-, i.e. A-prosthesis occurred first and
then syncope of the medial vowel operated.
The latter interpretation has generally been accepted.7 The main justification
advanced for this is that the syncope of pre-tonic vowels in the opening syllable of
words is unusual in the history of Gascon, cf. nebout [ne’ ut] < NEPŌTE(M)
‘nephew’, bezi [be’zi] < VICINU(M) ‘neighbour’ (ALG 855, 993). It is therefore
argued that a syncopated transitional stage RECIPERE > **r(e)ceber would seem
unlikely. In contrast, word-medial unstressed vowels in pre-tonic position are
often susceptible to deletion, as in VASS(E)LL-ITTU(M)>bajlét ‘valet’, VESP(E)R-
ĀTA > brespado ‘afternoon’, VER(I)TĀTE(M) > bertàt ‘truth’ (Schönthaler 1937; Palay
1971). As this development would of course also affect forms like *ARR(E)CIPERE,
interpretation (ii) might appear the more plausible of the two. However, as we
shall see (6.1.4), there is a good deal of evidence from other varieties of Romance,
notably in northern Gallo-Romance and Rheto-Romance dialects, to suggest that
syncope in initial unstressed syllables operated earliest and most forcefully in
words beginning specifically with RE-. It is not impossible therefore that the same
syncopating development affected Gascon too but failed to be generalized to
other types of word-initial syllable, hence VICĪNU(M) > bezı̀ and not **bzı̀. If this
7
For example, by Sarrieu (1902: 429), Millardet (1910: 121), and Bec (1968: 177).
150 A-prosthesis
were so, interpretation (i) would appear more plausible. With the data currently
available, however, it is not possible to determine which of the two interpretations
is correct.
5.2 A-prosthesis: early developments
A-prosthesis has occurred, either systematically or sporadically, in a wide range of

Romance varieties. In the western area of Romania continua, all forms of Ibero-
Romance appear to have been influenced but not in a systematic way.8 North of
the Pyrenees, however, prosthesis has operated widely and systematically in
Gascon (see Map 3) and the process has remained productive in some varieties
until modern times, but there is little evidence of it operating to any significant
degree elsewhere in the langue d’oc area. Further to the east, A-prosthesis has
occurred in certain types of Rheto-Romance, especially in varieties of the En-
gadine in eastern Switzerland and in Friulian. Elsewhere in Rheto-Romance, its
presence appears to be at best limited to a small subset of forms. In contrast,
prosthesis has operated in a wide-ranging way in many types of Sardinian,
notably those of the south (see Map 7). The circumstances in Sicilian and
southern Italian varieties of the mainland, however, are less clear. Although
significant numbers of forms with initial [a-] have appeared, the evidence
suggests that phonologically based prosthesis may not have developed as a genuine
native process. We explore this question more fully in a special subsection directly
below. As one goes further northward on the Italian mainland, indications of
A-prosthesis become ever more sporadic, so that central and particularly north-
ern varieties of Italo-Romance show scant evidence of the phenomenon. There is,
however, one notable exception which presents itself in some northern Tuscan
dialects. Finally, varieties of Balkan Romance have also experienced A-prosthesis,
especially those spoken south of the Danube.
Although there is evidence therefore of A-prosthesis having operated across a
wide range of Romance, in almost all cases the process has been carried through
in an incomplete way only. Full implementation leading to an unconditional rule
8
Meyer-Lübke (1890: }383) indicates that A-prosthesis before words in /r-/ is regular in
Catalan. However, this view has found little support in subsequent diachronic studies of
Catalan. Moll (1952: }105) and Badia (1981: }66), for example, give no indication that
prosthesis affected words containing etymological R-. In synchronic studies such as the
optimality-based presentation by Wheeler (2005), Catalan reflexes of etymologically
rhotic-initial words are consistently assigned rhotic-initial underlying forms and no
constraint is invoked to yield a preferred prosthetic output.
A-prosthesis 151
of A-prosthesis (either still fully productive or fully productive at earlier stages

leading to subsequent lexicalization of initial /a-/ in the words affected) appears
to have occurred in the history of just two types of Romance. These are, on the
one hand, southern and central Sardinian and, on the other, Gascon or more
accurately the varieties spoken in the Landes in the west and in the Pyrenean area
in the south.9 However, in each of the Sardinian and Gascon areas concerned the
systematic operation of A-prosthesis has widely been undermined in more recent
times, so that only in very few varieties has the process been able to establish itself
in a permanent way comparable with that found, for example, with I-prosthesis
in Ibero-Romance.
5.2.1.1 A-prosthesis in southern Italy?

It is difficult to determine to what extent A-prosthesis ever really became estab-
lished as a phonological process operating on native lexical forms in the varieties
of southern Italy. In his monumental study of Italo-Romance, Rohlfs (1966: }164)
notes that the word-initial rhotic R- is pronounced with a strengthened articula-
tion in a wide sweep of southern dialects10 and he goes on to report that this
strengthened rhotic is often pronounced with a prosthetic vowel, suggesting that
a variable process of prosthesis has developed. Examples cited include: (Sicilian)
arrèsta ‘onion peelings’, arraggiu ‘ray’ (though in }278, Rohlfs states that this is a
clear northern borrowing), arrigordu ‘memory’ (deverbal), arriposu ‘rest’ (de-
verbal), arrı́sicu ‘risk’ (deverbal from RESECĀRE (?)), arrugna ‘mange’, arrènniri ‘to
give up’, arririri ‘to laugh’; and (Calabrian, especially southern varieties) arramu
‘branch’, arrè ‘king’, arrèjari ‘to support’, arrisi ‘laughing stock’, arruina ‘ruin’,
arrumbu ‘roar’, arruffianu ‘pimp’.
However, other accounts of southern Italian dialects fail to confirm the pres-
ence of the phonologically conditioned rule of A-prosthesis as indicated by
Rohlfs. For instance, the classic study of Sicilian by Schneegans (1888: 61–3)
suggests that forms with initial [a-] like those cited by Rohlfs do occur but that
9
On the basis of just the isogloss for ALF 1158 rien (< RĔM) ‘nothing’, Rohlfs (1970: map
1, isogloss 3) indicates that almost all the dialects to the south of the Bassin d’Arcachon and
to the west of the Garonne are affected by prosthesis, with forms like arrè appearing. One
locality just to the east of the Garonne and also the Val d’Aran in the Pyrenees likewise
reportedly have prosthetic forms. However, Bec (1968: 175) points out that prosthetic forms
deriving from RĔM are also found in many varieties where prosthesis does not otherwise
occur, so that evidence based just on this one item may not be too revelatory. Isogloss 16 of
Bec’s first general phonetic map for the more limited Pyrenean zone that he examines in
detail defines the incidence of A-prosthesis for the reflexes of RĪVU(M) ‘river’.
10
‘In vaste zone del Mezzogiorno la r iniziale viene pronunciata con un forte appoggio
della voce (come rr-),’ loc. cit.
152 A-prosthesis
they actually show just morphological conditioning. It is claimed that these forms
represent, on the one hand, verbs or deverbal forms with the familiar Italo-
Romance prefixal compounding of AD þ RE-, or, on the other hand, feminine
nouns where the new initial [a-] arose through the recutting of morphological
boundaries; for example, (l)a rrugna ‘the mange’ (with regular initial rhotic
strengthening) > (l’)arrugna. No evidence of purely phonologically conditioned
prosthesis is reported. A similar finding appears in the account of De Gregorio
([1890] 1993: 131–2). Pirandello (1891)11 in a detailed description of his native
dialect of Agrigento adds further support to the contention that prosthesis in
Sicilian is not a regular phonological process. He states that general word-initial
consonant strengthening is certainly to be found in this south Sicilian dialect,
particularly of [r-, b- d- d´-] (p. 30), but, as in Schneegans’s account, it is noted
that the many cases of forms which have acquired a new initial [a-] developed
either from verbs which almost always go back to etymological RE- (expanded by
prefixal AD-), or from feminine nouns with morphological recutting (p. 23). The
later derivative work of Ducibella (1934: 222–5) indicates widespread strengthen-
ing of initial [r-] in Sicilian dialects but makes no mention of the lexical items
affected undergoing prosthesis, although an isolated form arriju ‘I laugh’ is
reported from the central Sicilian variety of Caltanissetta (p. 375), this presumably
representing the result of analogy with the many verb forms beginning with
arr- < prefixal RE-.12
Studies of speech patterns in the mainland of southern Italy are equally
unsupportive on the question of phonologically conditioned prosthesis. For
example, Falcone (1976: 48) makes no mention of prosthesis when reporting on
the reflex of etymological R- in Calabrian, merely noting that there is strengthen-
ing of initial rhotics in forms like rrota, rrosa within a broad area of southern
Calabria reaching northward to a rough line from Brancaleone (prov. of Reggio
Calabria) on the east coast to Gioia Tauro (also prov. of Reggio Calabria) on the
west coast. Also, in his detailed study of the speech of the town of Altamura
situated in Puglia some 50 km SW of Bari, Loporcaro (1988: } 94) calls attention to
some significant data. First, strengthened initial etymological R- is found in just
two lexemes [rr Pbb] ‘things’ (St.It. roba) and [rrei], (pl.) [rrIi] ‘king(s)’, the
strengthening of the rhotic in these cases representing either the last residue of
an earlier general strengthening across central and southern Italy or the result of
borrowing from the dialects spoken further south where strengthening was
regular. He intimates that the former is more probable. Second, for the many
11
This is the same Luigi Pirandello who was later to become one of the great twentieth-
century European playwrights.
12
Ducibella merely remarks (loc. cit.), ‘though found in some popular songs, [arriju] is
no longer a common form.’
A-prosthesis 153
verbal forms in arr- (paralleled by many verbs in abb-, all-, etc.), such as
[arrUb’bw¡i] ‘to steal’, [arr‰kUrd¡i] ‘to recall’ (= St.It. rubare, ricordare), the
strengthening and the presence of the initial vowel [a-] is attributed to the
common use of prefixal AD- as well as to reinforcement by the extended syntactic
use of prepositional AD in pre-infinitive contexts.13
Finally, though they are an imperfect source of information for anything but
lexicalized forms, dictionaries provide little in the way of confirmation for the
existence of phonologically based prosthesis. Thus, Piccitto (1977–2002) records
forms such as rrana, rré, rriccu, rrota, rrussu for Sicilian, and the only forms cited
with initial arr- are verbs where prefixation rather than prosthesis seems to be the
principal process at work, e.g. arrifàri ‘to re-do’, arrúmpiri ‘to bankrupt’, with
arrı̀riri varying with rrı̀diri ‘to laugh’. In his dictionary of Calabrian, Rohlfs (1977)
includes a certain number of entries with arr- but these are typically verbs and
feminine nouns, arrággia ‘rage’, arruina ‘ruin’. On the other hand, many items
such as rimu ‘oar’, rocca, rota, rini ‘back’ appear with no initial vowel. For
Abruzzo and Molise, entries which begin with arr- in Giammarco (1968–79) are
overwhelmingly verbs, arraffà ‘to snatch’, arrènn‰ ‘to give back’, arrubbà ‘to rob’
with occasional feminine nouns, arraggı̈ón‰ ‘reason’, whereas many forms ety-
mologically beginning with R- are cited with no initial vowel: rrè, rròbb‰, rót‰,
rin‰ ‘back’, etc. For Neapolitan, Rohlfs (1966: }164) cites some ostensibly pros-
thetic forms from the 1873 dictionary of D’Ambra such as arrissa ‘fight’, arrobba,
arréquia ‘peace’, arrecietto ‘shelter’, arraggia ‘rabbia’, as well as the verbs arrèjere ‘to
support’, arresponnere ‘to reply’, but these too are typically (prefixal) verb forms
or feminine nouns. On the other hand, D’Ambra also records numerous forms
which lack a prosthetic [a-] such as russo ‘red’, rota ‘wheel’, rine ‘back’, rajo ‘sun
ray’, rimmo ‘oar’ (< RŬSSU(M), ROTA , RĒNES, RĂDIU(M), RĒMU(M)), but it is indicated
(p. 305) that word-initial [r-] (< R-) is typically strongly articulated and preceded
by [a] in popular speech, with only rre ‘king’ and rrobba ‘possessions, object’ not
showing a preceding [a].14
There is therefore rather mixed evidence as to whether true phonologically
based A-prosthesis ever operated on native rhotic-initial words in southern
Italian varieties in a comparable way to what we find in Gascon or southern
Sardinian. An interpretation in conformity with the available facts might be that,
following the general strengthening of word-initial rhotics, morphological factors
may at first have acted as the main driver for the insertion of initial [a-] but that,
13
Loporcaro (1988: n. 35) notes the widespread use of a < AD when speakers of that area
cite an infinitive form in isolation and also when an infinitive is used as a subject in a
phrase, e.g. [je bbrytt a pperd] ‘it is unpleasant to lose’ (= St. It. è brutto perdere).
14
The special phonological status of these two lexical items here may be compared with
the data from Altamuran discussed above.
154 A-prosthesis
by analogy with the many rhotic-initial forms affected by the change, other words
also containing an initial rhotic sporadically came to undergo the same develop-
ment. Verbs such as RĪDERE ‘to laugh’ would probably have been affected in this
later incomplete generalization of initial [a-]. A subsequent important factor
which further promoted the insertion of initial [a-] appears to have been, again
sporadically, later lexical borrowing. Insertion of [a-] occurred whether the
borrowings into these southern dialects were learned words, or whether they
came from other types of Italo-Romance, especially the literary standard lan-
guage, or from other Romance varieties altogether (cf. learned arréquia < REQUI-
EM, arraggiu < St.It. raggio, arruffiano < French ruffian). Borrowings containing a
different word-initial voiced consonant show similar strengthening of the conso-
nant and may likewise undergo the insertion of an initial [a-]. Echoing the
remarks of Pirandello noted above, Rohlfs (1966: }}150, 153, 156) identifies this
latter development especially with the forms beginning with [b-], [d-], and
[d´-].15
In sum, although native lexicon shows apparent signs of A-prosthesis in a
number of southern Italian and Sicilian varieties, this may well have been
morphologically conditioned at first. Phonologically conditioned A-prosthesis
represents a rather later (though never systematic) development which seems to
have been brought about in large part by the arrival of lexical borrowings which
created new phonological conditions word-initially.
5.2.2 C H RO N O LO G Y
There appears to be no evidence of A-prosthesis in the Imperial period. Roman

grammarians, whose reference point is the standard variety of Latin pronuncia-
tion, make no mention at all of it. However, as was noted in the previous chapter,
no metalinguistic observation is made on the earlier novelty of I-prosthesis either
until the seventh century, long after it had gained widespread usage. More
significant therefore is the total absence of any indication of A-prosthesis in
Roman inscriptions, even in proper names where scribal orthographic conserva-
tism would be less likely to operate. We may therefore assume that if A-prosthesis
was present in the speech of certain people during the Imperial period, it
represented at most a phenomenon of restricted incidence, geographically and
15
Significantly, etymological initial B-, D-, and (palatalized) G- had evolved to [v-],
[ð-] > (weak) [r-], and [j-] in native forms so that the borrowings would have had
unfamiliar initial consonants. Southern speakers evidently realized them as geminates,
perhaps partly as a result of hypercharacterization and partly because these consonant
qualities usually appeared only in geminates in word-medial position.
A-prosthesis 155
socially. In fact, it is only late in the first millennium that the earliest positive
indications of the development appear.
In Ibero-Romance, the evidence provided by slate inscriptions from Visigothic
times (i.e. sixth to early eighth centuries) is unrevealing. Thus, in contrast to
forms such as iscrip[si], isperabi, ispe (= spe ‘hope’) and istare which clearly
indicate the action of I-prosthesis, words with etymological initial r- show no
signs of A-prosthesis. No examples are forthcoming even from words of German-
ic origin, which would be more likely to betray prosthesis since their latinized
forms would probably have been rather less subject to conservative Latin spelling
practices; cf. the proper names Ranulf[us], Recaredo, Reccesuindi (Velázquez
2000). The first examples of A-prosthesis from northern Spain come only in
documents of the tenth to twelfth century, e.g. the name Aramirus rex ‘King
Ramiro’ from a Riojan manuscript of 976, aretundo (< ROTŬNDU(M)) ‘round’ from
a 1055 Riojan manuscript, and arroturas (< RUPTŪRAS) ‘ploughings’ dated 1137 from
Oña in northern Castile (Menéndez Pidal 1964a: 193–4).16 For Aragonese, early
instances include arripera < RIPARIA ‘river bank’ from 1042, arretundo ‘round’
(eleventh cent.), Arramon ‘Ramón’ from 1119 (Alvar 1953: 53), while early Navarr-
ese documents offer eleventh-century toponymic evidence, notably with the
present-day location of Riezu which appears as Arriezu (1054), Arrieçu (1055),
Arriezo (1060), Arieçu (1060) in texts from the monastery of Irache (Saralegui
1977: 65).
From varieties spoken north of the Pyrenees, various personal names appear
with prosthetic <a> in Gascon texts: personal names such as Aregemundo in a text
from the Gironde dated 990, Arreinaldo from 1026–30 (also Gironde), Arremon
from an Armagnac document of the late eleventh century (Luchaire 1879: 209;
1881: texts 40, 52), and place names Arramos dated 1010 (= Ramons, a commune in
the canton of Orthez) and Arribaute dated 1105 (= Rivehaute, in the canton of
Navarrenx), cited by Bec (1968: 176). However, there appear to be few if any safe
cases of A-prosthesis in the body of early Languedocian texts from Toulouse and
Albi appearing in the edition of Brunel (1926-52).17 In the examples occurring in
16
Menéndez Pidal (1964a: 193) also cites the item aredoma ‘flask’ dated 996 from
Sahagún in east León (cf. modern Castilian redoma). For the same item, the DCECH
reports a form arrotoma dated 942. However, in neither source is an attempt made to offer
an etymon for the word, which is evidently seen as being of uncertain origin. In his
etymological dictionary of Portuguese, Machado (1977) likewise leaves open the etymology
of the cognate Portuguese form redoma. It is therefore unclear whether the alternation in
the forms arredoma (arrotoma) / redoma reflects the action of prosthesis or aphaeresis.
17
On the basis of a close study of the texts from Toulouse and Albi which date from the
eleventh to the early thirteenth centuries, Grafström (1958: }22) concludes that they offer
‘aucun exemple irréfutable de a prothétique’.
156 A-prosthesis
the different texts and sometimes in individual texts, there is variable use of the
graphies <r> and <rr> for original word-initial R-, as in the Navarrese forms
Arrieçu, Arieçu cited above. This probably reflects scribal inconsistency rather
than any phonetic distinction. There is no obvious reason to doubt that the rhotic
that followed prosthetic [a-] in the Romance varieties concerned was consistently
realized strongly trilled in the medieval period just as it is now.
The philological record thus suggests that A-prosthesis in Ibero-Romance and
the Gallo-Romance of the adjacent Pyrenean area dates from no earlier than
the tenth century. However, on the basis of relative chronology it has been
claimed that in Gascon the development may go back as far as the fifth century.18
Central to this assumption is the pattern of evolution seen in words such as arnélh
[ar’neL] ‘kidney’ < RENICULU(M), diminutive of RĒNE(M), where there was an
intervocalic simplex -N-. This consonant was regularly deleted in Gascon during
the medieval period, as in LŪNA > [’lyo] ‘moon’, GENŬCULU(M) > [Ó’UL] ‘knee’ in
the dialect of Bethmale (ALG 790S). The preservation of intervocalic -N- in arnélh
suggests therefore that syncope occurred in this form before -N- deletion took
place, the general assumption being that the path of evolution was: RENICULU(M) >
*[arre’neLu] > [ar’neL]. However, the chronology of both these developments is
far from certain. The loss of -N- is believed by Bec (1968: 40) and Dinguirard
(1979: 39) to have occurred in or around the seventh century and by Wüest (1979:
259) around the eighth or ninth centuries, although it is useful to recall that the
change is only attested from the eleventh century. It is also unclear when the loss
of the medial unstressed prenasal [e] in hypothetical forms such as *[arre’neLu]
took place, since Bec (1968: 176) is careful to distinguish this syncope, which just
affected medial unstressed /e/, from the earlier and more general syncope of
medial unstressed non-low vowels which has been dated to the fifth century or
possibly later for northern French (Bourciez 1958: 19). Further complicating
matters is the possibility that the vowel of word-initial unstressed RE- was
particularly susceptible to early weakening and subsequent deletion in Gascon
as has been the case in other Romance varieties (cf. our comments on identifica-
tion in the opening section above, and 6.1.4). If this is so, it would be difficult to
provide anything but a relative chronology for this special syncope, namely that it
18
Echoing the view of Millardet (1910: 121), Ronjat (1932: }252) dates A-prosthesis in
Gascon to ‘probablement’ between the fifth and eighth centuries. (This clear statement
mysteriously eludes Chambon and Greub 2002: 479). Bec (1968: 176–7) sees the
development as occurring in the fifth to sixth centuries, and Chambon and Greub (2002:
482) propose ‘avant ca 600,’ adding (p. 489) that it may perhaps even go back to earlier
than 511. Dinguirard (1979: 38–9) too hints that the early stages may date back into Imperial
times.
A-prosthesis 157
preceded the loss of -N-. In view of these considerations, it is perhaps safer to leave
chronological questions open.
In southern Italy, the appearance of a prosthetic (or, more precisely, a quasi-
prosthetic) vowel [a-] goes back less far into the medieval period and there are
also frequent examples of generalization to contexts other than initial [r-] (see
also 5.2.1 above and 5.2.4 below). As expected, almost exclusively verbs or deverbal
forms are affected, confirming the predominantly morphological basis to the
process there. Thus, La regola salernitana or De regimine sanitatis liber (c.1300)
from Campania has the probable prosthetic dı́giate arrecordare ‘you must re-
member’ (l. 561) alongside clearly prefixal forms like t’assicuri ‘you take care’ (l.
608) (Altamura 1977) and the Neapolitan Libro de la destructione de Troya
(thirteenth century) contains numerous examples, con grande arrecuordo ‘with
a great sense of duty’ (ch. 16), et arrobare ‘and to plunder’ (ch. 30), and with non-
rhotic base forms, ammacare chisto barbaro ‘would that this barbarian . . . ’ (ch. 2),
perzo abesognava ‘therefore it was necessary’ (ch. 30) (De Blasi 1986). Similarly,
the later Cronaca di Partenope (fourteenth century) also written in Neapolitan
shows generalized occurrence of [a-] accoro (= coro), arreposare, abruciare (Alta-
mura 1974: 51), as does the Libro di Sidrac (mid-fifteenth century) from Salento
where there appear forms such as (si nde) arrecorda ‘remembers (it)’, arrobare ‘to
rob’, ammanca ‘diminishes (3rd sg.pres.)’, allapidato ‘stoned (p.pt.)’, abisogno
‘need’ (Sgrilli 1983: 100).
Further north in Italy, phonologically based A-prosthesis occurred in northern
Tuscan dialects but the earliest evidence for it dates only from more recent times.
Nieri (1902: 95) cites an example from 1835, le su iragioni ‘their reasons’ but
nothing earlier. Internal evidence suggests that the prosthetic vowel must have
developed before the simplification of geminate rhotics in the dialects concerned
(cf. 5.2.4). As this change was certainly pre-nineteenth century, the implication is
that prosthesis took place sometime in or before the early modern period.
In other Romance varieties where A-prosthesis occurred, dating is equally
problematic for want of textual evidence. For Rheto-Romance, there is little
surviving documentation from the medieval period for the Grisons. However,
substantial texts survive from the sixteenth century, one of which is the transla-
tion of the New Testament into a form of upper Engadinish by Jakob Bifrun. This
contains numerous examples of prosthetic forms, such as araig ‘king’ < RĒGE(M),
arains ‘back’ < RĒNES, arait ‘net’ < RĒTE(M), aram ‘branch’ < RĀMU(M), araschun
‘reason’ < RATIŌNE(M), aroba ‘property’ < (Germanic) rauba, arumper to
break’ < RŌMPERE, arir ‘to laugh’ < RĪDERE, arespuonder ‘to reply’ < RESPŌNDERE,
suggesting that the process did not represent a recent innovation (Gartner 1912;
Fermin 1954). For Friulian, there are vernacular texts going back to the
later medieval period and these suggest that A-prosthesis enjoyed some
currency at this time although the prosthetic vowel is by no means consistently
158 A-prosthesis
indicated.19 For instance, texts from the fourteenth century contain forms such as
arecivir ‘they received’ < *RECIP-ĪRUNT in a 1355 administrative charter from Civi-
dale, aronch ‘terrace’ < RŬNCU(M) in a 1355 charter from Gemona, aribuelo ‘Ribolla
(kind of wine)’ in 1395 charter from Cividale, aresons ‘reasons, statements’ <
RATIŌNES in a legal charter dated 1387–94 from Udine (D’Aronco 1960). Further
medieval examples are cited in the etymological dictionary by Zamboni et al.
(1984–7) including: (fourteenth century) aròvul ‘oak tree’ < RŌBUR, arrògol ‘regis-

ter of canons’ < ROTULU (M), and (fifteenth century) arás ‘turnips’ < RĀPAS, aròmpi
‘to break’ < RŬMPERE.
For the Balkans, there is almost no surviving material of any substance written
in Latin or early Romance during a period of almost a thousand years extending
up to the early sixteenth century, and in the variety where A-prosthesis has been
most fully exploited (Aromanian), substantial written evidence dates only from
the eighteenth century. All that is available is a handful of Daco-Romanian words
and phrases which appear transliterated in Slavic texts between the late tenth
century and the early sixteenth century. In the collection of these assembled by
Mihăilă (1974), there are no forms showing prosthesis; instead, we find just items
such as: ripi ‘banks’ (< RĪP-Ī) dated 1428 from Moldavia, Rătundul proper name
‘Round’ (< ROTŬNDU(M) þ article) dated 1476 from Wallachia, and Valea Rrea
(with a doubled graphy for the rhotic) for the place name ‘the Bad Valley’ (< RĔA)
dated 1510 from Walachia. These would suggest that prosthesis was not active as a
process in Daco-Romanian. However, they shed little light on the medieval
situation in Romance varieties spoken south of the Danube where prosthesis is
now particularly in evidence. It is not until the eighteenth century that Aroma-
nian writers, all of them from Albania, provide textual evidence of prosthetic
vowels, e.g. arrădu ‘I laugh’, arrămăsătură ‘remainder’ (Capidan 1932: 351). Ac-
cordingly, whether A-prosthesis in Aromanian is of comparable antiquity to its
apparent counterparts elsewhere in Romania continua remains unclear.
Given the common basis to I-prosthesis across Romance, we may wonder
whether it is safe to assume that documented cases of A-prosthesis in Romania
continua also share a common origin in Late Latin. It is certainly true that
significant chronological differences exist across the varieties concerned in respect
of the earliest attestations of A-prosthesis. Even so, general resemblances can be
observed in the formal characteristics of this development, both in its origins and
its subsequent vicissitudes. It may therefore be that ultimately A-prosthesis has its
origins in a low-level and sporadic tendency that was already present locally in
19
Thus, in a private text dated to the end of the fourteenth century and probably
composed by Simone de Vittore from Cividale, we find io l’areprı́nt . . . yestri rinprindut ‘I
rebuke him . . . to be rebuked’ with variant reflexes, prosthetic and non-prosthetic, to
inflexional parts of the same verb RE-PR(EH)ĒNDERE.
A-prosthesis 159
Late Latin, but we cannot exclude the possibility that in some Romance varieties
it arose as a later, independent linguistic process.
5.2.3 S T RU C T U R A L P R E C O N D I T I O N S TO P RO S T H E S I S
A series of special structural features are associated with A-prosthesis. First,

as we have seen, this phonological development appears most commonly to
have operated on words which begin with etymological R-, as in the exam-
ples given above in Figure 5.1. In fact, in all Romance varieties which have
experienced A-prosthesis, words with initial R- have always been affected.
Sometimes cases of A-prosthesis may also be found in words which begin
with other types of consonants, e.g. annuod‰ ‘knot’ < NŌDU(M) in certain
Calabrian varieties (Rohlfs 1966: }161), addaino ‘fallow deer’ in Neapolitan
(D’Ambra 1873: s.v. addàino).20 However, the occurrence of [a-] in such
forms is evidently far from systematic in southern Italian varieties and
probably owes itself to later and rather exceptional factors. In fact, it is
notable that in those Romance varieties figuring above in Figure 5.1, A-
prosthesis has not only been widespread but has seldom affected words
containing initial etymological consonants other than R-. For example, in
the dialect of Barèges (ALG pt. 697 NE) the following forms are found:
with prosthetic [a-] with no prosthetic [a-]
RŬBEU(M) > arroùy [ar’rui] ‘red’ (ALG 1593) LŪNA> lüo [l P] ‘moon’ (ALG 1010)
h
ROTŬNDU(M) > arredoùn [arre’ðũN] ‘round’(ALG 1087)
NOVU (M) > nau [’nau] ‘new’ (ALG 903)
ROS-ĀTA > arrousada [arru’zaða] ‘dew’ (ALG 1432) MŪTU(M) > mut [myt] ‘silent’ (ALG 883)
The presence of an initial rhotic seems therefore to represent a crucial precondi-

tion for A-prosthesis to get under way.
A further important characteristic directly associated with A-prosthesis is
strengthening. This affected original word-initial R- independent of, and prior to,
the development of a prosthetic vowel and it was a necessary though not sufficient
20
Seemingly comparable cases of prosthesis involving initial nasals are also found in
Sardinian. For example, immòi ‘now’, innòi ‘here’, innui ‘where’ appear in the
Campidanese dialect of Sestu and, synchronically, the initial vowel may be interpreted as
the result of prosthesis operating on underlying /mmòi/, etc. in all but post-vocalic
contexts (Bolognesi 1998: 393). However, from a diachronic viewpoint these forms
clearly derive from prefixal etyma, IN-MŌDO, IN-HŌC, IN-ŬBI (cf. also Logudorese inòke,
inòge ‘here’, inùe ‘where’, REW 4159, 9028). They may therefore be excluded
from consideration here. The background to the word-initial vowel found in certain
Italian forms such as ignudo, ignocchi, Iddio is examined in 5.2.7.
160 A-prosthesis
condition for A-prosthesis to occur. In view of its significance for A-prosthesis, a

closer look at the nature and development of rhotic strengthening is appropriate.
The process of strengthening involved the initial rhotic taking on added
duration which led to its being identified with its geminate counterpart -RR-
which had previously appeared in intervocalic position only. Chronologically,
strengthening does not seem to be a development dating from Imperial times
since Roman grammarians make no reference at all to speakers giving word-
initial R- a special or anomalous articulation in relation to the pronunciation of
simplex R in other phonological environments. It is presented as a simplex
alveolar trill (cf. Kent 1945: 59; Allen 1978: 32–3). But there is evidence to indicate
that strengthening of initial R- and its resultant identification with medial gemi-
nate -RR- occurred across most though perhaps not all the Latin-speaking world
in the medieval period. Most persuasive is the fact that strong word-initial rhotics
continue to exist in many present-day Romance varieties, whether or not a
prosthetic vowel has subsequently come to establish itself in the words concerned.
Thus, in all Ibero-Romance varieties word-initial rhotics have evolved in a parallel
way to the medial geminate rhotic -RR-, as in Castilian ramo [’ramo] < RĀMU(M)
‘branch’ and carro [’karo] < CĂRRU(M) ‘cart’ (both with a multiple-trilled alveolar
rhotic) but caro [’kaɾo] < CĀRU(M) ‘dear’ (with a single ballistic alveolar tap).21
North of the Pyrenees, Gascon likewise has a strongly trilled realization for the
reflex of etymological word-initial R-. This pronunciation has a long ancestry and
continues to be widely found today (Millardet 1910: 128; Bec 1968: 173–5). Else-
where in southern France, strengthening of original initial R- and its identification
with the medial geminate -RR- are indicated for a number of modern varieties, e.g.
21
Catalan shares this pattern with Castilian (cf. Wheeler 2005: 24–34). However,
Portuguese (the standard European variety from the later nineteenth century) and some
varieties of Latin American Spanish, notably Puerto Rican Spanish (Álvarez Nazario 1991:
695–7), have more recently restructured the phonetic basis of the two-way rhotic system.
Instead of a ‘strong’ or trilled vs ‘weak’ or tapped contrast (both items being alveolar), there is
now a uvular [R] vs alveolar [ɾ] contrast, respectively. Throughout the literary period and
doubtless already in the pre-literary period too, the contrast was neutralized in word-initial
position in favour of just the ‘strong,’ and later the uvular, realization. Evidence for this comes
in the frequent use of the graphies <R> or <rr> for initial r- by medieval Galician-Portuguese
scribes, e.g. o teu rrogo ‘your prayer’ and ssua Requeza ‘his wealth’ (respectively in the
fourteenth-century Vida de Santo Amaro and Vida de Santa Eufrosina). A detailed study of
graphies in 128 non-literary medieval charters from northern Galicia indicates that the use of
word-initial <rr-> rather than <r-> is the minority pattern in the thirteenth-century
documents but becomes clearly the majority pattern in the fourteenth century, while there
is rough parity in the fifteenth century (Börner 1976: 143–7). Comparably variable
orthographic practice is also widespread amongst Castilian scribes in the Middle Ages.
A-prosthesis 161
Agen and Toulouse (Séguy 1950: 20) and Arles, Toulon, Aix and Marseille
(Coustenoble 1945: 92–5), suggesting once again that the strengthening of the
word-initial rhotic represents an early development. Further north, in the langue
d’oı̈l, it seems that a comparable pattern operated widely in the medieval period.
The etymological word-initial R- was consistently identified with the strong
intervocalic rhotic -RR- and shared a common path of evolution which was
distinct from that of the weak rhotic -R-. This arrangement with the strong rhotic
appearing in word-initial position continued into the sixteenth century, as is
borne out by metalinguistic remarks of early contemporary observers of French
such as La Noue ([1596] 1623: 298) who writes in this connection: ‘L’r quand elle
est au commencement d’un mot se prononce rudement et avec toute la vigueur
qu’elle a.’ Thurot (1881: II, 269–70) and Reighard (1985: 315) assume from this
remark that a uvular articulation [R] had established itself as the realization of the
formerly strong rhotic whilst the reflex of the original simplex weak -R- was
probably still coronal. However, such a conclusion is rather unsafe as La Noue’s
observation only indicates that in the variety of French he is describing the
reflexes of original geminate -RR- and initial R- had merged as a strong rhotic
and that this continued to be phonetically distinct from the reflex of simplex -R-.
Both rhotics might still of course have been coronal.22 In fact, it is only later that
the strong rhotic is known for sure to have taken on a uvular realization which
was ultimately to be extended to all phonological contexts. The process of
uvularization first got under way amongst speakers of the standard variety, it
seems, in the course of the seventeenth century and the establishment of a single
type of (uvular) rhotic doubtless took some time to become generalized thereaf-
ter amongst such speakers.23 Residues of the two-way pattern remain to the
present day in some French varieties, e.g. that of Arles (Coustenoble 1945: 92–5).
In Italo-Romance, strengthening of R- has occurred widely in southern vari-
eties, and initial rhotics have usually remained strong here whether or not
prosthetic vowels have come to establish themselves. This is especially evident
in the most southern varieties spoken in Sicily, southern Calabria, and the Salento
22
As we have seen above, this is the case in Castilian Spanish and Catalan where there
are two contrasting types of rhotic, strong [r] < R-, -RR- and [ɾ] < -R-, both of which have
remained coronal to the present day.
23
An anecdotal indicator of the spread of the uvular pronunciation amongst the highest
social classes of the later seventeenth century comes in a letter written by Charlotte Elisabeth,
Princess Palatine (1652–1722) known as ‘Madame’, the wife of Philippe Duke of Orléans or
‘Monsieur’ who was Louis XIV’s brother. In one of her letters written in German dated 14th
July 1718, she recalls that in contrast to Louis XIV who pronounced r ‘clearly’ (presumably as a
coronal), all his children made use of a different realization. By way of illustration, she
represents their pronunciation of Paris as ‘Pahi’, which suggests a uvular value (Goudeket
1964: 299).
162 A-prosthesis
peninsula (De Gregorio [1890] 1993: }152; Rohlfs 1956: II, 526, 1966: }164, and 1977:
565). Further north, strengthening is less in evidence, but in Tuscany various
northern dialects underwent this development although direct traces of it have
been lost more recently as a result of the general simplification of geminate
rhotics (cf. 5.2.4).24 Further evidence for Tuscan rhotic strengthening in earlier
times appears in Corsican which is itself Tuscan-based (see Map 6). Here, strong
initial rhotics are general in the centre and south of the island except for Bonifacio
in the extreme south.25 A similar picture appears in Sardinian, where a strongly
trilled rhotic continues to be regularly found in word-initial position.26
In Balkan-Romance, the situation less clear, due in large part to the lack of
written evidence for this type of Romance until comparatively recent times.
Adding further to the uncertainty has been the general neutralization of strong
vs weak consonantal contrasts in pre-literary times, e.g. in Daco-Romanian and
Aromanian TĔRRA > ţară ‘land’, SĒRA > seară ‘evening’, ROGO > rog(u) ‘I ask’ with an
identical rhotic. However, three types of evidence suggest that word-initial rhotics
were strengthened in early Balkan Romance too. First, occasional cases are
reported of a strong trill being used word-initially in modern varieties. Thus,
Rosetti (1978: 536) reports such a pronunciation in northern Ardeal (NW Roma-
nia) and in Maramureş (N Romania), and Papahagi (1974: 1044) indicates such a
pronunciation in Farserotic Aromanian spoken in Albania, as well as in the Daco-
Romanian variety of Poiana Sibiului (central Romania). Second, in philological
data for Daco-Romanian from the sixteenth century and Aromanian data from
the eighteenth century, scribal practices indicate that initial rotics were strongly
articulated. Thus, in the sixteenth-century Psaltirea Hurmuzachi there are nu-
merous forms written with a double Cyrillic graphy <ææ> (= <rr>) in word-
initial position, e.g. rreu ‘evil’ rrădică ‘it raises’, rruga ‘to pray’ (Densusianu 1975:
480), while eighteenth-century Aromanian texts composed by writers from
Albania using Greek lettering contain forms such as rrană ‘wound’, rrămănescu
‘Romanian’, rrupaslu ‘(the) repose’ (Capidan 1932: }207). Third, internal dia-
chronic evidence indicates that the contrast between strong geminate -RR- and
simplex -R- remained intact medially for much of the Middle Ages, and that
word-initial simplex R- was strengthened and patterned with -RR-. Thus, stressed
front vowels following a medial geminate or strong rhotic show regular centrali-
zation but not when they follow a weak rhotic, e.g. *(AD-)HORR-ĪRE > (Arom.)
24
Medieval Tuscan texts also sporadically show strengthened word-initial rhotics (cf.
Rohlfs 1966: }164).
25
In the linguistic atlas ALEIC, maps 107 (un nasone rosso) and 158 (abbiamo riso) for
example yield forms such as (pt. 30, Ghisoni) [un ’na:zu r’r Pssu], (pt. 37, Cavro) [un
’na’z P:ni r’r Pssu] and (pt. 22, Évisa) [a’¡mu r’ri:zu], (pt. 32, Bocognani) [a’w¡mi r’ri:su].
26
Cf. ‘Das anlautende r ist im Sardischen ein starkgerollter alveolarer Vibrant, wie im
Spanischen’ (Wagner 1941: }74).
A-prosthesis 163
aurı̂re, (Daco-Rom.) urı̂ ‘to hate’, with stressed centralized [t_], as against *(AU)
FER-ĪRE > afirire, (Daco-Rom.) feri ‘to guard’, with stressed front [i]. When a
stressed front vowel follows word-initial R-, we find the same centralization, e.g.
RĪVU(M) > (Arom.) arı̂u, (Daco-Rom.) rı̂u ‘river’, and not ** (a)riu. It thus seems
reasonable to conclude that original word-initial rhotics did in fact undergo early
strengthening resulting in added duration.27
Rheto-Romance is problematic in this context since, unlike the other Romance
varieties which have experienced A-prosthesis, it offers no cases of strong word-
initial rhotics in modern varieties nor is there philological evidence for previous
strengthening in word-initial rhotics. However, the development of prosthetic
forms in certain varieties during the medieval period suggests the likelihood of
earlier strengthening, direct evidence for which has disappeared along with the
general simplification of geminates in Rheto-Romance in more recent times.
Finally, we may note that in certain varieties which had experienced strength-
ening of initial R- another word-initial rhotic may also arise as a result of later
independent change. Where this happens, a contrast usually develops between
primary etymological initial R-, which remained articulatorily strong, and the
new secondary word-initial [r-] which was realized at first as a simplex consonant
and often stayed so. This has occurred in many southern Italian varieties, where
etymological word-initial GR- and, less widely, D- have both developed to give [r]
which has remained weak: e.g. GROSSU (M) ‘big’ > (Sicil.) ròssu, (Cal.) ruossu; DĔNT-Ī
‘teeth’ > (Sicil.) rendi, (Neapol.) riend‰ (Rohlfs 1966: }153, 185; AIS 107, 184). Such
forms with secondary [r-] normally do not undergo A-prosthesis.
In Gascon too, a secondary initial rhotic developed in a number of western and
southern dialects, when the group FR- passed to [hr-] (as part of the general
Gascon change F- > [h-]) before the group simplified to [r-] probably from
around the thirteenth century. There was later strengthening of the secondary
r- in some though not all dialects (cf. ALG 157 frêne, 285 froment) but, even so,
A-prosthesis failed to operate in these words (cf. Millardet 1910: 123, Bec 1968:
175 n. 2). However, more recent loanwords from French containing word-initial
r- have sometimes been aligned with prosthetizing forms, as in arrégrèt [arregr¡t]
‘regret’ in certain Gascon varieties which have experienced regular A-prosthesis
(Bec 1968: 179; see also 5.2.5 below). This change may well reflect hypercharacter-
ization by Gascon speakers as they articulate prestigious loanwords from the
standard language. It thus resembles the word-initial consonant gemination
found in loanwords in southern Italian dialects (cf. 5.2.1).
27
This has been called into doubt by Jungemann (1955: 276) on the basis of the claim
made by a linguist of his acquaintance familiar with Aromanian that, in the modern
language, there is no strengthening. However, this of course does not rule out the
possibility that at earlier stages this variety had a rule strengthening word-initial /r-/.
164 A-prosthesis
In the earliest attestations of A-prosthesis, the vowel was regularly represented as

<a>, and indeed many Romance varieties such as those spoken in Gascony have
preferentially retained this quality up to the present day. So, we may plausibly
assume that, usually, the new vowel at first adopted a low quality [a], although
subsequently regular phonetic change might modify this quality in individual
varieties of Romance.
However, more rarely there have been alternative outcomes. In Sardinian
dialects, vowel copying is found instead whereby the prosthetic vowel has taken
on a quality determined by that of the vowel present in the following syllable. In
medieval texts there is a discernible tendency for the prosthetic vowel to appear as
<e> before front vowels, <o> before back vowels, and <a> before a low vowel,
although <a> can be found in the other contexts too, notably before front vowels.
Examples of this pattern are to be found in the vernacular charters from the
archepiscopal archive in Cagliari which date from the eleventh to the thirteenth
centuries; for example, erriu (II, 2) beside arriu ‘river’ (XX, 5) and arregordarunt
‘they recalled’ (XVI, 4), orroglu de terra ‘parcel of land’ < ROTULU
(M) (XIII, 7),
orrubia ‘red (f.sg.)’ < RŬBEA (XIV, 9), orrudundu ‘round (m.sg.)’ < ROTŬNDU(M)
(XIV, 16) but arrobadia ‘feudal duty’28 < deriv. of ROGĀRE (XXI, 2), arrasoni
‘claim, right’ < RATIŌNE(M) (XIII, 9) (Solmi 1905; Guarnerio 1906). In modern
times, the pattern is preserved faithfully only in the northern periphery of the
Campidanese zone, i.e. in the dialects spoken in the southern and south-eastern
part of central Sardinia and down into the north of the Campidanese speech-area.
Thus, in the dialect of Busachi there are forms such as errı́u ‘river’, arrána ‘frog’
and orrò[a ‘wheel’, orrúßiu ‘red’ (Wagner 1941: }75). Vowel copying creating
high prosthetic vowels may also be found, as in the nearby dialect of Fonni
(AIS pt. 947), where [ir’risu] ‘uncooked rice’29 and [ur’ru:ßiu] ‘red’ are reported
(AIS maps 992, 1576). However, in modern varieties of central and southern
Campidanese, including the prestigious variety of Cagliari, the vowel [a] has
come to operate as the general prosthetic vowel, cf. arrı́u, arrána, arrò[a, arrúßiu
(Wagner 1941: }75; Virdis 1978: 59; Bolognesi 1998: 42). The evidence suggests
strongly that the systematic use of [a] represents a later development in Campi-
danese (cf. Wagner loc. cit. and Virdis 1978: 38). The data from Baunei on the east
coast of central Sardinia (data in Figure 5.1 above) show a transitional outcome,
28
For this word, Solmi provides the more detailed definition ‘prestazioni di lavoro
agrario, dovute dai sudditi al pubblico potere, e continuate poi lungamente appunto col
titolo di roadia.’
29
The stressed vowel is recorded without indication to length and with a voiceless
sibiliant [s]. Both these phonetic outcomes are unexpected.
A-prosthesis 165
with the vowel [a-] occurring only when the following vowel is low or front whilst
[o-] is retained when a back vowel follows.
A further and quite different outcome presents itself in dialects of the Lucca
area in northern Tuscany and in a number of varieties spoken in central and
southern Corsica (Corsican being Tuscan-based). Here, a high front prosthetic
vowel [i-] has been reported. Pieri (1890–92: 124) cites forms such as ho irotto ‘I
have broken’, diventa irosso ‘it’s becoming red’, date iretta ‘pay attention’, while
Nieri (1902: 95) adds further information, noting that it is mainly, but not
exclusively, verbs in the ‘parlar volgar’ that take this prosthetic [i-]; cf. non irende
‘not to give back’ (= St.It. non rendere), le su iragion ‘its justifications’, Irifanni
‘Re-do some’ (= Rifanne). It seems impossible to interpret this development as
the result of vowel copying, nor can it be attributed to regular sound change
operating on an earlier initial [a-]. For Lucchese dialects do in fact show numer-
ous examples of forms where an initial [a-] has been inserted, almost exclusively
in verbs originally containing the prefix RE-, such as ariposare and aritornare. (We
may note that geminate rhotics were systematically simplified at some more
recent period in the history of Lucchese.30) However, the initial vowel [a-] in
these forms has been lexicalized and preserved unchanged. They can therefore be
of no relevance in the present connection. Furthermore, the examples containing
initial [i-] indicate that this type of prosthesis has occurred irrespective of
phonological context, i.e. when post-pausal, post-vocalic, or post-consonantal,
although it has not operated in a consistent way across all potential lexical items.
Comparable data to those occurring in Lucchese are also found in central and
southern Corsica (see Map 6). In the rich array of materials presented in the
linguistic atlas of Corsica (ALEIC), a number of forms with a prosthetic vowel
appear, e.g. (1370) unn irrèmi 31 ‘you (sg.) are not rowing’ and (1371) un irrèmu ‘an
oar’ (cf. Latin RĒMĀRE ‘to row’, RĒMU(M) ‘oar’). Likewise, there are (153) irridi ‘he
laughs (post-pausal)’ (just at Conca in SE Corsica) and (155) unn irriðeraĵu ‘I
will not laugh’, although at two localities (Évisa, Bocognani in central Corsica)
there are rare instances of prosthetic [a-] (respectively, unn arriðeraĵu, unn
arriðaraĵu ‘I will not laugh’), all of these forms deriving from parts of (Late
30
Cf. Nieri (1902: 95) who states: ‘il doppio erre non si sa pronunziare’, hence tera ‘land’,
etc. This constraint against geminate rr applies also to contexts where rafforzamento
fonosintattico regularly applies. Nieri cites: ‘Se restate e non se rrestate, Più robba e non
Più rrobba’ (italics are ours).
31
In cases where the ALEIC reports a number of slightly different forms for a given
lexical item from one locality to another, for convenience we cite just one of the forms
provided that the phonetic variation is not of immediate significance for our purposes.
Thus, as well as unn irrèmi (from Piana and Évisa in the west centre down to Coti and
Conca in the south), we find at other southern localities unn irrammi (Petreto), un irrèmi
(Propiano), unn irrèmmi (La Monacı̀a), as well as un irèmi for Lucca.
166 A-prosthesis
Latin) RĪDERE ‘to laugh’. In the light of the prosthetic Lucchese form irotto cited
above, the responses for reflexes of parts of the Latin verb RŬMPERE ‘to break’ are of
special interest. However, in map 160 (Mi son rotti gl’incisivi ‘my front teeth have
been broken’), no prosthetic form is indicated for any Corsican variety. But the
ALEIC also includes a few localities on mainland Italy including Lucca (pt. 54)
and the form cited here is [mi s¡n i’rotti i d’d¡nti da’vanti] with a prosthetic [i-].
Similarly, a prosthetic form [i’rompe l’kardo] with [i-] is reported for Lucca but
not for any Corsican variety in map 993 Rompi il riccio ‘Break the chestnut husk’.
5.2.4.1 Selection of vowel quality

No serious attempt appears to have been made so far in order to provide a
systematic account of the factors guiding the varying selection of vowel quality
for this category of prosthesis. To arrive at such an account, a useful point of
reference lies in the more recent cross-linguistic findings of general phonologists
investigating vowel epenthesis, which were considered above in section 1.6. It was
noted there that five factors can play a role in assigning a quality to an incipient
epenthetic vowel, this vowel at first being brief and of indeterminate quality
(typically schwa-like) in accordance with the principle of minimal saliency. Since
word-initial schwa was not found in any of the early Romance varieties affected
by this category of prosthesis, a permissible quality needed to be established. In
central Sardinian dialects, we have seen that strategy (v) was adopted whereby the
new prosthetic vowel was shaped by vowel harmony, resulting in the vowel taking
on a quality determined by the vowel in the following syllable.
In the great majority of cases, however, a low-quality [a] has been selected and
a combination of factors appear to have played a determining role in this.
Articulatory and perceptual factors alone would suggest that the prosthetic
vowel might adopt a coronal (i.e. front) quality, since the original word-initial
consonant which the vowel came to precede, the rhotic [r], is coronal. A front
vowel of minimal saliency would then be expected, typically [i] (strategy (iv); cf.
also 4.1.3). However, we can understand the preferential adoption of a low value
[a] if phonological considerations are also invoked in the way proposed by Rose
and Demuth (2006) in their analysis of vowel epenthesis. Their suggestion is that
the place feature of a consonant is only copied by a prosthetic or more generally
an epenthetic vowel when that place feature is phonologically distinctive in the
language concerned. Now, the coronality of the rhotic /r/ is not a distinctive
feature in Latin or early Romance, as there was no other non-coronal rhotic or
non-coronal liquid in Latin. This being so, there was no copying of place feature
in the prosthetic vowel which preceded the rhotic. Instead, a vowel was adopted
whose quality is likewise not specified for place, namely [a], as in the representa-
tion given below. The circumstances here thus differ from those with I-prosthesis,
since the coronality of the voiceless fricative /s/ was distinctive in Latin and
A-prosthesis 167
continued to be so into Romance since it contrasts with the labiality of the other
voiceless fricative /f/. Its coronality was therefore copied for I-prosthesis, as
we saw.
σ
a r
Root Root
C Place C Place
V Place
no specification for Place
FIGURE 5.2. Agreement of the prosthetic vowel in respect of non-specified Place feature
Further guiding the selection of a low-quality [a] was doubtless the expansion
of verb forms originally containing the prefix RE- but subsequently augmented
with AD-, which yielded a rich array of forms in [ar-] in many forms of Romance,
as in AD-RESTARE > arrestare, arrêter, etc. However, given that this morphological
factor would have typically operated on specific words only, namely verbs and
deverbal derivatives whose first original syllable was unstressed, it would seem to
be of secondary importance. Thus, the adoption of the quality [a] for the
prosthetic vowel appears to have been determined by a combination of strategies
(ii), (iii), and (iv), as identified in 1.6.
This leaves the problem of accounting for the outcome [i] in certain northern
Tuscan and central-southern Corsican varieties. As there is no independent
evidence of a regular sound change in these varieties whereby word-initial [ar]
> [ir-], nor is there any possibility of interpreting the place feature of coronality
in the initial rhotic /r/ as being distinctive, the selection of a high front quality [i]
is curious. However, certain data suggest a possible rationale for the development
here. In particular, it is significant that in the Lucchese dialects affected, the
prosthetic vowel [i] is found not only in rhotic-initial words but also in words
beginning with complex word-initial onsets (excluding consonant þ liquid).
Thus, Nieri (1902: 95) states that prosthetic [i] occurs with s impura words
‘quasi costantemente’ in the speech of the less educated, and especially peasants,
irrespective of phonological context. In addition, words with initial [ts] such as
zio ‘uncle’, zappà (= St.It. zappare ‘to hoe’) also tend to have a prosthetic [i] in the
168 A-prosthesis
speech of the less educated, giving [it’tsio] for zio, etc. But Nieri adds that
amongst the very least educated of speakers (‘l’infimo volgo’) the affricate [ts]
may often be simpified to [s] and that, where this happens, no prosthetic vowel
appears as the onset is no longer complex. The implication of the data here is that
the high vowel [i] has come to be generalized as the prosthetic vowel used for
resolving problematic complex word-initial onsets. To account for this, a chro-
nologically based interpretation suggests itself as perhaps the most likely. Word-
initial rhotics may be assumed to have undergone the same strengthening in
Lucchese that affected all southern Italo-Romance varieties but only at a later
stage, as a result of the change diffusing northwards as a sporadic and localized
development. But by the time that strengthened rhotic onsets [rr-] became
generalized in popular usage, I-prosthesis affecting s impura forms would already
have been long established, just as it had become with ordinary speakers else-
where in Tuscany (cf. 4.3.3). The principal function of I-prosthesis, it will be
recalled, was to resolve the problem of complex heterosyllabic word-initial onsets,
but over time its scope may have been extended in Lucchese to handle not just
s impura sequences but other complex word-initial onsets that developed, such as

[rr-] and [ts]. Thus, for forms like rrende(re) < RĔNDERE, it was the prosthetic
vowel [i] which was already in regular and productive use that was inserted.32
Such a chronologically based interpretation is also compatible with the facts of
Gascon where both A-prosthesis and I-prosthesis have similarly occurred but
with differing outcomes, giving [a-] and [e-], respectively. Here, the evidence
suggests that A-prosthesis arose as a process at a time when I-prosthesis itself was
still in an early stage of its generalization, i.e. at the end of the Empire and in the
early Middle Ages. The absence of an established default prosthetic vowel may
have led to each of the two concurrent processes being less readily identified so
that the quality assigned to each type of prosthetic vowel was determined
independently. Finally, the facts of Campidanese in southern Sardinia also need
explaining since here too both categories of prosthesis operated, giving [a-] and
[i-]. However, it is striking that I-prosthesis never really became fully established
in Campidanese as it did in the northern half of Sardinia. The implication is
therefore that as A-prosthesis began to take root in medieval Campidanese, I-
prosthesis was ceasing to enjoy any significant measure of productivity. The
selection of vowel quality [a] for the prosthetic vowel in rhotic-initial words
was therefore unconstrained by existing patterns of prosthesis and was deter-
mined instead according to strategies (ii), (iii), and (iv), as discussed above.
32
Subsequently, Lucchese has undergone regular simplification of geminate [rr]; cf. n.
25. This development, however, must postdate prosthesis in rhotic-initial words.
A-prosthesis 169
In the Romance varieties where A-prosthesis occurred, the evidence indicates that
at the outset it was triggered by the presence of a word-initial rhotic (cf. 5.2.3).
The special status of the rhotic as a triggering context is shown by the fact that (a)
in all Romance varieties experiencing A-prosthesis words in etymological R- have
always been affected, and (b) words originally beginning with a segment other
than R- are more sporadically affected. The data from Romance suggest that the
relative susceptibility of words to the implementation of A-prosthesis operated
along the following parameter:
more susceptible, chronologically earlier less susceptible, chronologically later
# r- #C [+ son]- #C [+ vcd]- #C- # V-
FIGURE 5.3. Parameter showing the actualization of A-prosthesis in Romance
This parameter reflects prosthetic outcomes which may not have arisen solely
as a result of phonological conditioning native to the variety in question. Thus,
southern Italian data are included although the circumstances of A-prosthesis
there are special (cf. 5.2.1).
rhotic- any voiced any any
sonorant- consonant- consonant- segment-
GASCON þ
C. SARDINIAN þ
ENGADINISH þ
S. ITALIAN þ þ þ /
AROMANIAN þ þ þ þ þ
FIGURE 5.4. Implementation of A-prosthesis across Romance varieties
At the phrasal level, it is difficult to demonstrate whether A-prosthesis regularly

came to operate in a staged way or whether the development occurred as a single
across-the-board development irrespective of context. With a staged actualiza-
tion, there would at first have been alternation between prosthetic and non-
prosthetic forms depending on phonological context—non-prosthetic forms
would be more likely in post-vocalic contexts whereas prosthetic forms would
be expected elsewhere. Alternation would then give way to the subsequent
generalization of the prosthetic alternant, as appears to have happened with I-
prosthesis in most varieties of western Romance (cf. 4.1.4). For A-prosthesis,
however, the early available textual data are inconclusive. Although some modern
170 A-prosthesis
Gascon varieties now show contextually conditioned alternation, this may reflect
the result of deletion of a prosthetic vowel in post-vocalic contexts rather than a
continuation of original alternation. This is the view of Sarrieu (1904: 509–10)
who reports that in the Gascon variety of Bagnères-de-Luchon there is a regular
absence of [a] in words beginning with arr- when a vowel-final word precedes in
) there are alternating
close-knit syntactic phrases. Thus, for arrôzo ‘rose’ (< ROSA
realizations such as:
(post-pausal) arrôzo ‘rose’
h
(post-consonantal) dües arrôzes ‘two roses’ where ü = [ ]
but (post-vocalic) yo (or yu) rrôzo ‘a rose’
üm bukéd de ’rrôzes ‘a bunch of flowers’
(or d’arrôzes)
Similarly, for the modern Gascon varieties of the Comminges in the central Pyr-
enean zone, Bec (1968: 175) states that the prosthetic vowel /a-/ only appears in post-
pausal and post-consonantal contexts. This leads him to characterize the vowel as
‘un simple adjuvant articulatoire,’33 although no comment is made on its historical
development. While it is ultimately unprovable whether the distribution here
represents the result of more recent change or the preservation unchanged of an
earlier alternating pattern that existed more generally, there is suggestive evidence in
favour of the latter view which comes from the pattern of alternation reported by
Sarrieu (1903: 319) for historically s impura forms, which was presented in 4.1.4
above. Here, a directly comparable pattern of synchronic alternation is found:
(post-pausal) espyó ‘thorn’
h
(post-consonantal) dües espyés ‘two thorns’ where ü = [ ]
but (post-vocalic) era spyó ‘the thorn’; yo/yu spyó ‘a thorn’
Given that alternations of this type only appear consistently with forms that
underwent prosthesis and that aphaeresis is rare,34 we may suspect that the two
Gascon varieties concerned may well have remained at the first stage of prosthetic
actualization and never gone on to generalize use of the prosthetic vowel in all
contexts. It therefore seems not unlikely that A-prosthesis developed originally as
a staged process, with post-vocalic contexts being the last to be incorporated. And
33
The interpretation of the prosthetic vowel here is reminiscent of Martinet’s proposal
to view schwa in modern French as a ‘lubrifiant’ (1969: 216).
34
Sarrieu (loc. cit.) notes one other context where aphaeresis can occur, namely in
words beginning with vowel þ Nasal þ Consonant, e.g. (a)nnádo in buno ’nnádo ‘good
year’. The deletion here is evidently less normal than in the two historically prosthetizing
contexts and appears typically in allegro speech styles only (‘ne s’accomplit guère que dans
la parole assez rapide’).
A-prosthesis 171
in view of the similarity with the likely actualization of I-prosthesis (cf. 4.1.4), the
possibility also exists that A-prosthesis may have developed preferentially in post-
consonantal contexts first of all before spreading to post-pausal contexts. How-
ever, some limited counter-evidence to this view comes from recent experimental
work on the articulation of consonants at the beginning of units at different levels
of the phonological hierarchy. The studies of Fougeron (2001) and Keating et al.
(2003) on modern French and certain non-Romance languages have revealed that
in general terms the articulation of a consonant is more forceful and of greater
duration at the beginning of higher-level prosodic units than at lower-level units,
i.e. more forceful in post-pausal, intonational phrase-initial position than word-
initial or syllable-initial.35 This would suggest that R- in post-pausal position
might have been the first to experience the strengthening that was evidently
indispensable for vowel prosthesis to occur. If so, the order of actualization of
A-prosthesis might have been post-pausal > post-consonantal > post-vocalic.
However, in the present limited state of our knowledge of pronunciation in early
Romance, this interpretation must remain speculative.
If, as appears to be the case, A-prosthesis typically arose in Romance as a process

preferentially affecting forms with etymological initial R- which had undergone
preliminary strengthening, attempts to explain the etiology of this category of
prosthesis must address two problems. First, the factors leading to word-initial
rhotic strengthening need to be accounted for; second, there is the question of
why the presence of a strengthened word-initial rhotic in particular should have
triggered prosthesis in certain varieties of Romance.
The causation of initial rhotic strengthening has attracted relatively little direct
attention. Indeed, only one proposal seems to be of relevance here and even this is
of uncertain appropriateness. The proposal was developed by various structural-
ist linguists, notably Martinet (1952/1955), Weinrich (1969), and Hall (1964), and
more recently it has been taken up again by Cravens (2002). Since the structuralist
view is presented in slightly different ways by its various proponents, we will just
outline a broadly consensus account of it. The crucial assumption made is that, in
early Romance, phrase-medial word boundaries had no direct phonetic signifi-
cance such that when word-initial consonants appeared within phonological
phrases they varied allophonically in respect of strength in the same way as
35
Fougeron (2001: 123), for example, found that in the speech of her four French
informants the duration of the lingual occlusion of the test consonants was ‘usually very
long in IPi position’, where ‘IPi’ stands for Intonational Phrase-initial.
172 A-prosthesis
their word-medial counterparts. Thus, a post-vocalic allophone such as the rhotic

in UNA RANA ‘one frog’ had a relatively weak realization identical to that found
when the consonant was intervocalic within a word, e.g. in CARA ‘dear (f.sg.)’.
However, a relatively strong realization appeared when the consonant was not
post-vocalic, that is, when it occurred either post-pausally or post-consonantally
within a phonological phrase (irrespective of word boundaries); for example,
a strong rhotic would appear in TRES RANAS ‘three frogs’ and SUBRIDERE ‘to
smile’ (post-consonantal), and also in RANA EST ‘It’s a frog’ (post-pausal). It
should be noted that ‘post-consonantal’ here includes only those cases where
the rhotic is syllable-initial; in forms like TRES where the rhotic was post-conso-
nantal but the second member of a complex onset, the rhotic evidently had a
weak articulation. Latin also has geminate consonants including a geminate
rhotic RR as in TERRA ‘land’ which only appeared in intervocalic position. This at
first remained distinct from the strong variant of the simplex consonant, but, as
we have seen, little by little the latter became increasingly identified with the
original geminate in many forms of Romance. Thus, schematically, we may
represent the pattern as follows, using ‘R’ as the strong allophone and ‘r’ as the
weak allophone of simplex /r/.
usage in early after later, regional
Romance generalization of strong
variant word-initally
post-vocalic word-medial r r
post-vocalic word-initial r R
post-consonantal word-initial R R
post-consonantal word-medial R R
post-pausal R R
geminate R(R) R
From this hypothesized starting-point, the assumption is that in western

Romance varieties and in some, but not all, eastern Romance varieties the strong
variant was later generalized to all word-initial contexts. Different explanations
for this later development have been proposed. Hall and Cravens note that, in a
substantial number of phrase-medial contexts, word-initial consonants which
appear to be post-vocalic in later Romance probably underwent strengthening
through rafforzamento fonosintattico (RF) in earlier stages.36 For instance, in a
phrase such as Spanish y piedras ‘and stones’ which derives from ET PĔTRAS, the
36
See Loporcaro (1997a) for a detailed review of the historical development of RF. In
broad terms, RF has occurred either (i) through the assimilation of an original word-final
consonant to the initial consonant of a following word provided the words are closely
syntactically linked, e.g. ET MĒ > Italian e me [em’me] ‘and me’; or (ii) in certain
A-prosthesis 173
word-initial consonant would be strengthened as a result of the preceding word-

final consonant becoming assimilated to it, [et p-] > [e pp-]. Clearly, the effect of
RF would be to increase the frequency of the strong variant at the beginning of
many apparently post-vocalic words in early medieval Romance. Hall (1964: 555)
offers some statistical evidence that points to the predominance of the strength-
ened allophone of word-initial consonants in western Romance. Using an Old
Occitan text as a basis, he calculates that out of the total of word tokens beginning
with a consonant, 64 per cent would have been in contexts where strengthening
would be expected (post-pausal, post-consonantal, and post-vocalic in RF con-
texts). The suggestion therefore is that it was the statistical predominance of the
strong variant in word-initial position within phonological phrases that led to its
subsequent generalization.
Attractive though the argumentation may at first sight seem to be, the struc-
tural account encounters some difficulties. As Pensado (2006) has noted, there is
little actual philological evidence for many of the developments postulated. Hall
(1965: 552) cites forms such as Cast. bravo ‘bad-tempered’ < PRĀVU(M) or Old Sard.
gruke ‘cross’, gurtellu ‘knife’ (< CRŬCE(M), CULTĔLLU(M)) as possible indicators, in
that they are claimed to represent lexicalized forms showing exceptional general-
ization of the weak word-initial allophone. However, given the supposed univer-
sality in earlier times of the word-initial alternation between weak and strong
consonants, we might perhaps expect to see rather more such cases where the
presence of the weak variant is indicated word-initially, especially in medieval
texts written by less educated scribes.
Furthermore, the structuralist account takes as basic that word boundaries had
no phonetic correlate within phonological phrases (cf. Weinrich 1969: }57). In the
light of recent phonetic studies, however, this assumption is shown to be ques-
tionable since evidence has been found that consonants do display phonetic
differences in French and other languages depending upon their location in
relation to the boundaries of prosodic domains. As we saw above (5.3.2), experi-
mental research has demonstrated that consonants appearing at the beginning of
prosodic units tend to be more strongly articulated the higher up the prosodic
hierarchy the unit in question is (syllable, word, accentual phrase, intonational
phrase). Hence, a given consonant is typically more weakly articulated syllable-
initial than when it is word-initial, and so on. The typical occurrence of phoneti-
cally stronger consonantal realizations word-initially serves to undermine to
some degree one of the key assumptions of the structuralist vision.
Italo-Romance varieties, when a short stressed word-final vowel appears before a

syntactically linked, consonant-initial word, e.g. Italian cantò male [kan’t P m’ma:le]‘he
sang badly’.
174 A-prosthesis
Finally, although the interpretation advanced by the structuralists offers some

insights into the possible rationale for strengthening for obstruents, it is less
helpful in accounting for circumstances with sonorants. This is tacitly recognized
by Hall and Weinrich who focus on obstruent change.37 Certainly, some support-
ive evidence comes from Ibero-Romance where word-initial R- has generally been
strengthened and evolves like geminate -RR- (cf. 5.2.3 and n. 19). However, obvious
counterevidence comes, for instance, from Castilian where L-, N- do not palatalize
in the same way as geminate -ll-, -NN-, as in lago, nombre (< LĂCU(M), NŌMINE) but
silla, caña (< SĔLLA, CANNA).38 Similarly, Gascon initial L- patterns like weak

simplex -L- rather than strong -LL-, e.g. LŪNA > lüo and MOLA > mulo ‘millstone’
but SĔLLA > sèro ‘saddle’ (Schönthaler 1937). In eastern Romance too, the dialects
of southern Italy offer problematic evidence. For, although the systematic
strengthening of word-initial sonorants presupposed by the structuralists widely
affects the rhotic R-, it seldom operates on the other types of sonorant.39 The
structuralist rationale therefore offers some potentially useful insights but it is
beset with various difficulties when used to account for the strengthening of
word-initial rhotics.
In trying to identify the factor(s) triggering rhotic strengthening in early Ro-
mance, the possibility needs to be considered that the development may not have
had a single common causation across all Romance varieties. Instead, certain factors
may be shared, but additional and more localized factors may also have operated
yielding comparable results. A few tentative observations may be advanced here. To
37
The title of Hall’s 1964 paper makes this clear. Weinrich (1968: 52, n. 14) does make a
brief remark on sonorant development when he states that the presence of ‘spontanous
initial doubling’ in the rhotic of Cast. la rana is unconnected with RF. Doubling is not due
to syntactic phonetics, i.e. sandhi, it is claimed. Indeed, it is viewed not as lengthening but
rather as an ‘intensification’ (Intensivierung) of the consonant’s articulation, but no
explanation is offered for the change.
38
Martinet (1956: 283–4) considers the failure of initial L- to develop to palatal ll- just
like the medial geminate -LL- does, and he attributes it to the need to avoid homonym clash
with the palatal ll- which had arisen from initial PL-, CL-, FL-. Nothing is said about the
failure of N- to give palatal ñ- in Castilian just as -NN- did, although such an initial
palatalization is found in C. and E. Asturian and Leonese dialects, e.g. the Asturian
saying Quien ñon diga ñon, ñabos, ñavaya, a mió tierra que ñon vaya ‘Whoever does not
say ñon “not”, ñabos “turnips”, ñavaya “(clasp) knife”, let him not go to my land’ (Zamora
Vicente 1967: 130).
39
Cf. Rohlfs (1966: }}159, 161) where the near absence of strengthening of initial L- and
N- is reported for southern dialects. Initial M- however undergoes widespread
strengthening (}160). Martinet (1964: 282, n. 58) briefly claims that the strong initial r-
widely found in southern Italy is the result of analogy with forms where the initial rhotic
was strengthened through RF. Why other initial sonorants were not similarly affected is not
discussed.
A-prosthesis 175
begin with, it seems appropriate to assume that consonant allophones at the

beginning of prosodic units tend to be stronger than ones occurring within such
units, as has been shown in recent experimental phonetic investigation to which
reference has already been made. Word-initial consonants might therefore be
expected to develop a stronger articulation than their simplex medial counterparts.
From this common basis, western Romance varieties may well be expected to have
been affected by the factors identified by structuralist linguists, particularly as word-
final consonants were much more retentive in the west of Romania continua and
their presence was important in promoting strengthening of a following word-
initial consonant. However, it remains unclear why rhotics should have shown
greater susceptibility to such strengthening in comparison with other types of
sonorant. Rhotic strengthening in eastern Romance varieties is no less problematic
to account for. Italo-Romance is especially curious since southern varieties regularly
show it but central varieties do not normally do so. Here, the possibility exists of
some localized influence from the long-standing adstratum language Greek. In
Ancient Greek, initial rhotics were always voiceless [3] and their medial allophonic
counterpart was geminated [33] (Allen 1987: 43). It seems not inconceivable there-
fore, that generations of bilingual Latin-Greek speakers may have carried the
allophonic patterning of rhotics occurring in Greek over to Latin, the result of
which could have been the identification of the initial Latin R- with the medial
geminate rhotic -RR-. As only rhotics show this patterning in Greek, we have at least a
possible contributory factor helping to explain the exceptional strengthening in this
consonant in southern Italian dialects. In the other major eastern Romance area,
Balkan Romance, the factors underlying the strengthening of the rhotic R- are
unfortunately even more problematic and they remain enigmatic. Much work is
still to be done therefore on clarifying the background of initial consonant strength-
ening in Romance.
A little more attention has been paid by romanists to explaining the origins of the
process of A-prosthesis. Various approaches have been used, some more plausibly
than others. We may identify three broad types which will be reviewed in turn:
phonetic, phonological, and contact influence from pre-Roman languages.
(a) Phonetic-based accounts of A-prosthesis have mainly addressed the circum-
stances of its occurrence in Gascon. The earliest example of this approach
was presented by Millardet (1910: 128–9) who claimed that prosthetic [a] had
arisen merely as an anticipatory vowel that foreshadowed the vowel following
initial R-.40 Ronjat (1932: 54) rejected this as ad hoc and claimed that word-initial
R- may have been relatively long when in post-pausal or post-consonantal
40
‘La voyelle de la syllabe primitive initiale a pénétré partiellement à travers l’[r-] . . . Ce
fragment de voyelle, s’infiltrant à travers l’[r], a transpiré à l’initiale, et coloré en [a] par
l’[r], il a dans la suite formé syllabe’ (Millardet 1910: 129).
176 A-prosthesis
contexts and that it was this longer variant that ‘split’ into a sequence of syllabic
and non-syllabic rhotic [rr] before becoming arr-.41 Unfortunately, it is not made
’
entirely clear what might have caused the lengthening of the rhotic and its
subsequent ‘splitting.’ Nonetheless, the significance of the prior lengthening of
initial R- is clearly perceived, as is the likely creation of alternation between
prosthetic and non-prosthetic forms in the early development of A-prosthesis.
In his structuralist examination of A-prosthesis in Gascon and Ibero-Romance,
Jungemann (1956: 285–7) subscribes to Ronjat’s account, suggesting that the
creation of a prosthetic vowel before strengthened /rr-/ is comparable with
I-prosthesis before the ‘liquid s’ of word-initial s impura sequences where a
similar inherent vocalicness is attributed to an original consonant (cf. 4.1.5).
A rather more plausible phonetic basis to the development of a prosthetic
vowel can be found, however, if certain phonetic properties inherent to the rhotic
trill R- are considered more closely. Of particular significance appears to be the
very precise articulatory control required for the production of a trilled alveolar
/r/, as recent experimental investigation has revealed. Solé (2002a, 2002b) de-
scribes in some detail the physiological and aerodynamic demands made when
pronouncing this sound-type, noting that ‘the conditions for initiating tongue-
tip trilling involve muscle contraction of the tongue to assume the position, shape
and elasticity requirements, and a sufficient pressure difference across the lingual
constriction’ (2002a: 656). The complexities are such that the articulation of a
strongly trilled [r] can pose difficulties for some speakers.42 This is borne out by
the findings of Hammond (2000) for Latin American Spanish. In an acoustic and
perceptual analysis of the speech of ninety-five native speakers from nine different
countries, it was found that the informants frequently did not realize the strong-
ly-trilled rhotic normally found in word-initial position with multiple tongue-tip
vibrations. Instead, a wide range of articulations were reported which included
various pre-aspirated sequences such as the pre-aspirated trill [hr] and tap [hɾ].
Comparison can be made between these findings and those reported in the
investigation by Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 219) of the articulation of
word-initial /r/ by two Italian speakers. Here, it was discovered that when these
speakers articulated the words rana and rosso, there was a short approximant or
41
‘dans un mot tel que rei < rege, isolé ou prononcé après un mot finissant par une
consonne, la cons. relativement longue se soit scindée en rr devenue ensuite arr-, ce qui ne se
produisait pas quand r était entre voyelles dans un groupe étroitement lié tel que lo rei < (il)lu
rege; puis il y aura normalisation de l’une ou de l’autre des formes alternées’ (Ronjat 1932: 54).
42
Cf. ‘Tongue-tip trills involve a complex production mechanism requiring finely
tuned neuromotor adjustment of various parameters—positioning of the articulators,
shape, articulator mass, stiffness and aerodynamic conditions—which accounts for the
difficulties lingual trills present to inexperienced (e.g. foreign learners) and immature (e.g.
children) speakers’ (Solé 2002b: 352).
A-prosthesis 177
vowel-like sound of about 50 ms in duration preceding the lingual contact with

the alveolar ridge. A similar transitional phase was noted for one speaker at the
end of the articulation of the initial rhotic.
The results from these studies are suggestive, for they indicate a tendency for
the realization of the articulatorily complex trilled rhotic [r] to be adapted by at
least some speakers when it is in word-initial position. And the adaptation
appears to involve the introduction of some sort of on-glide, either a voiceless
copy of the rhotic or an indeterminate vocalic element. That such an on-glide
might subsequently come to be interpreted as an independent vocalic segment
and assigned a quality permissible in the language concerned, i.e. become estab-
lished as a prosthetic vowel, does not seem impossible (cf. 1.6 above).
(b) Romanists have not often appealed to phonologically based rationales when
seeking to account for A-prosthesis. However, phonological theory can provide a
useful basis for understanding the development of this process. As a starting
point, we can note that after the word-initial rhotic R- underwent strengthening,
effectively it can be seen to have become a geminate. Now, geminates in syllable-
onset position are unusual in language, though they are found. In Romance, there
are certainly a number of examples. Thus, in northern Italian varieties cases have
arisen as a result of syncope in word-initial syllables such that two identical
consonants came together, e.g. SEXĀ(GI)NTA > [’ssa:Nta] ‘sixty’ in Bolognese, and
TITT-ĪNOS > [’tti:N] ‘nipples’ in Valestra, prov. Reggio Emilia (Malagoli 1934: 84). In
varieties of standard French too, comparable syncopated forms such as [ppa],
[mmA~ ], [ttalR] for papa, maman, tout à l’heure may be heard. A further source
of post-pausal geminates in French is provided by the clitic pronouns en and
elided l’, as in: [nn] avez-vous d’autres, [ll] avez-vous vu ?43 Beyond Romance,
they occur for example in Pattani Malay (Hajek and Goedemans 2003). When
they arise, such onsets are theoretically anomalous for most phonological models.
For instance, in moraic theory, geminates are viewed as mora-bearing but it has
often been assumed that syllable onsets (and hence word-initial onsets) are not
mora-bearing, so that the appropriate characterization of onset geminates con-
tinues to be controversial in this model of description.44 In government phonol-
ogy, geminates are not licensed as onsets. Accordingly, it might be expected that,
as with complex onsets containing any sequence except consonant þ liquid, an
43
I am indebted to Yves Charles Morin (p.c.) for the French data; cf. also Morin (1979).
44
Already in the early days of moraic theory, certain phonologists reported linguistic
data suggesting that onsets may be mora-bearing rather than weightless, e.g. Davis (1988,
1990). Since then, a number of languages have been described where there are word-initial
geminates showing properties associated with the presence of moraicity, notably relevance
in determining stress assignment. This has led to the growing recognition that onsets can
be mora-bearing (cf. Davis 1999; Ham 2001; Topintzi 2006).
178 A-prosthesis
onset geminate would be interpreted as #vC|C- where the first part of the
geminate forms part of the rhyme of a syllable whose nucleus ‘v’ may be
phonetically unrealized. Such a representation recalls the circumstances discussed
earlier for I-prosthesis, where the appearance of a prosthetic vowel was viewed
phonologically as the filling of a nuclear slot motivated on general theoretical
grounds. The broad tendency from pre-Classical times into Late Latin whereby
syllable onsets were simplified to consist of just simplex consonants or obs-
truent þ liquid clusters would have actively promoted prosthesis in forms con-
taining a word-initial geminate. Accordingly, in Romance varieties where word-
initial rhotics had undergone sufficient strengthening to be identified with the
medial geminate -RR-, we might expect on theoretical grounds that prosthesis
would be a possible consequence.
(c) Although deep scepticism has reigned for some time amongst the great
majority of romanists as to the relevance of pre-Roman languages in locally
shaping Romance phonological patterns, it seems not too far fetched to suggest
that such languages may have exercised some background influence in promoting
the use of a prosthetic vowel before rhotics in the Latin speech of certain
communities that, for many generations, may have been bilingual or diglossic,
with Latin and a pre-Roman language in coexistence.45 In areas of Romania
continua where pre-Roman languages long continued to exist alongside Latin,
the confirmed presence in these languages of strengthened word-initial rhotics or
of prosthesis before initial rhotics may well have lent some support to any
internally motivated tendencies affecting initial rhotics.
Appeals to pre-Roman linguistic influence have typically been made by scho-
lars concerned with the origins of A-prosthesis in Gascon and Ibero-Romance. It
was noted that most, though not all, of the Romance varieties affected were
spoken originally in or near the Pyrenean area in close proximity to the Basque
country which in Roman and medieval times was a good deal larger than it is
today (it will be recalled that all the modern varieties of Ibero-Romance descend
from forms of Latin spoken in the north of the Peninsula). Now, in early times it
appears that Basque, a pre-Roman language of uncertain origins, had a prohibi-
tion not only on word-initial consonant clusters but also on word-initial rhotics.
Another pre-Roman language, Iberian, which was formerly spoken mainly in the
eastern coastal area of the Peninsula from Almerı́a up to modern Languedoc in
SW France (Correa 2004: 38), evidently had a similar prohibition on word-initial
45
We use the term ‘pre-Roman’ in preference to ‘substratum’ since by convention the
latter term refers typically to chronologically earlier languages which have ceased to exist as
living languages, such as Iberian or Etruscan. In contrast, Basque and Greek have
continued to be used, albeit by fewer speakers over time, in the western Pyrenean area
and in southern Italy respectively.
A-prosthesis 179
rhotics. These constraints are apparent from the near-total absence of forms with
word-initial <r> in early inscriptional evidence of Basque and Iberian from north
and south of the Pyrenees.46 Loanwords into these languages containing word-
initial [r-] were always adapted and nativized through the insertion of a pros-
thetic vowel. Furthermore, the prohibition against word-initial [r-] has remained
largely productive in Basque up to the present day except in more peripheral
dialects like Roncalés and Souletin. In the other dialects, the occasional excep-
tions involve just recent loanwords such as rezibi ‘to receive’ and reina ‘queen’
(Michelena 1990: 333; Trask 1997: 127, 146). The quality of the prosthetic vowel
shows some variation but a default quality of /e/ has been widely generalized.47
Given the approximate geographical correspondence between the likely area of
Basque speech in the late Empire and early medieval times and the location of the
embryonic Gascon, Castilian, and Aragonese speech-communities in the same
period, and given also the striking similarity in the limitation of prosthesis
specifically to words with word-initial [r-] in both areas, it is not surprising
that various scholars have seen Basque influence as a likely explanation for A-
prosthesis in these varieties of Romance; for example, Luchaire (1877: 23, 28–31),
Bourciez (1936) and more circumspectly in (1956: }269,c), Rohlfs (1970: 150) and
Echenique Elizondo (2004: 73).48 It may also be noted that these Pyrenean
Romance communities were culturally and politically peripheral for centuries
so that ongoing Basque-Romance contact would have been all the more perva-
sive. The findings of more recent research on contact language influence are of
relevance here. According to the ‘borrowing scale’ appearing in Thomason and
Kaufman (1988: 74–5) and Thomason (2001: 70–1), a more intense contact such as
46
Cf. Correa Rodrı́guez (2004: 40) who notes that in the extant inscriptions of Iberian
the two rhotics in the language only occur when preceded by a vowel so that they were
impermissible in absolute word-initial position. Similarly, Echenique Elizondo (2004: 73)
reports the typological coincidences between reconstructed ancient Basque and Iberian,
and she identifies amongst the phonological similarities the ‘ausencia de /r-/ inicial’.
47
Rohlfs (1970: 150) only mentions the existence of [e-], citing derivations such as
, RĪPA, RŌMA > errege, errota, erripa, Erroma. However, Gavel (1920: 207) who was
RĒGEM, ROTA
describing Basque usage in France identifies varying outcomes determined partly by vowel
copying. Thus, [e-] appears when [e] or a rounded vowel followed the rhotic, [e-] or [a-]
when the low vowel [a] followed, and [e-] or [i-] when the high vowel [i] followed. Thus,
the vowel [e-] appears to operate as the default but with the possibility that it may be
modified through copying the height of a following unrounded vowel, raising before [i] or
lowering before [a]. The reasons behind the selection of [e] as the default quality are not
clear.
48
Other scholars have simply left open the possibility of substratum influence. For
instance, Wüest (1979: 106) prudently suggests for Gascon that ‘une influence du substrat
basque n’est pas exclue’.
180 A-prosthesis
that between Basque and early Romance can lead to the borrowing of prosodic
features and the loss or addition of syllable-structure constraints. This certainly
appears to be consistent with the possibility that Basque may have reinforced any
internal tendencies within Latin to create a prosthetic vowel.
Elsewhere in Romania continua, the possibility that influence from pre-Roman
languages may have played a role in promoting the use of a prosthetic vowel in
rhotic-initial words does not appear to have received serious investigation. This is
understandable, since our knowledge of the pre-Roman languages of Sardinia,
the Alps, and the Balkans is limited and inconclusive.
In sum, although the causation for A-prosthesis remains poorly understood in
many respects, it is possible to recognize a number of factors which may have
contributed in varying degrees to the development—phonetic, phonological, and
contact-based. Unfortunately, due to the general lack of research by romanists into
the etiology of this category of prosthesis, the relative significance of the individual
factors that have been considered remains uncertain. It is to be hoped that future
investigation will help to clarify this question and also perhaps reveal further
relevant contributory factors.
5.2.7 A S T RU C T U R A L LY R E L AT E D D EV E LO P M E N T : T H E I TA L I A N F O R M S
I G N U D O , I G N O C C H I , E TC .
A special instance of vowel prosthesis that appears akin to A-prosthesis is found in a

small set of words occurring in medieval Tuscan and, for some items, still in the
archaizing register of literary Italian as well as sporadically in other central and
northern varieties of Italo-Romance: e.g. ignudo ‘naked’, ignocchi ‘small dumplings’,
ignucca ‘knuckle’, ignuno ‘nobody’, ignòmmero ‘elbow’. The common characteristic is
the presence of a palatal nasal in word-initial position prior to the appearance of the
vowel [i-], although in most cases the source of the palatality of the nasal is unfortu-
nately not clear. Thus, for example, Rohlfs (1966: }161) derives the form ignudo from
ignudare a putative variant of isnudare < EX-NUDĀRE ‘to strip naked’, but elsewhere the
possibility of its coming from gnudo < niudo < *nludu < NŪDULU is aired (}323).49
A further case is provided by one isolated form involving etymologically initial [d-],
namely Iddio ‘God’ < DĔU(M). Almost all of these are directly paralleled by outcomes
49
Ignocco (pl. ignocchi) may derive from Langobardic *nukka ‘knuckle’ through
metaphor; ignucca would represent the direct semantic continuator of the Germanic
etymon. Ignuno presumably goes back to NE(C)-ŪNU(M), cf. niente < NE(C)-ĔNTE (DELI s.
v. niente) or perhaps less plausibly NE-GĔNTE (Rohlfs 1968: }499). The source of the palatal
nasal in ignòmmero < CŬBITU(M), cf. standard Italian gomito, is uncertain.
A-prosthesis 181
lacking word-initial [i-], nudo, gnocchi, nucca, gomito50 and Dio which now represent
the normal form for these items in standard Italian. The unexpectedness of the initial
vowel is shown by the evolution of words of similar structure such as NŪBILU(M)
> nuvolo ) nuvola ‘cloud’, NŬCE(M) > noce ‘nut, and DĔCEM > dieci ‘ten’ in which no
such development has occurred.
To explain the appearance of the initial vowel in the ign- forms, it needs to be
recalled that intervocalic palatal sonorants in early Romance typically had a
geminate realization. This is still the case in central and southern varieties of
Italo-Romance, cf. standard Italian vigna ‘vineyard’ [’viJJa], figlia ‘daughter’
[’fiLLa]. Usually the palatal nasal was only found intervocalically but when,
unusually, it came to occur word-initially the normal geminate pronunciation
was maintained. In the forms developing an initial palatal nasal, vowel prosthesis
seems to have been adopted therefore as a strategy to enable syllabification to
occur. The selection of the vowel quality [i] was evidently determined by the
palatal nature of the following consonant, i.e. strategy (iv) as identified in 1.6.
Also relevant perhaps was the presence in medieval Tuscan of an existing and
frequently occurring prosthetic vowel [i] (cf. 4.3.3 and 5.2.4).
The appearance of the initial vowel [i-] in Iddio can likewise be attributed to
the prior development of a strengthened consonant [dd] word-initially. Indeed,
in standard Italian the plosive in the word Dio (as well as in its associated plural
and feminine forms dei, dea, dee) remains unique in systematically having a
geminate realization when preceded by a vowel, e.g. senza Dio [’s¡ntsa d’di:o]
as against senza dita ‘without fingers’ [’s¡ntsa ’di:ta], although the reasons for this

pronunciation are not certain.51 However, the presence of a geminate initial

consonant was doubtless of key importance in triggering the appearance of a
prosthetic vowel in order to enable syllabification to take place. The selection of
the vowel quality [i] owes itself to similar factors as those identified for forms
beginning with ign-, assimilation to the following coronal consonant [dd] and the
existing presence of [i] as a general prosthetic vowel type.52
50
Italian nessuno ‘nobody’ derives from a different etymon NE(C)-IPSU-ŪNU(M).
51
For instance, Rohlfs (1966: }153) attributes the gemination to the effect of
rafforzamento fonosintattico in the phrase SOLUS DEUS, with the strengthened alternant
subsequently being generalized. However, Skytte (1975: 273, n. 46) views the gemination
as the result of assimilation in the phrase (ILLE DEUS >) il dio > iddio, with once again later
generalization of this alternant (cf. Maiden and Robustelli 2000: 12).
52
If the origin of the prosthetic vowel lies in the phrase ILLE DEUS (cf. preceding
footnote), a further possibility is that the quality of the vowel merely continues that of
the initial syllable of ILLE. The outcome with initial [i] can be explained as a result of the
frequent raising of initial unstressed [e] > [i] in Tuscan, a development which is seen in
cipolla, virtù, signore, etc. and which also affected proclitics such as di and the clitic
pronouns mi, ti, si. The vowel of the article [il] evidently was also affected, although
182 A-prosthesis
The factors underlying the development of a prosthetic vowel in this idiosyn-

cratic subset of forms show obvious similarities to those motivating A-prosthesis
in rhotic-initial forms in early Romance. In both cases, the appearance of a
strengthened or geminate word-initial consonant has been the catalyst for
change. However in view of its wide-ranging nature across Romance, A-prosthe-
sis with rhotic-initial forms probably got under way chronologically rather earlier
than the much more localized development which we have just been considering.
5.3 A-prosthesis: later developments
From the later Middle Ages onward, there have been a number of notable changes
in the incidence of A-prosthesis across Romance. In some varieties where pros-
thesis had established itself as a process, the broad trend has been for progressive
reduction in its productivity. More rarely, other varieties have seen the incidence
of A-prosthesis maintained or even enhanced.
5.3.1 VA R I E T I E S S H OW I N G S I G N I F I C A N T R E G R E S S I O N O F
A - P RO S T H E S I S
Regression has occurred notably in three Romance varieties, Rheto-Romance,

Gascon, and Catalan. In Rheto-Romance, there is evidence that certain varieties
may have developed a productive phonological process of A-prosthesis. These
include especially those spoken in the Upper Engadine and to a lesser extent in
Friulian. In both cases, the more recent decline in the productivity of the process
has evidently been extreme. In Gascon, it also appears that in the medieval period
A-prosthesis had established itself in most if not all varieties as a fully productive
process. However, from the sixteenth century onward, the use of prosthesis has
experienced a steady regression so that now it continues to operate as an active
process in just a relatively small subset of Gascon dialects. Finally, in Catalan,
although A-prosthesis does not appear to have ever become established as a
systematic phonological rule during the medieval period, it is striking that
most varieties have seen a considerable retreat from the use of prosthetic forms.
We outline below the main lines of development in each of these three areas of
Romance.
southern Tuscan varieties like those of Siena and (medieval) Arezzo preserved el, cf. Rohlfs
(1968: }130, 1967: }414).
A-prosthesis 183
5.3.1.1 Rheto-Romance
For Rheto-Romance, the available textual evidence indicates that it was Upper
Engadinish in the eastern Grisons that became most subject to A-prosthesis in the
Middle Ages. Unfortunately, our knowledge of medieval developments in this
variety is poor since no substantial documents have come down to us from earlier
than the sixteenth century when texts such as the Bible translation in Engadinish
by Jakob Bifrun appeared. However, these texts reveal a widespread use of A-
prosthesis suggesting that the process was well established by that time (cf. 5.2.2
above). In the earliest detailed scholarly review of all Rheto-Romance by Gartner
(1883: }92), allusion is certainly made to the appearance of prosthetic [a-] in
forms beginning with etymological R- in certain contemporary varieties, but
perhaps surprisingly the only data to be provided relate to Dolomitish. For
Upper Engadinish, Gartner (loc. cit.) simply states that ‘a pre-posed a . . . seems
to have been exceptionally common’. The retrospective nature of this
observation is borne out by the use of illustrative examples drawn solely from
sixteenth- to early eighteenth-century texts rather than forms found in contem-
porary usage. Further revealing data come from subsequent studies of Engadinish
varieties. Thus, Walberg (1907: }102) reports that A-prosthesis is frequent in the
Upper Engadinish dialect of Celerina-Cresta (arám ‘branch’, aræñts ‘back’, arikr
‘to laugh’ < RĀMU(M), RĒNES, RĪDERE), although it is noted that, in the majority of
cases, non-prosthetic forms are also found in variation with the prosthetic ones.
No indication however is given of the factors governing the variation. More
recent descriptions of Engadinish suggest that A-prosthesis has at best a marginal
status. The grammar of (Lower) Engadinish by Arquint (1964) contains no
mention of prosthetic forms; only items such as rai ‘king’, roba ‘goods, posses-
sions’, ruina ‘ruin’, rúmper ‘to break’ are cited. The Engadinish-German dic-
tionaries of Peer (1962) and Bezzola and Tönjachen (1976) offer fuller data and
there is some evidence of prosthetic forms still being in use, but they appear to
have limited currency. Forms cited include arains (f.pl.) ‘back’, arait ‘net’, ared
‘productivity, diligence’ (deverbal form from réder < RĔNDERE), arir ‘to laugh’,
arisch ‘root’, aröv ‘entreaty, request’ (deverbal form from ROGĀRE), arúvi ‘dew’,
but non-prosthetic variants of these are also noted (rain, rait, red, rir rı́er, risch,
röv, ruvi) though with no indication of where one or other form appears. In
Lower Engadinish, the counterpart forms are regularly non-prosthetic. It is also
notable that, for a substantial number of lexical items beginning with etymologi-
cal R-, a non-prosthetic form alone has now apparently established itself as the
only acceptable realization in the semi-standardized form of modern Upper
Engadinish. Thus, words such as rai raig ‘king’, ram ‘branch’, raz ‘ray’,
rouda ‘wheel’, rer ‘rare’, rúmper ‘to break’. The move away from the use of A-
prosthesis in Upper Engadinish may reflect in part the result of dialect levelling in
the Engadine. Its general absence in Lower Engadinish and indeed other varieties
184 A-prosthesis
of the Grisons would give this process high salience which would be likely to
undergo elimination in any moves toward dialect levelling.
For Dolomitish, Gartner (1883: }92) cited as prosthetic forms ar P:šk ‘frog’, arubé
‘to steal’ from the variety of Badia,53 and arı́k ‘rich’, arı́de ‘to laugh’ from the
transitional Alpine dialect of Erto.54 In his more detailed study of usage in Erto,
however, prosthesis is stated to be generally ‘rare’ in Badia and Enneberg, but verb
forms in ar- were in evidence particularly in Erto, Fassa, and Gardena, and more
rarely in Vigo (Lower Fassa), Buchenstein, Ampezzo (Tyrol), and northern
Veneto (Gartner 1892: 201, n.1). More recent studies of Dolomitish indicate that
the scope of prosthesis has been much reduced. Thus, Elwert (1972: 118) states that
it is rare in Fassa and that the only surviving traces are in forms containing
etymological prefixal RE- where the prosthetic vowel has been lexicalized, e.g.
[arne’¡r] ‘to drown’ < RE-NECĀRE. These forms, however, do not represent true
examples of A-prosthesis. Rather, they illustrate U-prosthesis which occurred
after the initial vowel had been syncopated (see Chapter 6). In forms with initial
R- where the following vowel did not undergo syncope (as in Gartner’s examples),
there is no sign of a prosthetic vowel in Fassan, e.g. [’ri:va], [rut], [’r P:da] ‘slope,
). Kramer (1977: 174) echoes this finding
belch, wheel’ (< RĪPA, RŪCTU(M), ROTA
for all the other major varieties of Dolomitish. The implication is therefore that
A-prosthesis was at best of marginal status in Dolomitish and that in more recent
times it has ceased totally to be productive.
Finally, in Friulian there has been a comparable retreat from A-prosthesis. In
later medieval texts, as we have seen, there are frequent attestations of prosthetic
forms although the evidence does not suggest that a categorical rule of prosthesis
ever developed in any Friulian variety. However, where prosthetic forms did arise
it appears that in more recent centuries the non-prosthetic alternants have
progressively become re-established as the sole occurring form. In Gartner
(1883: 184–5), no prosthetic forms are cited as reflexes of rauba ‘possessions’,
but in a few localities ROTA ‘wheel’ is reported to have outcomes showing
A-prosthesis, e.g. [a’ru¡d¡] in Paluzza and Tolmezzo in the north, [ra’u¡d¡] in
53
Neither of these forms is unproblematic. The verb arubé could well be prefixal, and
the etymology of ar P:šk is uncertain (REW 1329 relates it to *BROSCUS ‘toad’ blended with
Low Latin RUSPUS or ROSPUS ‘toad’ of unknown origin). Only limited traces of a prosthetic
vowel have remained in these items. For the first one, AIS pt. 314 (Colfosco in Badia) has
[l awro:ʃk] whilst pt. 305 (S. Vigilio di Marebbe) has [a’r P:ʃk] (map III, 453). Only these
two localities have prosthetic reflexes. For the second, no form is cited for pt. 314 and none
of the surrounding localities recorded have prosthetic reflexes.
54
Erto lies approximately 15 km NE of Belluno. In this study, the existence of numerous
non-prosthetic forms, rik, ride, r¡jt ‘net’, rey¡jve ‘to receive’, etc. is also indicated (p. 341).
A-prosthesis 185
Cormons and [ra’ueda] in Gorizia in the south-east, the latter two forms under-
going metathesis in the first syllable [ar-] > [ra-].55 In certain modern Friulian
varieties, words showing evidence of A-prosthesis remain in use but these are not
numerous and their originally prosthetic vowel has usually now been lexicalized.
They include items like aruède ‘wheel’, aruèz ‘bunch’ < ROTEU (M), aracli ‘prop to
support plants’ (Vanelli 1984: 282, n. 4).56 However, these prosthetic forms are by
no means generalized across Friulian. For instance, the AIS (map VI, 1227) cites
prosthetic forms for ‘wheel’ at just four points,57 the form in the emerging
standard Friulian variety being ruède. Furthermore, it is suggestive that many of
the prosthetic forms cited in Zamboni et al. (1984–7) are described as archaic, e.g.
aràdi ‘to shave’, arefuidà ‘to reject’, aribòla ‘seething’, ariceu ‘to receive’, arodâr
wheelwright’, aromondà ‘to prune’, aròdolo ‘roll’, aròse ‘rose’, arònc ‘terrace’ (as
against modern ràdi, refudâ, ribuèle, ricévi, ruedâr, remondâ, rul, rose, ronc). The
evidence therefore points to a general retreat from A-prosthesis and to the
absence in any modern Friulian variety of a genuinely productive rule of vowel
prosthesis.
5.3.1.2 Gascon
Although the evidence from medieval texts suggests that A-prosthesis enjoyed
considerable productivity across most if not all the Romance varieties of Gascony,
systematic studies of modern usage indicate that comparatively few varieties have
maintained prosthesis as a active process. In the study by Bec (1968), which took
into account the use of A-prosthesis in a number of words with initial etymologi-
cal R-, it was found that the eastern frontier ran down a little to the east of
Boulogne-sur-Gesse and St Gaudens before swinging slightly to the south-west to
pass a little to the east of Canéjan in the Val d’Aran and Bagnères-de-Luchon in
the Pyrenees. To the west of this line, the varieties which have conserved the
earlier status quo most faithfully lie in the region closest to the Pyrenees and
hence most remote from outside influence.58 Even here, though, there has been a
noticeable diminution in the productivity of A-prosthesis in more recent times.
55
Reflexes of ROTA in Friulian which developed an initial [a-] have generally been
assumed by scholars to have undergone phonologically conditioned vowel prosthesis.
However, it is not impossible that morphological factors have played a role through the
recutting of grammatical boundaries, as in ILLA ROTA .
> ILL’AROTA
56
Curiously, neither of the two latter forms appear in Zamboni et al. (1984–7).
57
In the north-east and east, [un¡ ar’w¡d¡], (pl.) [ar’wedes] at pt. 319 (Cedarchis,
Arta); [ar’jod¡ ], (pl.) [ar’jodis] at pt. 329 (Travasans); [aru’ede], (pl.) [aru’edis] at pt. 348
(Sant’Odorico); and in the south-east, [ar’j Pda], (pl.) [ar’j Pde] at pt. 378 (Montona).
58
Cf. Millardet (1910: 121) who identifies the Landes and Basses-Pyrénées as ‘le dernier
refuge de l’ancienne prothèse’.
186 A-prosthesis
Rhotic-initial learned words and French borrowings in particular have very

commonly resisted nativization through prosthesis, e.g. rriðèw ‘curtain’, rrujòle
‘German measles’, rréfulà ‘to repress’ (Fr. rideau, rougeole, refouler). Furthermore,
cases of native Gascon words failing to undergo expected prosthesis have been
observed. Thus, Bec (1968: 179) reports the findings of Lalanne dating from the
mid twentieth century59 which indicate the presence of cases of polymorphism
arr- rr- in native words of western Gascon dialects, and this has been found
with some lexical items even in dialects of the extreme SW of Gascony where A-
prosthesis may be expected to be faithfully preserved. In Pyrenean dialects of
Gascon further to the east, such as that of Bagnères-de-Luchon, words with initial
r- borrowed from French evidently continued to undergo prosthesis until at least
the early twentieth century, e.g. arrüðèw ‘curtain’, arrandébus ‘appointment’,
arramunà ‘to sweep a chimney’ (Fr. rideau, rendez-vous, ramoner). However, it
is not clear how productive A-prosthesis has remained as a process up to the
present day.
In the Gascon variety spoken in the Bethmale Valley, situated a little further
east of Bagnères-de-Luchon and to the SE of St Gaudens, however, significant
regression in the use of prosthesis has been reported.60 A detailed investigation of
this variety carried out in 1931 revealed that prosthesis had already been largely
abandoned (Schönthaler 1937: }74). Prosthetic forms appeared only rarely as
lexicalized items in the local speech, the examples cited being arré ‘nothing’
(< RĔM), and two verbs arrapá ‘to seize, snatch’ (< Germ. rapōn) and the
denominal arramá ‘to support (beans) with branches’ ( RĀMU(M) ‘branch’).61
An important factor in undermining the productivity of A-prosthesis, and
particularly so in more eastern and northern varieties of Gascon, has
59
The relevant work by Lalanne is an undated roneotyped study published in St-
Vincent-de-Paul and entitled L’indépendance des aires linguistiques en Gascogne maritime.
It has not been possible for the present writer to consult this work directly.
60
The dialectal situation in the Bethmale Valley has received a good deal of attention. In
addition to coverage in the ALG pt 790S and in the monograph by Schönthaler (1937), it
was the subject of close sociolinguistic examination more recently by Helfenstein, Keller,
and Kristol (Wüest and Kristol 1993: 83–108). The focus of attention here was the continued
use of Gascon amongst the inhabitants of the Valley.
61
The preservation of prosthetic arré in Bethmale finds parallels in many other Gascon
varieties where A-prosthesis has been abandoned; cf. fn. 9. Bec (1968: 175) links the
widespread maintenance of a prosthetic vowel in this item with the need for a fuller
phonetic form to give emphasis to an otherwise brief monosyllable. For the two verbal
forms, there is a strong possibility that prefixation with a- < AD- is involved rather than
prosthesis. Further prosthetic examples from Bethmale are provided by the ALG, pt. 790S,
e.g. arrát ‘rat’ (map I, 3). Schönthaler (1937: }119) reports only the non-prosthetic form
rrat.
A-prosthesis 187
undoubtedly been contact influence from Occitan and more especially standard
French. Already in the nineteenth century, Luchaire (1879: 208) recognized the
significance of this influence. After observing that there was a ‘repugnance’ for
initial [r-] amongst contemporary Gascon speakers which led them to strengthen
the consonant and precede it with a prosthetic vowel, he noted that this adapta-
tion was all the more likely and consistent, the more rural the variety was and the
less influenced it was by French, and also the more geographically distant it was
from the Garonne and hence from the Occitan of Languedoc. Schönthaler (1937)
identifies as likely sociolinguistic routes of French influence, school, the Church,
military service and commercial contacts.
The Gascon of the Aran Valley has been shielded in some measure from
influence from standard French, since this area has never formed part of the
French state. However, other contact influences have operated increasingly on the
speech of the inhabitants, this time from Catalan and Castilian. The absence of A-
prosthesis in these Ibero-Romance varieties has had a similar negative impact on
prosthetic usage as that experienced in Gascony. We may note that an equally
negative impact can be found on the southern side of the Pyrenees in varieties of
Aragonese, e.g. Rafel i Fontanals (1980) presents forms like [rre’ðono] ‘round (m.
sg.)’, [’rrato] ‘rat’ and [’rrweða] ‘wheel’ for the Benasc Valley and Badı́a Margarit
(1950) cites [rre’ðiɾ] ‘to laugh’, [’rramo] ‘branch’, [’rrio] ‘river’, [’rrojo] ‘red’ for
the variety of Bielsa. Although Schädel (1908: 151) reported that A-prosthesis still
appeared regularly in Aranais, the decline in productivity of this process has been
considerable over more recent years. In fact, Bec (1968: 181) confirms that with the
exception of the Canéjan Valley in the NW of the Aranais-speaking region, the
process of A-prosthesis is clearly regressing. The special circumstances in the
Canéjan Valley owe themselves evidently to its more northerly, isolated location
close to other prosthetizing areas in Gascony and to the stronger pastoral tradition
there which fosters regular contact with those Gascon areas. More recently,
attention has been called by Coromines (1990: 41) to diastratic variation and lexical
layering in the use of A-prosthesis in Aranais. Diastratically, the more cultivated a
speaker is the more likely (s)he is to suppress A-prosthesis; one result of this may
be hypercorrection, as in ratja ‘wild oats’ < arratja < (AVĒNA) ERRĂTICA. Lexically,
the use of A-prosthesis by speakers is more likely with well-established words, but
less usual with words perceived as being foreign or not part of the more familiar
native lexicon.
5.3.1.3 Catalan
In modern Catalan which is based on the educated usage of Barcelona, there is
very little evidence today of A-prosthesis. However, in more peripheral varieties
of Catalan, prosthetic forms are still reported to be fairly frequent. For example,
in Alguerès (Algherese) which is spoken in NW Sardinia having been introduced
188 A-prosthesis
into the island in the fourteenth century by settlers who appear to have come
predominantly from eastern parts of the Catalan-speaking area,62 items like the
following are found (Blasco Ferrer 1984: } 77):
Alguerès Standard Catalan etymon
[arra’k PVt] record ‘memory’ -
(deverbal) RE-CORD
[arras’tat] restat ‘remained’ (p.p.) RESTĀTU(M)
[arru’ba] rubar ‘to steal’ (Germ.) raubōn
[arru’veV] rovell ‘rust’ RUBICULU(M)63
[ar’res] res ‘something’ RĒS
Also, in the variety of Catalan used in the Roussillon, cases of prosthesis are
reported as still occurring in the early twentieth century, as in errebén [‰rr‰’ en]
‘suddenly’ (< REPĔNTE) and various verb forms such as erregar [‰rr‰’ªa] ‘to water’
(< RIGĀRE), errollar [‰rruL’La] ‘to form a circle, surround’ (< ROTULĀRE), though
such verb forms may also reflect influence from prefixal a- < AD-.64 However, in
verb forms the prosthetic vowel only appears when the following syllable is
unstressed, hence [’rreª‰] ‘(s)he waters’ (< RIGAT) etc. represents the only occur-
ring realization. Also, even the prosthetic verb forms have non-prosthetic var-
iants, e.g. [‰rr‰’ªa] [rr‰’ªa], although the circumstances for the use of one
rather than the other are not made clear. The evidence therefore points to the
lingering, albeit much diminished, presence of A-prosthesis in this variety.65
In the light of these pieces of data, it seems reasonable to infer that in earlier
times A-prosthesis may have enjoyed a good deal of currency across most if not all
the Catalan-speaking region. From the late medieval period onwards, however,
there has been a progressive retreat from the use of this phonological process,
most significantly amongst speakers of the emerging standard language in the
Barcelona area.
62
The question of the precise origins of the early settlers in Alguer (Alghero) has been
the subject of much controversy. The earlier presumption that most came from the
Barcelona area has been largely rejected. The general consensus now is that the settlers
probably came from various parts of the Iberian Peninsula but that, predictably perhaps,
areas nearer to the sea were more represented, e.g. Barcelona and environs, Valencia,
Roussillon, and the Balearic Islands (Blasco Ferrer 1984: 4–5; Veny 1987: 102–5).
63
As etymon, REW 7348 proposes a form derived from RUBĪGO ‘rust’.
64
Data for this Catalan variety are drawn from Fouché (1980a: 206).
65
As Fouché (1980a: 206) observes of the contemporary situation with prosthesis, ‘il
s’en faut de beaucoup qu’elle [= la prosthèse] soit aussi fréquente que la prosthèse de a
dans le domaine gascon.’
A-prosthesis 189
5.3.2 VA R I E T I E S S H OW I N G M A I N T E NA N C E O F A - P RO S T H E S I S
Unlike Gascon and Engadinish where A-prosthesis has experienced notable

regression, Campidanese Sardinian has largely preserved the productivity of the
process up to modern times, although it appears that some limited undermining
of it has occurred more recently. But while prosthesis has remained in large
measure an active process, a notable change has occurred in the quality adopted
by the prosthetic vowel. The earliest texts written in Campidanese, dating from
the twelfth century, indicate that the quality was determined by vowel copying
(cf. 5.2.4). However, in the pattern which is now operative, a low-quality [a-] is
systematically used. This pattern appears to have originated in the south of the
island, doubtless with its focal point in the usage of the influential town of
Cagliari from where it has spread progressively northward, reaching as far as
Milis in the west of Sardinia but, in the east, only up to Barbaricino and Ogliastra
where the earlier vowel-copying pattern has been partly or completely retained.
The circumstances surrounding the development of the generalized use of pros-
thetic [a-] are not clear. The strong influence on Cagliari from mainland Italy,
and especially from Tuscany, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries may be of
significance but this remains speculative.66 A further aspect of the rise of A-
prosthesis with generalized [a-] is that as it diffused northwards from southern
Sardinia, it appears to have coincided with the displacement of I-prosthesis. As a
result, in modern Campidanese we find that I-prosthesis is no longer produc-
tive,67 whereas in northern varieties, such as Logudorese and Nuorese, I-prosthe-
sis has remained productive but A-prosthesis has never become established.
Finally, in modern times it appears that the productivity of A-prosthesis in
Campidanese has ceased on occasions to be complete. In addition to one native
word which is reported mysteriously not to show prosthesis, namely [r¡i]
‘king’,68 the recent influx of loanwords from Italian with an initial rhotic may
no longer be systematically pronounced with a prosthetic [a-] by some speakers.
Thus, Bolognesi (1998: 42–3) notes that while items like radio normally surface
with a prosthetic vowel giving [ar’raðiu], A-prosthesis can be variable in words
66
Cf. Wagner (1951: 52) ‘In Cagliari, la lingua toscana era, nei secoli XIII e XIV, talmente
diffusa che . . . intaccò fortemente il sardo della capitale e della pianura.’ One can
hypothesize that the generalized use of prosthetic [a-] would represent a simpler, more
transparent pattern to Tuscan-influenced speakers and would find a counterpart of sorts in
the common occurrence in Tuscan of verbal forms in (prefixal) arr-.
67
Blasco Ferrer (1984: 210) attributes the regression of I-prosthesis in Campidanese to
Italian influence.
68
Bolognesi (1998: 43) attributes this anomaly to the fact that the kings (or their nearest
equivalents) in medieval Sardinia were known as judges. Yet, this would scarcely explain
the lack of prosthesis.
190 A-prosthesis
such as [’r Pð¡u] ‘rodeo’, [rikja’mau] ‘called up for military service’ (< richia-
mato). The development here is reminiscent of what we saw earlier for Gascon,
with the more prestigious pronunciation patterns of a standard variety serving to
undermine native prosthetizing usage.
5.3.3 VA R I E T I E S S H OW I N G E N H A N C E M E N T O F A - P RO S T H E S I S
A-prosthesis has gained ground in two Romance varieties, southern Italian and
Aromanian. The circumstances of these two cases are however rather different.
5.3.3.1 Southern Italian

It will be recalled that there is some uncertainty as to whether genuine phonologi-
cally based A-prosthesis did develop as a process in southern Italy in the Middle
Ages. Certainly, there are attested forms which have taken on an initial [a-] but it
seems that these have arisen primarily as a result of morphological rather than
phonological factors. However, from the later medieval period onward, a significant
numbers of words can be found containing an initial [a-] which can justifiably be
viewed as phonologically conditioned. Examples are: (Neapolitan) abbusso ‘box
tree’, addaino ‘fallow deer’, Addàvete ‘David’, aggente ‘people’, all of which are
cited in D’Ambra (1873). Ultimately these items derive from BŬXU(M), Late Latin
DĀMU(M), (Hebrew proper name) David, GĔNTE(M), but they entered southern Italian
usage as later borrowings from standard Italian. This is clear as in southern Italian
varieties, the original word-initial voiced plosives B-, D-, and G- (in palatalizing
contexts) had typically developed to [v-], [ð-](> [r-]), and [j-] respectively (Rohlfs
1966: }} 150, 153, 156). As a result, Italian borrowings like these which contained initial
Ð
[b-], [d-], and [q-] were subject to nativization. However, in an apparent attempt
to reproduce these unfamiliar word-initial consonant types appropriately, more
educated speakers appear in some cases to have hypercharacterized the ‘correct’
standard Italian pronunciation and given rise to a geminate realization which was
then subject to A-prosthesis. Voiceless obstruents have not been affected in the same
way since they had usually remained unchanged in word-initial position in native
word-forms. Sonorants too, other than r- whose general tendency to strengthen in
southern Italo-Romance has been noted, do not seem to be generally affected.
However, a tendency to strengthen etymological initial M- has been noted for
Neapolitan and other southern varieties, mmaliddittu ‘cursed’, mmerda ‘excre-
ment’, mmesca ‘mixture’, mmira ‘aim’, mmorra ‘group, band’,69 with occasional
69
D’Ambra (1973: 230) says of m-, ‘Questa lettera si pronunzia sempre con forza, e assai
spesso si raddoppia in capo alla parola.’ The frequency, and hence familiarity, of word-
A-prosthesis 191
instances of prosthesis as in ammaturo ‘ripe, mature’ and ammalamente ‘in a bad

way’ (D’Ambra 1873).
5.3.3.2 Aromanian
As has been noted earlier, there is no direct textual evidence of any substance for
Aromanian until the eighteenth century. However, the lack of attested examples
in Daco-Romanian in texts from the late Middle Ages onward provides sugges-
tive, though not decisive, evidence that the incidence of A-prosthesis may have
been at best modest across all types of Balkan-Romance in earlier times. None-
theless, its incidence has increased south of the Danube and more particularly in
more southerly Aromanian varieties,70 although in a more marginal way in
Megleno-Romanian (Rosetti 1978: 403, 415). The process is attested in eigh-
teenth-century texts written with Greek lettering by Aromanian writers living
in Albania, e.g. arrădu ‘I laugh’, arrămăsătură ‘remainder’ (< RĪD(E)O, *RE-MANS-
ITŪRA) cited by Capidan (1932: }207), and it has come to enjoy considerable
productivity more recently. For example, in addition to the items in Figure 5.1,
we may cite arı̂u, alumtu, acumpı̂ru (< RĪVU(M), LŬCTO, COMPARO
) ‘river, I fight, I
buy’, although lexical items of comparable structure such as rogu, lapte, cupă (<
, LACTE, CŬPPA) ‘I ask, milk, goblet’ are reported with no prosthetic vowel
ROGO
(Papahagi 1974). Vowel prosthesis has evidently not come to apply categorically
therefore, but it is widespread and clearly occurs preferentially before an etymo-
logical word-initial rhotic. This would seem to indicate that forms with initial
rhotics formed the starting point for the development of A-prosthesis here as
elsewhere.
The relative frequency with which A-prosthesis has operated on words begin-
ning with different word-initial segment types has been closely studied so that
parameters can be identified. Three proposals are set out in Figure 5.5 below.
initial [mm-] in Neapolitan has been significantly increased through the independent

development to [mm-] of prepositional or prefixal IN þ voiced labial consonant, IN MORTE
> mmorte, IN-VITĀRE > mmitare, etc.
70
Some uncertainty surrounds the use of A-prosthesis in Farserotic. Rosetti (1978: 415)
claims that it is found in this variety whilst Giese (1965: 299) asserts the opposite. Both base
their claims on the earlier study of Aromanian by Capidan (1932) which is unfortunately
not entirely clear on this point. Capidan (1932: }206) also reports that in Farserotic speech
the rhotic /r/ has more recently begun to move from an alveolar to a back articulation
except in word-medial position. Usually, a velar realization is found but with female
speakers a uvular pronunciation may occur.
192 A-prosthesis
(Capidan) r- n- s- l- m- p- f- g- u- v- z- k- γ- j- d- i-
(Giese) r- l- n- m- k- h- s-
(Schlösser) r- l- f- v- s + cons.
higher frequency lower frequency very rare
FIGURE 5.5. Parameter showing relative frequency of A-prosthesis in Aromanian

Sources: Capidan (1932: }27), Giese (1965: 299), Schlösser (1985)
The first parameter comes from the detailed data presented in the classic study on
Aromanian by Capidan which were established on the basis of items cited in
(unspecified) dictionaries of this variety. The second parameter is claimed to
draw on Capidan’s, but it is not only less detailed but also changes the relative
position of certain word-initial segment types. The third by Schlösser results from
a more recent description of the modern Aromanian variety of Metsovon located
in the Pindos Mountains of northern Greece.
A major point which emerges from such studies is that A-prosthesis is not
categorical in words beginning with any initial consonant type, even the rhotic
[r-] which is by far the most frequent trigger of prosthesis. Furthermore, for
certain initial consonants it is unclear how appropriate it is to assume that
A-prosthesis is genuinely operative. For instance, Capidan includes word-initial
[i-] in his parameter but no data are advanced in support of this claim. The only
real candidate which figures in the major dictionary of Aromanian by Papahagi
(1974) appears to be airate ‘revenue, income’ (< Turkish irâd). The origin of the
initial [a-] here is unclear, however. Similarly, Schlösser postulates A-prosthesis
in forms beginning with [f-], [v-], and [s þ cons.-] although the evidence for
each of these is limited to a single example which in each case is open to
reinterpretation. But although doubt surrounds certain aspects of the data, one
clear and important development with A-prosthesis in southern Aromanian has
been the extension of its operation, albeit in a limited way, to include vowel-
initial words, especially those beginning with [u-], as in aungu, aumbră, auŭă
(< ŬNGO, ŬMBRA, ŪVA) ‘I grease, shade, grape’. The preferential application to
vowel-initial forms beginning with [u-] may be connected with the fact that it
is a high vowel and hence the least sonorous and salient of initial vowel types in
Aromanian.71
The reasons for the partial generalization of A-prosthesis in southern Aroma-
nian are not clear, although Rosetti (1978: 386, 415) identifies some potentially
71
Capidan (1932: }27) also includes the high front vowel [i-] in his parameter. However,
as we have seen, no reliable data appear to support this claim.
A-prosthesis 193
relevant factors. These relate to morphosyntactic developments in early Balkan-

Romance which may have created the conditions for the phonological effects
noted. Two of the factors find widespread parallels elsewhere in Romance, namely
the appearance of feminine singular pre-nominal proclitic forms ending in [-a],
such as ILLA > [a], and the presence of substantial numbers of verbs with prefixal
AD- (cf. 1.7). In addition to these, there is the rise of the syntactic pattern whereby
infinitives are introduced by the preposition AD (cf. southern Italian, 5.2.1.1). In all
of these contexts, it is suggested, speakers may have reinterpreted the morpho-
logical structure of individual lexical items, the result of which might be either
aphaeresis or A-prosthesis. The former outcome is found lexicalized across all
Romanian varieties in items such as ANNOTINU (M) > Daco-Rom., Arom. noatin
‘one-year-old lamb’. But whereas Daco-Romanian has tended to engage more
generally in aphaeresis, southern Aromanian has preferentially used prosthesis.
The reasons for this and for the recent striking growth in its productivity remain
uncertain, however. If this interpretation of the genesis of A-prosthesis in south-
ern Aromanian is correct, the circumstances bear some resemblance to what
was seen in southern Italian (5.2.1.1), where an originally morphologically
conditioned process of vowel prosthesis has subsequently given rise to phonolo-
gically based A-prosthesis.
6
U-prosthesis
U-prosthesis represents chronologically the third and final of the major categories
of vowel prosthesis that have operated in Romance. Like I-prosthesis, it arose as a
process that served to simplify complex word-initial onset sequences. But, in
contrast to it, U-prosthesis led to the appearance of a vowel that has been rather
more variable in quality although a low value [a] has predominated. To reflect the
sometimes unspecific quality of the prosthetic vowel and to avoid confusion with
the category of prosthesis considered in the previous chapter (A-prosthesis), for
convenience we have adopted the term ‘U-prosthesis’ for the category of pros-
thesis under consideration here. Some illustrative examples may be cited.
Valsesia (N Novellara Bologna Celerina
Piedmont) (Emilia) (Romagna) (Upper
Engadine)
RE-(prefixal) arán’te: ar’meter
artsin’t ¡:r algUr’de:r1
(Germ.) likkon al’ke: al’k¡:r al’k¡:r -2 ‘to lick’
LEVĀRE -3 al’v¡:r al’dA:m4 al’ve:r ‘to raise’
YN’gu‰ta
5
NEPŌTEM an’vP: an’vo: an’vAwd ‘nephew’
MINĀRE am’ne: mn¡:r mn¡:r mne:r ‘to drive’
Sources: Spoerri (1918); Malagoli (1910-13); Mainoldi (1967); Coco (1970); Walberg (1907).
U-prosthesis began to operate as an active phonological process in Romance in

the course of the medieval period, building on the output of a prior syncope the
details of which we consider below in 6.1.2. More recently, however, there have
1
Reflexes of three different etyma containing prefixal RE- are represented in this row.
Columns 1 and 3 contain reflexes of RECENTĀRE ‘to rinse’, in column 2 the etymon is
REMITTERE ‘to put back’, and in column 4 there is the reflex of RECORDĀRE ‘to recall’.
2
A form of comparable phonological shape is [al’ger] ‘to melt, liquify’ < LIQUĀRE.
3
Cf. the derivationally related [al’qÐ er] ‘light’ < LEV-IĀRIU(M).
4
Deriving from LAETĀMEN ‘dung’.
5
Reflex of NE(C)-GŬTTA ‘not a drop’ ! ‘nothing’ (cf. French ne . . . goutte).
U-prosthesis 195
been some developments affecting the productivity of U-prosthesis within many

of the linguistic varieties where it had arisen. It will therefore be appropriate once
again to split our treatment into two broad chronological sections reflecting this
difference. The dividing line lies very approximately at the outset of the early
modern period (sixteenth century) when written evidence for Romance first
becomes available for certain varieties affected by U-prosthesis.
6.1 Rise of U-prosthesis: early developments
U-prosthesis has occurred particularly in the central zone of Romania continua.

In the lateral areas, i.e. Ibero-Romance and Balkan Romance, its effects have been
much more limited; indeed, even when lexical items developed complex word-
initial onsets resembling those that became subject to U-prosthesis in central
varieties of Romance, they have remained unaffected. For instance, forms such as
[’psoN] < PERSŌNA ‘person’ with complex initial onsets have arisen in more recent
times in Portuguese but as yet no indications have been reported of their being
subject to prosthesis. The only circumstance under which U-prosthesis can be
found operating in lateral areas came about as a result of certain monosyllabic
grammatical forms becoming procliticized and undergoing vowel weakening. A
familiar example involves personal pronouns such as MĒ, TĒ, and SĒ which
developed into satellites before a verbal host, as in MĒ VIDET ‘(s)he sees me’, and
subsequently emerged with a prosthetic vowel. Prosthesis of this type has oc-
curred in several Romance varieties such as Catalan and Romanian (see 6.1.4.3).
Within the central zone, U-prosthesis has been widely in evidence in northern
Italo-Romance, operating on both lexical and grammatical items (see Map 4).
Piedmont and Emilia-Romagna have been focal areas for the development. In
contrast, varieties from Liguria show few if any signs of U-prosthesis and likewise
most of Lombardy and the Veneto have been little affected, although in more
peripheral areas of these regions there are varieties in which U-prosthesis has
occurred due to influence from adjacent prosthetizing varieties. Italo-Romance
varieties spoken further south, including the Florentine-based standard variety of
Italian, are scarcely involved, although U-prosthesis has taken place in northern
transitional varieties of Lunigiana, particularly near the border with Emilia.
In Rheto-Romance, Friulian varieties offer no indications of U-prosthesis, and
Ladin has experienced prosthesis only in lexical items beginning with prefixal RE-,
as in [arba’se] ‘to lower’ < RE-BASSĀRE in the varieties of San Vigilio and Arabba
(Kramer 1977: 174). However, in the Grisons of Switzerland the process has been
productive with lexical and grammatical items, especially in eastern varieties (see
Map 4). The focal area here appears to be the Upper Engadine. Further to the east
196 U-prosthesis
of the Upper Engadine, the incidence of U-prosthesis diminishes: in the Lower

Engadine it has enjoyed a significantly lower degree of productivity, and in the far
east of the Grisons the varieties of the Val Müstair (or Münstertal) reportedly
offered just a lone example in the mid twentieth century, namely [arájn’tar] ‘to
rinse’ < RECENTĀRE, although at earlier periods the phenomenon may have been
rather more in evidence (Schorta 1938). U-prosthesis also becomes increasingly
rare the further westward from the Upper Engadine one goes. In both Subselvan
and Surselvan, it is almost entirely absent in lexical forms though isolated
exceptions can appear, probably as a result of borrowing. In the varieties of
Surmeir spoken in an area not far westward from the Upper Engadine, just two
lexical forms showing U-prosthesis are reported by Grisch (1939): [ar’vjokt]

‘vault’ < *REVOLVITU (M) and[arán’tar] ‘to rinse’ < RECENTĀRE. The latter item
may be compared with the Surmeiran [rN’ájnt] ‘brand new’ < RECĔNTE(M)
where the normal outcome for lexical items of this phonetic shape is found,
namely without prosthesis.6 Proclitic personal pronouns have also been affected
by prosthesis in Surmeiran, although more recently these forms have been
increasingly confined to literary usage by non-prosthetic counterparts (Haiman
and Benincà 1992: 127).
In Gallo-Romance, U-prosthesis has also occurred. It appears widely in north-
ern varieties, from Touraine and Anjou in the west across to Walloon and
Lorraine in the east, and, as in northern Italy and the Engadine, it has affected
both lexical and grammatical items. However, in the standard language, which
developed principally from varieties spoken in the central area of the langue d’oı̈l,
there are few if any indications of the presence of U-prosthesis in the many formal
descriptions that have been carried out, although cases of this phenomenon may
be found in more informal registers used by speakers of the Paris region.
6.1.2 S T RU C T U R A L P R E C O N D I T I O N S TO U - P RO S T H E S I S
Crucial to the rise of U-prosthesis was a sound change whose effect was to weaken
and delete an unstressed vowel in a word-initial syllable containing an onset. This
change we may refer to as ‘syncope of pre-tonic initial vowels’ or SPIV. SPIV finds
a counterpart in a fairly widespread but sporadic tendency in Late Latin for an
initial unstressed vowel, especially [e], to undergo syncope in forms whose initial
6
In the Surselvan varieties of Domat, Trin, and Flem (Flims) found west of Chur, the
only prosthetic form reported by Rupp (1963: }98) is once again [arán’ta:] ‘to rinse’ <
RECENTĀRE, indicating the often special and exceptional nature of this lexical item in Rheto-
Romance varieties.
U-prosthesis 197
unstressed syllables were composed of obstruent þ V þ [r]-, where V represents

an unstressed vowel. For example:
D(I)RĒCTU(M) > (Fr.) droit, (Sp.) dreito, drecho,7 (It.) dritto, (Rom.) drept ‘right’
(REW 2648)
> C(I)RITARE>(Fr.) crier, (Sp., Port.) gritar, (It.) gridare ‘to shout’
QUIRITĀRE
(REW 6967)
However, despite possible appearances to the contrary, this early change is
probably not directly connected with our development which only got under
way chronologically a good deal later and also operated in a much more geo-
graphically circumscribed area. The scope of SPIV has also been more extensive
since the change operated on word-initial syllables whose initial unstressed vowel
could have a wide range of possible flanking consonants rather than just a
preceding obstruent and a following rhotic. The effect of its operation was that
in many linguistic varieties a set of complex word-initial onsets previously
unknown in Romance was created (again unlike the Late Latin change which
merely created more cases of already existing obstruent þ rhotic onsets). The new
onsets could be of rising, level, or falling sonority such as [fn-], [vz-], [zqÐ -],
respectively; for instance, [’fn¡ʃtra] < FINĔSTRA ‘window’, [vziJ] ‘citizen’ < VICĪNU
(M), [zqÐ Ykr] ‘axe’ < SECŪRE(M) in the Upper Engadinish dialect of Celerina
(Walberg 1907). When SPIV operated on verbs, it created morphophonemic
alternation in stems, as in the Piedmontese dialect of Viverone where we find
[t¡J] vs [tJi] ‘I hold’, ‘to hold’, [bejv] vs [’bvuma] ‘I drink’, ‘we drink’ < TĔNEO,
8
T(E)NĒRE; BIBO, B(I)B-ŬMUS, such alternation being widely found in Rheto-Ro-
mance, northern Italian, and northern French varieties.
Sporadically, it can happen that a new complex word-initial onset is later
simplified through the deletion of the initial consonant, as in [’zJa] < [’bzJa]
(< *BISŌNE-AT) ‘it is necessary’ and [Jus’si:] < [kJus’si:] ‘to know’ (< COGNŌSCERE)
from the varieties of Cevio and Villette in the northern Lago Maggiore area
(Salvioni 1886), [ʃty] < [fʃty] ‘twig’ (< FESTŪCU(M)) in the Engadinish variety of
Celerina. Similarly, reflexes of [’vJi:re] < VENĪRE ‘to come’ with later deletion of
the initial [v] are not uncommonly found, e.g. [JI:kr] in Celerinese,9 [Ji:] in the
Emilian variety of Novellara (Malagoli 1910-13) and also in the Piedmontese
variety of Valsesia (Spoerri 1918). However, reductive onset-restructuring of this
type is not general across the sweep of varieties experiencing SPIV. Interestingly,
7
The form dreito occurs in the twelfth-century Asturian Fuero de Avilés and the
phonetically Castilian form drecho appears in various Old Spanish texts.
8
Data from Nigra (1901).
9
Cf. gnir [Ji:r] in Bifrun’s sixteenth-century translation of the New Testament into
Upper Engadinish.
198 U-prosthesis
in certain Romance varieties where complex heterosyllabic onsets have arisen as a

result of a sound change other than SPIV, more systematic cases of restructuring
through deletion or epenthesis can be found. For example, in Gascon, complex
word-initial sequences such as [hr-], [hl-] developed from earlier FR-, FL- after the
regular change F- > h- had operated and these have been subject to restructuring
across most dialects.10 In contrast, complex word-initial onsets created by SPIV in
Romance have normally been retained with the possibility of their later being
subject to U-prosthesis
In view of the importance of SPIV for the operation of U-prosthesis, we may
usefully sketch some of its formal characteristics. In particular, we consider the
constraints to which syncope was subject in respect of the quality of the original
initial unstressed vowel and the nature of the original consonantal context
surrounding the vowel.11
6.1.2.1 Significance of the quality of the initial vowel

SPIV appears to have been especially favoured by the presence of the mid front
vowel [e] < I, Ē, Ĕ, AE, whereas back vowels and the high front vowel [i] < Ī were
much less susceptible to syncope and the low vowel [a] was seldom involved at all.
For example, in the Upper Engadinish variety of Celerina:
TENĒRE > [tJær] ‘to hold’
VITĔLLU(M) > [’vd¡] ‘calf ’
but FARĪNA > [fa’riJa] ‘flour’
FĪLĀRE > [fIler] ‘to spin’
*POTĒRE > [pU’dær] ‘to be able’
COMMŪNE(M) > [kU’mn] ‘common’
DŪRĀRE > [dY’rer] ‘to last’
(Source of data: Walberg 1907).
The available data from all Romance varieties affected by SPIV suggest a parame-
ter of vowel susceptibility to syncope as represented below in Figure 6.1. The
10
Thus, FRIGIDU(M) ‘cold’ gives (with deletion) [rret] or [rr] in SW dialects but (with

epenthesis) [he’ret] or [he’retʃ] in most Hautes-Pyrénées and W Ariège dialects, while
FLAMMA ‘flame’ emerges as (with deletion) [’lamo] in W. Gers dialects, (epenthesis)
[ha’lamo] in W. Ariège, (prosthesis) [eh’lamo], [eh’lam], [eh’lm] in SW dialects.
Only rarely are [hr-], [hl-] found unchanged: [hr-] appears in a few dialects of W.

Ariège, e.g. [hretʃ] ‘cold’ (pt. 790SE, Couflens); and [hl-] occurs patchily in Pyrenean
dialects, e.g. pts 692, 694, 689SE, 790SE (maps ALG I, 157 frêne; III, 1017 froid; III, 700
flamme).
11
A more detailed review of SPIV in northern Italo-Romance and Rheto-Romance
appears in Mayerthaler (1982).
U-prosthesis 199
location of the high front vowel [i] in relation to the rounded vowels here is
motivated by the findings of Malagoli (1910–13, 1934, 1954) for a number of
Emilian varieties.
a i o u e
less more
FIGURE 6.1. Parameter indicating susceptibility of vowel types to SPIV
The parameter for vowel quality in SPIV correlates well with parameters that can
be postulated for vowels undergoing weakening and deletion in other types of
unstressed syllable. Thus, for word-final unstressed vowels, [-a] has been by far
the most retentive of vowel types across Romance. Furthermore, in Ibero-
Romance it is notable that final [-e] (< Ĕ Ē I Ī)12 is the vowel which has been
most susceptible to deletion, cf. Span. mar, ayer ‘sea, yesterday’ < MĀRĔ, HĔRĪ but
muro, curo, cera ‘wall, I care for, wax’ < MŪRŬ(M), CŪRŌ, CĒRĂ.
Cases of SPIV operating on [a] are occasionally found in certain types of
Romance. However, they usually appear in varieties where syncope has remained
largely restricted to lexical items whose initial unstressed syllable was of the form
#obstruent þ V þ [r], that is, contexts where syncope would result in complex
word-initial onsets that were already licensed and had been since Latin. Syncope
therefore merely increased the incidence of these onsets. An example is provided
by the Surselvan variety of the Tavetsch valley, in the far west of the Grisons:
FARĪNA > [’fri:nN] ‘flour’
PAR(I)ĒTE(M) > [pr‰jt] ‘wall’
TARĀTRU(M) > [’tra:dNr] ‘auger, drill’
Here the new onsets are identical to etymological ones found in [frun(t)]

‘forehead’, [praw] ‘meadow’, [tra:f] ‘beam’ < FRONTE (M), PRĀTU(M), TRĂBE(M)
(Caduff 1952). And, as the parameter predicts, SPIV in this variety also acts on
other types of initial unstressed vowel in comparable contexts, as in:
TERRĒNU(M) > [’træjn] ‘(land) free of snow’
CORŌNA > [’krunN] ‘crown’13
12
Deletion of final [-e] was only carried through and lexicalized in medieval Castilian
when a single consonant preceded, hence PĂRTE(M) > parte ‘part’. Also, the reflex of original
final -Ī was restored by analogy during the later Middle Ages in first singular preterite verb
forms such as hice, vine ‘I did, I came’; the phonetically regular forms hiz, vin are attested in
early Castilian texts.
13
Sporadically, the context for syncope has been generalized to #obstruent þ V þ
liquid-, thus affecting forms containing a lateral, e.g. [plu’´æjn] ‘chick’ < PULLI-CĒNU(M)
200 U-prosthesis
Finally, the scope of SPIV has sometimes been affected by other sound-changes
either when these modify another vowel type to [e] (feeding SPIV) or when they
change original [e] to another quality (bleeding SPIV). In the former case, two
factors have been important in early Romance: dissimilation or, more rarely,
prefixal influence. Unstressed initial Ī has sometimes passed to [e] when it
appeared in words whose stressed vowel was Ī. For example, FĪNĪRE evidently
developed to [fe’ni:r(e)] in certain Emilian varieties (prov. Reggio) before be-
coming [fni:r] in the dialect of Valestra, [’fni:re] in that of Lizzano, though non-
dissimilated [fi’ni:r] is found in Novellarese (Malagoli 1934: 85); Old French and
Old Castilian fenir show the first stage of the same development.14 A further case
of dissimilation often led to initial unstressed [o] passing to [e] in words whose
stressed vowel was also [o] in Late Latin. For example, medieval Tuscan has forms
such as secorso ‘help’, serocchia ‘sister’, or sicorso, sirocchia with later raising (< SUB-
CŬRSU(M), SORŌR-CULA) and other Italian varieties show similar developments, e.g.
medieval Paduan serore ‘sister’, remore ‘noise’ (< SORŌRE(M), RUMŌRE(M)).15 In
Engadinish, we find the same dissimilation in SORŌRES > *SERORES > sruors ‘sisters’
as against the singular form sour < SOROR ‘sister’ where the first vowel is stressed
and so preserves its back round quality.16 In French, a substantial number of
forms show a comparable outcome, as in Old French serors ‘sisters’, esperon ‘spur’
< Frankish spōron-, secort ‘(s)he helps’ < SUCCŬRRIT, selonc ‘according to’ < SUB-

LONGU (M).17 However, an alternative interpretation has been advanced by Holmes
(1935) for the development seen in these and other French cases where initial
unstressed [o] > [‰]. It is proposed that rather than first involving a dissimilatory
stage [o] [ó] > [e] [ó], the initial unstressed [o] simply weakened to [‰].
Some evidence for this view comes from variant Old French forms such as menaie
(beside monaie) ‘money’ < MONĒTA, dementres (beside domentres) ‘while’ < DUM-
INTERIM, ferasche (beside forasche) ‘alien’ ! ‘unsociable’ < FORĂSTICU(M), quemen-
cier (beside comencier) ‘to begin’ < CUMINITIĀRE where weakening has taken place
despite the fact that there is no following dissimilating stressed [o]. In some of
these exceptional cases, alternative explanations are available that still postulate a
but forms such as [pa’liw] ‘marsh’, [ku’lu:r] ‘colour’, [ka’li:ra] ‘heat’ < PALŪDE(M), COLŌRE
(M), CAL-ŪRA indicate that this is by no means a regular process.
14
Fouché (1969: 456) attributes the development of unstressed Ī > [e] in early French in
forms such as fenir and devin < DĪVĪNU(M) to the action of a regular change in Late Latin
whereby long vowels in unstressed syllables undergo shortening. This view has not won
general acceptance however.
15
For further examples from Italo-Romance, see Rohlfs (1966: }330), Mayerthaler (1982:
157–8).
16
These ‘standard’ orthographical forms in Engadinish are realized in Celerinese as
(sg.) [sokr], (pl.) [sru‰rs].
17
Cf. Fouché (1969: 455).
U-prosthesis 201
first stage of unstressed [o] > [e]; for example, dementres may well have experi-
enced early prefixal influence from DE-, and ferasche may reflect the influence of
FĔRUS ‘wild, uncivilized’ (cf. REW 3432). However, there remain a number of cases
such as quemencier which cannot be explained through dissimilation. A possible
scenario that accounts for the data while reconciling the two opposing views is
that, in conformity with the parameter in Figure 6.1 above, weakening of un-
stressed initial vowels operated at first with [e] (including [e] < [o] through
dissimilation) before spreading sporadically to other vowel types. The preferen-
tial involvement of initial unstressed non-assimilated [o] in this later generaliza-
tion (as in quemencier) may owe itself to the incomplete implementation of
dissimilation of [o - ó] > [e - ó] in the langue d’oı̈l as in corone querone
‘crown’ < CORŌNA, for example. The presence of variants with initial unstressed
[o] and [‰] (the latter from dissimilated [e] < [o]) in items such as corone
querone may well have helped to motivate a more general weakening of initial
[o] > [‰] in forms not containing a stressed vowel [o].
Adaptation of an initial unstressed vowel to [e] may also be effected through
association with an established prefix. Particularly important was RE- which
enjoyed considerable productivity for lexical derivation in medieval Romance.
Its influence resulted in a number of cases of remodelling, e.g. ROTŬNDU(M) >
*RETŬNDU(M) ‘round’ > Spanish redondo, Old Tuscan retondo, Upper Engadinish
arduond (Celerinese) [ar’du‰nt]; RADĔNTE > *REDĔNTE ‘near to’ (literally, ‘shaving’)
which gives the now literary Engadinish form ardaint (Celerinese [ar’dænt]).18
In contrast to these instances of change which feed SPIV, other developments
have caused bleeding. One such is the lowering of etymological [e] to [a] when it
precedes a rhotic. This is found fairly widely and appears to explain non-
syncopated forms such as [sa’ræJ] ‘clear weather’, [ta’ræJ] ‘free of snow’,
[ma’r¡nda] ‘snack’ (< SERĒNU(M), TERRĒNU(M), MERĔNDA) in the variety of Celerina
in which SPIV has otherwise been conspicuously active, although early dissimila-
tion may also be involved. We may compare [’pri‰v‰l] ‘danger’ < PERĪCULU(M)
where original pre-tonic [e] evidently underwent no quality change as a high
vowel followed and SPIV could therefore operate. In other varieties, however,
there has been no lowering of [e] and SPIV has systematically occurred before
rhotics too, e.g. [sraJ], [’mraNda] in Bolognese (Coco 1970).
18
Further examples of SPIV being fed through formal alignment with prefixal RE- are
found in Piedmontese, e.g. in the northern dialect of Castellinaldo, HOROLOGIU (M) >
*RELOGIU > [ar’lPqÐ e] ‘public clock’, ROBŪSTU(M) > *REBUSTU > [ar’byst] (Toppino 1902–5).
As is apparent, U-prosthesis has operated after SPIV in both these forms, just as in the
Engadinish examples.
202 U-prosthesis
6.1.2.2 Surrounding consonantal context

Weakening and deletion of an initial unstressed vowel have taken place most
often in contexts where the resulting word-initial onset would consist of two
consonants, i.e. in words with the original shape # CVCV-. However, various
constraints existed which governed the incidence of SPIV and these determined
which of the complex onset sequences potentially created by SPIV were licensed
in the individual Romance varieties concerned. The constraints related in partic-
ular to the inherent sonority of the flanking consonants and to their place and
manner of articulation. Thus, in the dialect of Valsesia (N. Piedmont) despite
the wide application of SPIV there appears to have been a constraint blocking
syncope if a complex initial onset [qÐ ] þ consonant would result; hence [qÐ a’nu]
‘knee’, [qÐ a’le] ‘to freeze’ < GENŬCULU(M), GELĀRE (Spoerri 1918). In other dialects,
the constraints blocking syncope may be weak to the extent that even sequences
of two identical consonants may be licensed, giving a strong or geminate onset,
and thereby overriding the OCP (obligatory contour principle) which operates
widely in phonology and prevents identical adjacent segments or features from
arising through deletion within a morpheme.19 Cases of identical consonants
coming together after syncope and being retained as a geminate are found
notably in varieties from Emilia-Romagna, a region where SPIV has been partic-
ularly intense: e.g. Piacentino [zzeæı̃] < SEX-ĪNU(M) ‘a monetary unit’ (Gorra 1890:
142), Novellarese (W. Emilia) [’ssa:Nta] ‘sixty’, [bbu] ‘drunk (p.pt.)’ < SEXAGINTA,
BIB-ŪTU(M) (Malagoli 1910–13: 158).
In contexts where deletion would have created a word-initial onset containing
more than two consonants, stronger constraints have operated. Usually, new
onsets of no more than three consonants have been permitted. However, in
general such onsets have been licensed only if they contain a sibilant consonant
which was followed by an obstruent, e.g. [’sptʃ ¡:r] ‘to mirror’ (= St.It. specchiare)
< SPEC(U)LĀRE, in the Novellarese (Malagoli 1910-13: 109), [msti:r] ‘trade, profes-
sion’ < MINISTĔRIU(M) in Bolognese (Mainoldi 1967). An exception to this arrange-
ment, found in some but not all varieties undergoing SPIV, concerns forms
beginning with a sonorant. Most frequently affected by far were forms beginning
with RE-, a prefix whose widespread use in word formation we have already noted.
The special significance of the word-initial sequence RE- for U-prosthesis is
explored more fully further below (6.1.4). Examples of the creation of three
consonant onsets may be cited from two varieties, those of Celerina and Bologna,
in both of which SPIV has been highly active as a process.
19
The OCP was first enunciated by William Leben in his 1973 doctoral thesis to account
for a widely found constraint against adjacent syllables with identical tones within a
morpheme. It has subsequently been extended to cover prohibitions on identical
adjacent segments or segmental features within a morpheme.
U-prosthesis 203
Celerina Bologna
VESTĪRE [fʃtikr]>[ʃtikr] [vti:r] (with later [s] deletion) ‘to dress’
FESTŪCU(M) [fʃty]>[ʃty] — ‘twig’
SEPT(I)MĀNA —20 [’stm¡:na] ‘week’
MI(NI)STĔRIUM — [msti:r] ‘profession’
DIS-GRĀTIA — [’dz grA:tsja]
‘disgrace’
SPERĂNTIA
[’ʃpræntsa] ‘hope’
but
VER(E)CŬNDIA [var’gw‰Ja] [var’gaJJa] ‘shame’
TEMPĔSTA(S) [tam’p¡sta] [tim’p¡:sta] ‘storm’
SINGLŬTTIU(M) [saN’glu‰t] [sin’qÐ at] ‘sob’
CREPĀRE [kra’vu‰sta]21 [kar’p¡:r] ‘to burst’
SERPĔNTE(M) — [sar’paNt] ‘snake’
SPIV with later U-prosthesis
R(E)-TENĒRE /VENĪRE [art’Jær] [ar’vJi:r] ‘to restrain, return’
R(E)-COMMENDĀRE [arkUman’der] [arkman’d¡:r] ‘to recommend’
R(E)-COGNŌSCERE —22 [ark’Josser] ‘to recognize’
It appears that constraints blocking the formation of complex onsets of three or
more consonants were most subject to violation in varieties from Emilia-Ro-
magna, so that word-initial onset sequences of considerable complexity became
permissible during the course of the medieval period. Thus, in the one surviving
version of the sixteenth-century poem Pulon Matt or ‘Mad Paul’ written in the
Romagnolo dialect of Cesena, apparent cases of complex onsets abound (Bagli
1887). Some occur after a preceding vowel-final form, thereby allowing ready
syllabification, as in u Rbgon ‘the Rubicon’ (III, 19, 8) and bona mdsina ‘good
medicine’ (II, 20, 8) which can be syllabified as urb|gon, bo|nam|dsi|na. However,
certain cases suggest that onsets of considerable complexity came to be permissi-
ble in this variety by the sixteenth century, though more usually perhaps in more
informal registers:
u bon Flpon ‘the good Filippone’ I,18,5
Pulon rspos ‘Paul replied’ I,59,3
20
In Rheto-Romance, HEBDOMAS or the variant *HEBDOMINA usually provide the forms
designating ‘week’; Celerina dialect has the reflex [’¡gvna].
21
Meaning ‘crust, scab’. The etymon CREPĀRE seems to have been crossed with CRŬSTA to
yield this reflex. The verb CREPĀRE gives [kra’per] where the [p] rather than [v] suggests
possible influence from krap ‘rock’, according to Walberg (1907: 84).
22
No reflex is cited for Celerinese by Walberg (1907). However, the form arcugniouscher
appears in the sixteenth-century translation of the New Testament in Upper Engadinish by
Jakob Bifrun.
204 U-prosthesis
tant dsdgnos ‘so disdainful (f.pl.)’ II,5,3

un bssbij ‘a whisper’ III,61,1
tant cstun ‘so many questions’ IV,4,5
ha dstnè ‘has destined’ IV,26,6
The presence of such complex word-initial onsets is matched by the occurrence in
the poem of words with word-final codas of comparable complexity, as in pre-
pausal destr ‘right’ (I, 15, 7), u mdesm ‘the same’ (I, 36, 2).
To conclude, SPIV operated in a variable, parametrized way and came to create
word-initial onsets of considerable diversity. Varieties of Piedmontese, Emilian,
and Romagnolo in Italy, and eastern varieties of the Rheto-Romance spoken in
the Grisons, especially Upper Engadinish, were particularly susceptible to this
type of syncope. In turn, these are the varieties in which U-prosthesis has been
most in evidence, reflecting the direct correlation between SPIV and U-prosthesis.
6.1.3 C H RO N O LO G Y
Dating the rise of U-prosthesis is problematic. In Rheto-Romance, for example, it

is certainly attested in the first substantial vernacular texts from the Grisons but
these only go back to the sixteenth century. For example, in Bifrun’s translation of
the New Testament published in 1560 we find: (tü t’) alguordas ‘you (sg.)
remember’ < (TU TE) RECORDAS , (es sto) alvo ‘(it) rose up’ < (EST STATUM) LEVĀTU
(M); and in the sixteenth- or seventeenth-century poem Susanna has (t’) almein-
tast < (TE) LAMĔNTAS ‘you (sg.) complain’, presumably via the stage (TE) *LEMĔNTAS
which developed as a result of assimilation.23
For the prosthetizing northern varieties of Gallo-Romance, there is available
philological evidence from the Middle Ages but U-prosthesis does not appear to
have been operative before early modern times. Old Picard texts show no sign of
the change but it is clearly indicated in Middle Picard documents. For instance, in
Des Fill’ qu’al n’ont point grament d’honte, a text from the Valenciennes region
dating from the end of the sixteenth century, forms appear such as erligieuse,
s’ertourno, which correspond to standard French religieuse, se retournait, and
ercran ‘tired’ which goes back to old Picard recreant (Flutre 1977: 38).
23
A parallel form [le’me:Nta] ‘lament’ (cf. also [leN’te:rna] ‘lantern’) is reported for the
rural speech of Novellara (Emilia) by Malagoli (1910–13: 108). Different dates of
composition have been proposed for the Susanna, a verse text originating from Bergün.
The earliest manuscript dates from the early seventeenth century, and Ulrich (1885–6) and
Lutta (1923: }16) take this as the century of composition, whereas Decurtins ([1900]1983–6:
vol. 5) attributes the text to the sixteenth century.
U-prosthesis 205
In northern Italy, there is also substantial medieval textual evidence but it

likewise offers little direct evidence of U-prosthesis until the early modern period.
For instance, there are no indications of its presence in the Piedmontese sermons
written in vernacular spelling in the twelfth century, although these clearly show
I-prosthesis (cf. 4.4.5). In the sixteenth-century poem Pulon Matt from Cesena in
Romagna, however, there are prosthetic forms such as (l’era dsorta) uvsin ‘(he was
by chance) near’ < VICĪNU(M), (dfat) armaner ‘(in fact) to stay’ < REMANĒRE.24 The
philological data directly attesting the U-prosthesis, therefore, suggest that the
development only got under way by the end of the Middle Ages at the earliest.
Another possible indicator for dating comes from relative chronology. As
U-prosthesis presupposes the prior operation of SPIV, by establishing the ap-
proximate chronology of the latter we can at least provide a terminus a quo for
U-prosthesis. Unfortunately, the philological data necessary for dating SPIV are
once again of limited usefulness. For, on the one hand, there is a lack of extant
documentation from the Middle Ages for many of the varieties concerned, and on
the other hand, where medieval texts are available they often prove to be
uninformative as a result of influence from Latin or other Romance varieties
not affected by SPIV. For instance, in Bolognese where SPIV has been a very
productive process, there are three private letters dating from the first half of the
fourteenth century between members of the Bentivoglio family from Bologna
(Stella 1969). These contain a number of lexical items which might be expected to
provide us with revealing insights. However, the forms which occur <nevod>,
<volentera>, <recu>, <recevi> offer no indication that SPIV has operated, even
though the corresponding forms in modern Bolognese, [an’vAwd] ‘nephew’,

[vluN’ti:ra] ‘willingly’ and all parts of the verb [ar’tsavver] ‘to receive’,25 clearly
show its presence. As comparable syncopated forms are to be found not only in
Bologna but also widely elsewhere in Emilia-Romagna, it seems likely that SPIV is
not a recent development in this area. The conclusion therefore is that the forms
appearing in the letters do not faithfully reflect contemporary linguistic reality in
Bolognese. Rather, they show the influence on spelling and pronunciation exerted
by either Latin or, more probably, the increasingly prestigious Tuscan literary
language where SPIV was unknown (cf. 4.3.3).26
24
The forms appear in, respectively, IV, 12, 2; III, 66, 6.
25
The lengthening of [v] is explained by the presence of a short preceding stressed
vowel. Bolognese developed a stressed vowel pattern of [V:] or [VC] creating greater
syllable isochrony. In coda-less syllables with a short vowel, lengthening of a following
consonant has occurred to form a coda (Coco 1970).
26
A Bolognese medical text dating from the mid-fourteenth century shows similar
Tuscan influence (Longobardi 1994). As the editor concludes, ‘È dunque bolognese il
nostro testo, con influenza del toscano letterario.’
206 U-prosthesis
Other evidence can be invoked to shed light on the relative chronology of SPIV,
however. Reflexes of NEPŌTE(M) such as [an’vAwd] in Bolognese and [an’vo:] in
Novellarese indicate that SPIV postdates the regular lenition of intervocalic
voiceless obstruents, since etymological -P- must have remained intervocalic for
long enough to enable voicing to occur.27 All other Romance varieties subject to
SPIV likewise show the effect of lenition in syncopated reflexes of Latin forms
similar in structure to NEPŌTE(M). For example, in Engadinish, there are
forms such as [al’gwa:r] or [al’ge:r] ‘to melt’ < LIQUĀRE which likewise show
that syncope preceded the voicing caused by lenition.28 As lenition of voiceless
plosives was a productive process that doubtless extended into the early Middle
Ages in northern Italy and Alpine regions, SPIV can safely be assumed to be a
medieval development. However, there is further evidence that SPIV may only
have operated at a fairly advanced stage in the Middle Ages, in some areas at least.
In the varieties of Valsesia (N Piedmont) and Voghera (S Lombardy, some 60 km
west of Piacenza) where SPIV has occurred widely, there are forms such as [lja:m]
‘dung’ < LAETĀMEN.29 These indicate that before SPIV began to operate, lenition
had not only voiced the original intervocalic -T- but had gone so far as to delete it,
the probable path being [le’ta:me] > [le’da:me] > [le’a:m(e)] > [lja:m]. Had SPIV
occurred before the final stage, a sequence [(a)ld-] would have developed
word-initially just as has happened elsewhere in northern Italy, e.g. Bolognese
[al’dA:m]. Now, in all probability the deletion of [d] (< -T-) was not carried
through before the end of the first millennium. Even in the very rapidly evolving
Romance varieties of northern France, the evidence suggests that this change was
only implemented by about the eleventh century (Fouché 1966: 600). We may
therefore tentatively conclude that SPIV first began to operate, at least in north-
ern Piedmontese, at some stage near the end of the first millennium at the
earliest. In other varieties experiencing SPIV, however, its chronology may of
course have been somewhat different.
A final possible indicator may be briefly noted although it is of arguable
usefulness. It builds on the relation of SPIV to the palatalization of pre-
consonantal [s] and [z] which occurred as a regular development across all
27
Lenition is a general development in western Romance, i.e. northern Italo-Romance,
Rheto-Romance, Sardinian, Gallo-Romance, and Ibero-Romance. It affected all
intervocalic obstruents and led to changes such as -B-> [v], -P- > [b] > [v], -PP- > [p].
28
The first form is found in the standardized form of Engadinish as cited in the
dictionaries of Peer (1962) and Bezzola and Tönjachen (1976), the second form appears
in the Upper Engadinish variety of Celerina (Walberg 1907). It will be recalled that Rheto-
Romance varieties derive their word for ‘nephew’ from the nominative NĔPOS, giving
[neiv], [n¡kf], etc. Such forms were not of course affected by SPIV.
29
Data from Spoerri (1918) and Maragliano (1976).
U-prosthesis 207
Rheto-Romance, giving forms such as [’ʃtæla] ‘star’ < STĒLLA and [’ʃtçela] ‘ladder’
< SCĀLA in Upper Engadinish (Celerina). It also operated, but rather less consis-
tently, in a number of far northern Italo-Romance varieties, notably those of
northern Piedmont and Lombardy, Trento and the canton of Ticino, and parts
of Romagna (cf. Rohlfs 1966: }188).30 Now, in those varieties that underwent this
palatalization and also experienced SPIV, it is notable that any pre-consonantal
sibilants created by SPIV have failed to undergo palatalization; for example, [stIL]
‘thin’ < S(U)BTĪLE(M) and [ster] ‘to dry’ < S(I)CCĀRE in Upper Engadinish. Pre-
consonantal S-palatalization must therefore have ceased to be a productive
process before SPIV arose. Given that the palatalization of pre-consonantal
sibilants remained productive long enough into the medieval period to affect
borrowings such as [ʃprUm] ‘spur’ < early Germanic spōro(n)-, it would appear
that SPIVonly started to apply at some stage well into the Middle Ages.31 A crucial
consideration, however, is the date at which pre-consonantal [s] palatalized in
southern Germanic itself. For if it predated the borrowing of items like spōro(n)-
(> sp(e)ron-) into early Romance, we would clearly not be able to use evidence
from such items to draw any conclusions on the chronology of pre-consonantal
sibilant palatalization in Rheto-Romance. Unfortunately, there is some disagree-
ment amongst Germanists over the chronology of pre-consonantal [s] palataliza-
tion. The first stage of the development is generally agreed to involve the
palatalization of initial [sk-] > [ʃ-] (presumably via a stage [ʃç-]), but the dating
of this and later palatalizations of sibilants in other pre-consonantal contexts is
controversial. For some, the first stage dates only from late Old High German at
the earliest, i.e. the tenth or early eleventh centuries, and palatalization in other
contexts, e.g. in sp-, st-, sn-, sm-, is assumed to have occurred by the end of the
thirteenth century. The other interpretation, which suggests a much earlier dating,
is based largely on the consistent distinction made in Old High German and early
Middle High German texts of the two graphies <s> and <z>, as in <kus> ‘kiss’ and
<nuz> ‘nut’, both of which clearly represented sibilants. The assumption is that
<z> probably represented voiceless alveolar [s], whilst <s> indicated a retracted
voiceless sibilant which was probably palatalized to some degree, perhaps [ʃ] or
[]. The latter developed first in the original sequence [sk-] and then was extended
in Old High German to other contexts, before splitting in Middle High German to
give [ʃ] pre-consonantally and [s] elsewhere which merged with pre-existing [s].
In this interpretation, initial <s> could already have had a palatal quality in Old
High German. The general development of pre-consonantal <s> to [ʃ], which is
30
E.g. the reflexes of STĒLLA ‘star’: [’ʃt¡la] Ornavasso (NE Piedmont), [’ʃt¡:la]
Germasino (N Lombardy), [’ʃt¡la] Predazzo (N Veneto) (AIS 2, 362; pts. 117, 222, 323).
31
REW 8130a. Cf. It. sp(e)rone, Old French esperon > éperon, Occ. esporó.
208 U-prosthesis
definitely accomplished by the thirteenth century, may therefore have involved

only a small increment in palatality. If this was true, early Germanic loans into
Rheto-Romance such as spōro(n)- might already have contained a partly palatal
initial sibilant. The use of such forms in attempts to determine the chronology of
SPIV in Rheto-Romance therefore would seem to be inappropriate.32
We may therefore rely on just the data emerging from forms affected by
western lenition, e.g. Bolognese amvod, to conclude that SPIV probably repre-
sents a change that was initiated close to the end of the first millennium at the
earliest. U-prosthesis would then have got underway at some later stage.
After SPIV had operated, the pattern of implementation of U-prosthesis in the

Romance varieties concerned has been complex with a good deal of variation
from region to region. Only an outline of the broad characteristics of actualiza-
tion will therefore be possible. Two factors in particular have guided the process,
and these have interacted in sometimes delicate ways. They are: (i) the nature of
the prosodic domain in which the word appears, and (ii) the internal structure of
the complex word-initial onset that was created by SPIV. We may consider these
factors in turn, focusing attention first on developments in lexical items. Pros-
thetizing contexts which involve monosyllabic proclitic forms, e.g. M(E) VIDET
‘(s)he sees me’, are examined separately below.
6.1.4.1 Nature of the prosodic domain

U-prosthesis in lexical items appears to have been triggered particularly in
contexts where there was a preceding, closely syntactically linked word which
ended in a consonant. A preceding consonant-final determiner or clitic provided
the most favoured prosthetizing context. U-prosthesis has also occurred in post-
pausal contexts, though this has happened less commonly with heterosyllabic
onsets beginning with an obstruent; in contrast, it is usual with onsets beginning
with a sonorant, especially a liquid. Generally, prosthesis seems not to have
occurred in post-vocalic contexts within close-knit phrases, though cases can be
32
Proponents of the first interpretation, which assumes a first stage dated tenth to
eleventh century, include Bach (1965: 175), Tschirch (1969: 19) and Young and Gloning
(2004: 110). The classic work setting out the interpretation in favour of an earlier dating is
Joos (1952). My thanks go to Martin Durrell for his invaluable guidance in this complex
chapter of German phonological history.
U-prosthesis 209
found where this has taken place with sonorant-initial onsets, a development
which led to lexicalization of the prosthetic vowel. The following basic stages
seem to have occurred in a pattern of implementation that resembles what
happened with I-prosthesis and, less certainly, with A-prosthesis (4.1.4, 5.3.3):
post-consonantal ! post-pausal ! post-vocalic
The extent to which individual Romance varieties have progressed along this
path of actualization varies a good deal. In ‘common Piedmontese’ based on
Turinese, for instance, certain types of heterosyllabic word-initial onset (namely,
obstruent-initial) show U-prosthesis in post-consonantal position only (Clivio
1971, 2002: 160–1). Indeed, if there is a hesitation or partial pause between the
preceding consonant and the onset, a prosthetic vowel may fail to appear even in
that context, e.g. (post-vocalic) sensa dné ‘without money’, (phrase-internal,
post-pausal) tant . . . dné ‘much . . . money’ but (post-consonantal, without
pause) tant ëdné ‘much money’, where ë indicates a schwa. In the Piedmontese
variety of Viverone, the occurrence of prosthesis is even more nuanced. Nigra
(1901: 253) reports that when a consonant-final determiner or clitic precedes,
there is regular prosthesis which yields a vowel with the quality [N]. But when
some other consonant-final form precedes within a noun phrase, the prosthetic
vowel is weak and scarcely perceptible, as in l’a-vzin [lNv’ziN] ‘the neighbour’ but
sett aksu-i [’set Nk’sui] ‘seven buns’.
Complex onsets whose initial consonant was a sonorant have usually under-
gone U-prosthesis not only in post-consonantal contexts but also post-pausally
in Piedmontese. As a result, citation forms for words which had contained a
sonorant-initial onset sequence generally have a prosthetic vowel. Post-vocalical-
ly, however, prosthesis has been carried through only incompletely. A prosthetic
vowel may be absent when a vowel-final proclitic form precedes, particularly
when the initial consonant of the complex word-initial sequence created by SPIV
was not a liquid. Whether this reflects elision of an earlier prosthetic vowel or the
failure of prosthesis to occur at all is unclear. As an example of this pattern, the
dialect of Monferrato (SE of Turin) shows forms like in anvud ‘a nephew’ but më
nvud ‘my nephew’ < N(E)PŌTE(M). However, onsets with an initial liquid appear to
maintain the prosthetic vowel in this dialect even after a vowel-final proclitic: aj
hô arcunsı̀ ‘I have recognized’ < R(E)-COGNOSC-ĪTU(M) (Nebbia 2001).
For the other major syncopating zone of northern Italy, Emilia-Romagna and
adjacent border areas, Malagoli (1910-13: 111) reports the regular presence of a
prosthetic vowel in Novellarese (Emilia) before complex onsets beginning with
the sonorants [r, l, n] but only in post-consonantal and post-pausal contexts,
since elision (or non-implementation of prosthesis) is apparently found in post-
vocalic contexts. A similar pattern is described for the variety of Pontremoli in the
Lunigiana, located in the northern transitional area where Tuscany abuts onto
Emilia and Liguria (Maffei Bellucci 1977: 46–7). Further to the east, in the variety
210 U-prosthesis
spoken in Piacenza at the end of the nineteenth century, U-prosthesis was

reported to have been generalized to all contexts and fully lexicalized in forms
beginning with liquid þ consonant and less commonly with nasal þ obstruent,
whereas other types of word-initial heterosyllabic onset appear not to be subject
to prosthesis, except post-consonantal s impura sequences (Gorra 1890: 143, 153).
In the Rheto-Romance of the Grisons, those varieties which experienced SPIVand
subsequent U-prosthesis have lexicalized the prosthetic vowel [a] in words whose
onsets began with a liquid and, sometimes but not often, with a nasal also. Thus,
Lutta (1923: }}121, 123) cites the following forms for the dialect of Bergün, where the
prosthetic vowel is maintained even when a vowel-final auxiliary precedes:
post-pausal post-vocalic
[al’de:r] ‘to manure’ [iL ’pro: ¡ ‘the field is < LAET-ĀRE, -ĀTU(M)
al’do:] manured’
[ar’tʃ ¡gv‰r] ‘to receive’ [¡l P ar’tʃi:]

‘he has received’ < RECIPERE, *-ĪTU(M)

[amna’tʃe:r] ‘to threaten’ [¡l P am- ‘he has < MINACIĀRE, -ĀTU(M)

na’tʃo:] threatened’
Finally, in those varieties of northern Gallo-Romance where there was categor-
ical deletion of schwa in unstressed syllables, U-prosthesis has come to operate
where syllabification of a heterosyllabic consonant sequence would otherwise be
impossible. Thus, U-prosthesis has not applied in post-vocalic contexts since the
opening consonant of a heterosyllabic onset can be resyllabified as the coda of the
preceding syllable, but in post-consonantal contexts this is not possible and
prosthesis therefore offers a solution. Post-pausally, although prosthesis would
also be expected, the data prove to be a little less clear-cut and the appearance of
prosthetic vowels may not be categorical. The following examples are cited from
the Picard variety of Mesnil-Martinsart (Flutre 1955) and they indicate that
prosthesis here has occurred irrespective of the quality of the first consonant of
a heterosyllabic word-initial onset.
post-pausal 33 post-consonantal
e
[ mne s vAk] ‘to lead one’s cow’ [i f ll emne] ‘it is necessary to lead it’
[ertire] ‘remove ! (imp.pl.)’ [i n ersãn pwq sq p¡r] ‘he does not look like
his father’
33
The data in Flutre (1955) are a little unclear in places over the incidence of post-pausal
U-prosthesis. Forms are cited in post-pausal contexts both with and without a prosthetic
vowel indicated. For instance, beside the prosthetic example [emne s vAk . . . ] which we cite
from p. 36, there is non-prosthetic [mne qn vAk . . . ] on p. 83, both post-pausal, and in the
glossary the citation (hence post-pausal) form is given as mné (non-prosthetic). However,
it is explicitly stated: ‘Quand un mot commence par plusieurs consonnes et qu’il est à
U-prosthesis 211
[elve s mq] ‘to raise one’s hand’ [klik el pPrt] ‘try the door knob’ (to see if
someone’s in)
[edmq] ‘tomorrow’ [ty n edmãn pwq] ‘you do not ask’
post-vocalic
[o mnõ] ‘we lead’
[i rsãn sq p¡r] ‘he looks like his father’
[(´ em ) sy lv¡] ‘I got up = (I) raised (myself)’
[sã mq dmãde py lõ] ‘without asking me for more of it’
Although I-prosthesis and later pre-consonantal [s] deletion had eliminated
original s impura onsets in this and the other Gallo-Romance varieties concerned,
new onsets with this structure reappeared in later loans and as a result of schwa
deletion, and these too have been subject to U-prosthesis since they have
continued to be interpreted as being heterosyllabic. For example, once again in
the Mesnil-Martinsart variety, there are forms such as [ʃe stasjõ] ‘the stations’ but
[al proʃqn estasjõ] ‘at the next station’. Also systematically affected by the same
rule of prosthesis have been proclitic pronouns and other monosyllabic gram-
matical forms which had formerly contained the vowel schwa. These forms have
come to display the same morphophonemic alternation, e.g. with the feminine
singular definite article [klik el pPrt] ‘try the door knob (to see if someone’s in)’
but [dq l kur] ‘in the courtyard’.
In a more detailed coverage of prosthesis in another Picard dialect, that of
Vimeu, Auger (2001) indicates a comparable pattern, leading in a parallel way to
the same pattern of regular morphophonemic alternation. In addition, however,
it is noted that the incidence of a prosthetic vowel decreases the higher up on
the prosodic hierarchy the potentially prosthetizing context is found. Thus, if an
unlicensed onset is found within the prosodic word, i.e. a lexical word plus
affixes and associated clitics, the prosthetic vowel [e] appears categorically.
Within a phonological phrase, prosthesis is almost categorical but occasional
exceptions occur, whilst the incidence of prosthesis in intonational-phrase-
initial and especially utterance-initial position drops considerably. In the corpus
of data examined by Auger, prosthesis in utterance-initial position drops to less
l’initiale de la phrase, ou que le mot précédent ne finit pas par une voyelle sur laquelle ces
consonnes puissent appuyer, il y a développement d’un e prosthétique ou épenthétique,
plus ou moins nettement articulé’ (pp. 35–6). It is added (p. 36) that, ‘C’est en particulier le
cas lorsqu’un mot commence par le préfixe r- (franç. re-) suivi de consonne.’ Yet, the
citation form given in the glossary for even these prefixal items is non-prosthetic, e.g. for
the reflex of RE-SIMILĀRE ‘to resemble’ we find rsãné (p. 226) rather than [ersãne]. Some
doubt therefore hovers over the incidence of post-pausal prosthetic vowels in this dialect.
212 U-prosthesis
than one half of the possible cases where it might be expected to have occurred,
echoing in part the evidence from Flutre’s description (cf. n. 33).34 This finding
suggests that in at least some forms of medieval Romance a further path of
actualization relating to prosodic domains may have operated for U-prosthesis:
clitic phrase ! phonological phrase ! intonational phrase ! utterance
Some support for the existence of this path of actualization can be found
elsewhere in Romance. For instance, in certain Romance varieties (e.g. Catalan)
U-prosthesis has only occurred within the clitic phrase, indicating that it is the
primary locus for prosthesis on the prosodic hierarchy (see 6.1.4.3). Also, Clivio
(1971: 338) cites Piedmontese forms showing prosthesis to be just optional rather
than obligatory in post-consonantal forms occurring in prosodic domains higher
than the clitic phrase.
6.1.4.2 Internal structure of the word-initial onset

As some of the data in the previous subsection have indicated, the actualization of
U-prosthesis has also been directly conditioned by the sonority profile of the
complex word-initial onsets created by SPIV. In broad terms and directly in
line with the SSG (cf. 1.7), onsets of rising sonority have generally been less
subject to prosthesis, whereas onsets of level and, particularly, falling sonority
have been more subject. In onsets of a given sonority slope, the sonority distance
between the successive consonants will also play a role. The greater the sonority
distance in rising sonority onsets, the less the incidence is of U-prosthesis; the
greater the distance is in falling sonority onsets, the greater the incidence of
U-prosthesis.35 Thus, we have at one extreme those sequences of rising sonority
composed of stop þ glide or liquid, where the sonority distance is large.
U-prosthesis is not triggered by such onsets except in very special cases. And at
the other extreme, there are onsets of falling sonority composed of glide or
34
The corpus of Auger is unfortunately entirely based on fictional dialogue appearing
in novels by modern Picard writers. Whilst such data may replicate linguistic usage fairly
accurately, some doubt remains as to just how authentically they represent natural speech.
Flutre’s data were based on usage in live speech. Nonetheless, both sources point to the less
than categorical nature of prosthesis in utterance-initial position.
35
This is in conformity with generally preferred syllable structure patterns as presented
by Vennemann (1988). For complex onsets, the preference is for fewer rather than more
constituent consonants and for those consonants to be arranged with maximally rising
sonority. Thus, strategies for breaking up complex onsets may be expected to be more
systematically used, the more such onsets deviate from the preferred structure.
U-prosthesis 213
liquid þ stop, where there is a large sonority distance: these have systematically
triggered U-prosthesis. The data can be represented in broad terms36 using a
parameter on which prosthesis in individual dialects may be variably located
(Figure 6.3).
stop+gl./liq. obs.+son. obs.+obs. son.+son. son.+obs. gl./liq.+stop
rising sonority level sonority falling sonority
less more
(gl. = glide, liq. = liquid, obs. = obstruent, son. = sonorant, nas. = nasal)
FIGURE 6.3. Relative susceptibility of sample context types to U-prosthesis
We may briefly review the relevant Romance data that underpin this parameter
before going on to consider the probable path of actualization that it indicates.
Maximally rising-sonority onsets containing stop þ liquid usually fail to un-
dergo U-prosthesis in any variety, as in [pla:] ‘to peel’, [fra:] ‘to shoe a horse’ <
PILĀRE, FERRĀRE in Valsesiano (N Piedmontese). Such onsets, it will be recalled, had
existed in Latin, and phonological theory generally views obstruent þ liquid
sequences as forming tautosyllabic or ‘true’ onsets. Elimination of such onsets
would not therefore be expected. The very rare exceptions concern the coronal
sequences [tl-], [dl-] which were both impermissible in Latin. Reflexes of
TELĀRIU(M) ‘loom’ and DOLŌRE(M) ‘pain’, for example, reportedly show U-prosthe-
sis in some Piedmontese varieties.37
In other types of obstruent þ sonorant onset sequence where the sonority rise
is relatively smaller (especially obstruent þ nasal) or in onsets where there is level
sonority, the susceptibility to prosthesis has been variable. It has been greater
in Piedmontese, for instance, than in Emilian or Romagnolo varieties. Thus,
onset sequences such as [fn-], [dn-] (obstruent þ nasal), and [vz-] (obs-
truent þ obstruent with level sonority) generally show a prosthetic vowel in
appropriate phonological contexts in Piedmontese:
36
A much finer-grained schema would be required for a detailed and accurate analysis.
Thus, the present simplified parameter fails to distinguish onsets such as [ml-] and [rm-],
both falling here under ‘son. þ son.’. However, the former is often found without prosthesis
in northern Italian dialects, e.g. Bolognese [mlAN] ‘melon’ < MELŌNE(M), whereas the latter
has regularly undergone prosthesis.
37
For Viveronese, Nigra (1901) reports [tl-] as providing a prosthetizing context. In his
detailed inventory of onsets triggering U-prosthesis in Piedmontese, Telmon (1975)
includes [dl-] and cites the form [ad’lo:r] ‘pain’ < DOLŌRE(M) for the dialect of the
Andorno valley. However, no mention is made here of [tl-].
214 U-prosthesis
with prosthesis (post-consonantal) without prosthesis

F(E)NŬCULU(M) > [dez ‰f’noj] ‘ten bulbs of [tre f’noj] ‘three bulbs of
fennel’ fennel’
D(E)NĀRIU(M) > [taNt ‰d’ne] ‘much money’ [’seNsa d’ne] ‘without money’
VICĪNU(M) > [dez ‰v’ziN] ‘ten neighbours’ [tre v’ziN] ‘three neighbours’
However, in Emilian-Romagnolo it appears that comparable prosthesis has not
regularly occurred.38
There are few onsets of rising or level sonority, the initial element of which was
a sonorant. The only type that has passed into Romance appears to have
contained [m] as the first element and for these the results are variable, just as
they are in onsets of falling sonority beginning with [m]. Prosthesis has occurred
but in some varieties it has been limited at most to post-consonantal contexts, as
in ‘common’ Piedmontese based on Turinese [mluN] ‘melon’< MELŌNE(M),
[mni’ze] ‘garbageman’ < MINŪTIA þ -ĀRIU(M) (Clivio 1971) and Piacentino (Emi-
lian) [mloN] ‘melon’, [mny:d] ‘tiny’ < MINŪTU(M) (Bearesi 1982). In other varieties
of Piedmontese and Emilian, however, it has been extended to post-pausal
contexts (hence citation form) as well, e.g. Castellinaldese [am’ruN] ‘melon’
(Toppino 1902-5), Monferrino [am’n¡stra] ‘soup’ < MENĔSTRA, [am’ne] ‘to lead’
< MINĀRE (Nebbia 2001), and sporadically and variably in Bolognese [(a)m(b)
råuz] ‘amorous’ < AMORŌSU(M) but [’mraNda] < MERĔNDA (Mainoldi 1967). Finally,
in Upper Engadinish, U-prosthesis appears to have been lexicalized in some

forms only, e.g. Celerinese [Im’natʃa] ‘threat’ < MINĀCEA39 as against [mnYkt]
‘tiny’ < MINŪTU(M), [mne:r] ‘to lead’ < MINĀRE ‘to lead’.
Falling sonority onsets have been much more susceptible to prosthesis across
all varieties where SPIV has operated. Particularly affected have been onset
sequences beginning with a sonorant. U-prosthesis has always occurred at least
38
The Piedmontese data are drawn from Clivio (1971: 336, 2002: 161). For Emilian-
Romagnolo, Loporcaro (1998) indicates that for the Emilian variety of Grizzana Morandi,
which lies 40 km south of Bologna, onsets of rising sonority or level sonority form true
onsets, at least within clitic phrases, so that they do not give rise to prosthesis. Thus, [at
’kJPsen] ‘they (f.) know you’, [at pke:ven] ‘they (f.) were pecking you’, rather than non-
prosthetic **[al ti k’JPsen] [al ti p’ke:ven], as against [al ti v’de:ven] ‘they (f.) saw you’ with
prosthesis before an obstruent-initial onset with falling sonority.
39
This form may owe its initial vowel to morphological recutting rather than U-
prosthesis, ILLA MINĀCEA > ILL’ AMINACEA. However, as initial [a-] usually gives [a] in Upper
Engadinish, e.g. APRĪLE(M) > [a’vriL] ‘April’, AMĪCU(M) > [a’mix] ‘friend’, the emergence of a

high front vowel in [Im’natʃa] would need explanation. It is significant that the regular
outcome of what is certainly a prosthetic vowel in other nasal-initial onset sequences is a
high vowel, e.g. [YN’gu‰ta] ‘nothing’ < NE(C)-GŬTTA (the rounded quality of the initial
prosthetic vowel of this form is presumably due to labiovelar influence from the following
velar consonants and rounded stressed vowel). It may therefore be that either (i) prosthesis
U-prosthesis 215
in post-consonantal contexts, but where the initial sonorant is a liquid, prosthesis

is invariably found in both post-consonantal and post-pausal contexts (e.g. in
Novellarese), and it may have been generalized in all contexts and become fully
lexicalized (e.g. in Rheto-Romance varieties spoken in the Upper Engadine). For
instance, in the Engadinish dialect of Celerina, the prosthetic vowel is now

lexicalized in forms such as [ar’tʃæv‰r] ‘to receive’ < RECIPERE and [al’ge:r] ‘to
melt’ < LIQUĀRE. With sonorant-initial onsets of falling sonority which begin with
a nasal, there has been widespread variation depending on the quality of the nasal.
Where the initial nasal is coronal, U-prosthesis has typically occurred in post-
consonantal and post-pausal contexts as in Novellarese (Emilian) [an’v¡:r] ‘to
snow’ < NIV-ĀRE and Monferrino (Piedmontese) [an’vu:d] ‘nephew’ < NEPŌTE(M),
and sometimes it has been generalized and fully lexicalized, as in Upper Engadin-
ish [YN’gu‰ta] ‘nothing’ < NE(C)-GŬTTA, [YJ’djyn] ‘nobody’ < NEC-ŪNU(M). How-
ever, prosthesis has been much less systematic when the nasal was bilabial [m], in
conformity with the pattern already seen for such onsets when they are of level or
rising sonority.40
The incidence of U-prosthesis before falling sonority onsets beginning with an
obstruent has been more variable across different varieties. In Upper Engadinish,
the evidence suggests that it has never occurred. For example, it seems that
syncopated forms such [vd¡] ‘calf’ < VITĔLLU(M) have always been non-prosthetic,41
and following the abandonment of I-prosthesis in Rheto-Romance, original
s impura onsets that (re)appeared in forms such as STRĀME(N) ‘straw’, SPĪNA ‘thorn’
have behaved as other obstruent-initial falling-sonority onsets like [vd¡] and
similarly failed to undergo U-prosthesis, hence [ʃtram], [’ʃpiJa]. In northern
Italian dialects, U-prosthesis may occur with obstruent-initial onsets of falling
sonority in certain phonological contexts. For instance, this reportedly occurs in
did operate on MINĀCEA although it curiously failed to do so in [mnYkt] ‘tiny’ (the view of
Lutta 1923: }126), or (ii) a word-initial vowel [a] was first created in this word through
morphological recutting and later the vowel was aligned with that of other words which
began with unstressed vowel þ coda nasal, notably forms containing the prefix [Im-, In-] <
IN- such as [Im’pu‰nd‰r] ‘to use’ < IMPŌNERE. Similar conclusions may be drawn for forms
like [In’dzYgra] ‘measure’ < ME(N)SŪRA.
40
Thus, in the Emilian dialect of Novellara, where U-prosthesis consistently occurs
with heterosyllabic onset sequences beginning with a liquid or [n], word-onset sequences
beginning with [m] are only sporadically affected by prosthesis whether they are of rising,
level, or falling sonority, e.g. [mlo:N] ‘melon’, [mn¡:r] ‘to lead’, [mzi:N] ‘half a litre’ beside
[am’s¡:l] ‘missal’ (Malagoli 1910–13: }161).
41
It is noteworthy, however, that in the earliest attestations of the reflex of VITĔLLU(M)
‘calf ’ dating from the sixteenth century, SPIV had evidently still not operated in Upper
Engadinish. For example, in Bifrun’s translation of the celebrated parable of the fatted calf
(Luke 15), the form uidilg appears.
216 U-prosthesis
Grizzanese (Emilian) though it may not be general in all dialects of Emilia-

Romagna. Here too, where I-prosthesis lost productivity, s impura onsets have
generally been aligned with other falling-sonority onsets beginning with an ob-
struent.42 In Piedmontese varieties, I-prosthesis normally continued to operate
post-consonantally and, following SPIV and the rise of U-prosthesis, the two
processes interacted. As a result, a single generalized quality was adopted for the
prosthetic vowel with all types of heterosyllabic word-initial onset beginning with
an obstruent. Thus, in ‘common Piedmontese’ based on Turinese, forms are found
such as set ëstèile ‘seven stars’ (as against la stèila ‘the star’) alongside set ëpnass
‘seven tails’ (as against tre pnass ‘three tails’), both with the generalized vowel [‰].
At first sight, the actualization of U-prosthesis would appear to have involved a
single parametrized process, whereby contexts on the right-hand side of our
Figure 6.3 above were affected first and then prosthesis was generalized progres-
sively to contexts further to the left, in varying degrees according to dialect.
However, this may not be an entirely accurate picture of events. There is evidence
which suggests the possibility that U-prosthesis may have been actualized origi-
nally along two distinct but related paths, dependent on whether the complex
word-initial onset began with an sonorant or an obstruent. Various pieces of data
offer some support for this view. First, in certain varieties, phonetically different
types of prosthetic vowel are found in these two contexts. For instance, in the
Piedmontese variety of Viverone, the presence of two word-initial vowels [N] and
[€I] is reported.43 The latter appears exclusively preceding sonorants, e.g. [€Irkur’da]
‘to remember’, [€Il’va] ‘to lift’ (< RECORDĀRE, LEVĀRE), and the former in all other
contexts containing complex word-initial onsets that are not tautosyllabic.44
42
In Grizzanese, clitic phrases such as [al ti v’de:ven] ‘they (f.) saw you’ show a
prosthetic [i] triggered by the presence of the falling-sonority and hence heterosyllabic
onset [vd-]. Similarly, [al ti stofen] ‘they (f.) annoy you’ where the onset contains s impura.
In contrast, level-sonority onsets beginning with an obstruent such as [pk-] evidently do
not trigger prosthesis, e.g. [at pke:ven] ‘they (f.) were pecking you’ rather than prosthetic
** [al ti pke:ven] (Loporcaro 1998).
43
The phonetic description of both vowels by Nigra (1901: 252) is unfortunately not
entirely clear. The vowel we represent as [N] is described as ‘un suono ottuso, che sta tra i
suoni di a ed e’ (‘a dull sound, situated between a and e’) which corresponds to the familiar
‘mute e’ [‰] widely found in Piedmontese varieties. Nigra emphasizes the difference
between it and [€I] which he presents as very short, unstressed, closed and less distinct.
44
Just one exception concerns complex onsets involving etymological initial M- which
pattern like obstruent-initial onsets, e.g. [dl Nm’luN] ‘of the watermelon’ (< MELŌNE(M)).
Also, as noted above in 6.1.4.1, the realization [N] appears only in contexts where a
consonant-final determiner precedes; where other consonant-final forms precede, a
much phonetically reduced realization of the vowel occurs.
U-prosthesis 217
Second, the phonetic stages by which a prosthetic vowel developed seem to

have been different in the two types of context. With sonorant-initial onsets, the
original syllabicity of the etymological first syllable may well have been main-
tained at all stages, particularly in post-consonantal and post-pausal contexts. As
the original vocalic nucleus weakened, its syllabicity was probably taken over by
the sonorant which in turn became syllabic. Thereafter, there would be lineariza-
tion of the syllabic sonorant so that a sequence of unstressed vowel þ non-syllabic
sonorant developed (cf. 1.3). Direct evidence of the intervening stage is no longer
widely found but some modern Romance varieties do offer suggestive data. For
example, in the dialect of Pontremoli (N Lunigiana), weakening of unstressed
vowels in word-initial syllables has led to pre-consonantal sonorants appearing in
word-initial onset position where they may be realized as syllabic or be linearized
into vowel þ sonorant sequences, e.g. [rkun’tar] or [arkun’tar] ‘to relate’ < RE-
’
COMPUTĀRE, the former of which can be found when a vowel-final form precedes; a
comparable alternation also appears medially in [’nuj a kr’d‰ma] [’nuj a
’
kar’d‰ma] ‘we think’ < *CRED-ĒMUS (Maffei Bellucci 1977: 46). Similarly, in
Gallo-Romance the presence of syllabic l, m (though not n)45 and especially r
in word-initial pre-consonantal position following the syncope of the original
unstressed vowel is reported for the Vendéen dialect of Vouvant, as in [rturna] ‘to
’
return’, [rlik] ‘remains’, [lver] ‘lever’, [mluna] ‘to hum, buzz’ (Rézeau 1976: }11).
’ ’ ’
The first three of these forms may be compared with standard French retourner,
reliques, levier whose schwa can also be syncopated, though just in post-vocalic
contexts and without creating a syllabic sonorant; the fourth item which appar-
ently derives ultimately from MASCULUS (FEW VI, 426) has no direct counterpart in
standard French. Some further evidence of word-initial syllabic sonorants, espe-
cially syllabic r, appears in linguistic atlases.46 For instance, the ALCe (map 800,
une reprise mal faite) has [yn rsenyr] at points 28 (Fléré-la-Rivière) and 32 (St-
’
Genou) in western Indre, where it is evidently the presence of a preceding
consonant that has triggered the syllabic outcome in the lexical item. In the light
of such data, it seems plausible that U-prosthesis with etymological word-initial
45
For example, for ‘nephew’ the variant forms reported are [nvr], [nvu] < NEPŌTE(M)
where syncope has occurred but apparently without leading to the creation of a syllabic
initial consonant.
46
The ALF provides no clear evidence of syllabic consonants in potentially relevant
maps (1135, 1136, 1140, 1147, 1153, 1154, 1163). However, map 1585 grelot lists at least nineteen
points (mostly in Poitou-Charente) for which initial [grl-] is reported, a sequence which
can scarcely be pronounced unless [r] is vocalic (my thanks to Yves Charles Morin for
bringing this to my attention). More recent French linguistic atlases likewise often prove to
be of limited assistance in this connection. This is because many of the potentially relevant
forms that have been elicited are located in post-vocalic contexts.
218 U-prosthesis
sonorants may generally have involved a transitional stage where the sonorant was
syllabic; only later was there linearization yielding a prosthetic vowel.
The starting point in the special pattern of evolution found with sonorant-
initial words appears to lie in lexical items beginning with the prefix RE-, which
were evidently one of the first, if not the first, to be subject to SPIV and
subsequent U-prosthesis.47 It is striking that all Romance varieties experiencing
SPIV in sonorant-initial words have undergone syncope in RE- forms, and in
some varieties of central Italy these forms represent almost the only items to
have been affected. For example, Rohlfs (1966: }164) cites for the dialect of
Ancona, Marche, arcavà, arfà, ardı̀, argalà ‘to extract, redo, say again, give a
present’, whereas SPIV in other contexts is unusual. The forms reported for
Umbrian ardunà, armané, artirà, armette ‘to gather, remain, draw back, replace’
and for the dialect of Cortona, E Tuscany, arcapité, arcòglie, arcuprı̀, armané
‘to happen again, gather up, re-cover, remain’ all have etyma in RE- and they
again provide virtually the only examples of syncope and U-prosthesis. Flutre
(1955: 36) also calls attention to the particular importance of prefixal R(E)- for
prosthesis in Picard.48
The explanation for the special susceptibility of word-initial RE- to adaptation
is uncertain. However, Blevins and Garrett (1998, 2004) note some suggestive
perceptual considerations which are associated with the presence of rhoticity.
Rhoticity is seen as a feature with ‘elongated cues’ such as a lowered F3 that can
spread over adjacent segments leading to the possibility of individuals ‘mishear-
ing’ and then reinterpreting the original sequencing of segments which include a
rhotic. These phonetic cues are more likely to spread from a rhotic into a
47
Cf. ‘Es gibt Evidenz dafür, dass Synkope des Vortonsvokals und folgende Prosthese in
dem Präfix RE- früher eingetritt und daher auch häufiger zu finden ist als in sonstigen
Kontexten mit anlautendem Sonorant’ (Mayerthaler 1982: 92, n. 32). The observation is
based on Rheto-Romance and Italo-Romance data. Meyer-Lübke (1890: }367) likewise
notes the special status of etymological RE- and assumes the creation of a syllabic rhotic as
the intervening stage between etymological [re-] and later #vowel þ [r] sequences. He cites
forms such as prnõ, r venir (= St.Fr. prenons, revenir) as being frequently found in a wide
’ ’
range of varieties in the west and east of the langue d’oı̈l. Loriot (1984: 190) also postulates
an intervening stage with a syllabic rhotic for Picard dialects.
48
Flutre observes that, in the variety of Mesnil-Martinsart, vowel prosthesis is ‘en
particulier le cas lorsqu’un mot commence par le préfixe r- (franç. re-) suivi de
consonne’, e.g. in rtire ‘to withdraw’, rpartir ‘to leave again’. However, it is not quite clear
whether the ‘particular’ nature of the U-prosthesis here relates to its greater consistency, its
historical priority or to the relatively high statistical frequency of verb forms containing the
prefix r-. Similarly in the Picard the variety of Gondecourt, the only lexical items to have
systematically developed a prosthetic vowel are forms containing prefixal re- preceding a
consonant, e.g. [rtirei] ‘to withdraw’ (Cochet 1933).
U-prosthesis 219
preceding or following vowel when the vowel is unstressed and short. The
presence of such spreading may thus be a trigger for perceptual metathesis,
leading ultimately to the possibility of restructured underlying forms on condi-
tion that enough speakers adopt and promote the resequenced forms. However,
the perceptual conditions described would also provide a basis for understanding
the creation of a syllabic rhotic, since the reinterpretation of a rhotic þ short
unstressed vowel sequence as a syllabic rhotic might well represent the first stage
of reinterpretation on the way to metathesis. This is more likely with initial
unstressed [e] which, as we have seen, has had a greater tendency to weaken
than other vowels in Romance (cf. 6.1.2). And it is particularly understandable in
a high-frequency and hence more predictable and rapidly articulated sequence
like the prefix RE-.49 Where such reinterpretation begins to occur, ‘the general
perceptual pattern is for listeners to attribute lowered F3 to a postvocalic segment.
Therefore, where there is a rhotic adjacent to the vowel historically, it will be
analyzed as postvocalic’ (Blevins and Garrett 1998: 518). A scenario thus emerges
for the creation of a prosthetic vowel in etymological RE- sequences. Unstressed
[re-] > [re-] first came to be reinterpreted as a syllabic rhotic before undergoing
restructuring into a sequence of vowel þ non-syllabic rhotic. We may envisage
that subsequently other word-initial sonorant þ consonant sequences arising
from the weakening and syncope of [e] followed the pattern of evolution estab-
lished by forms in RE-.
In contrast, it seems unlikely that in complex word-initial onsets created by
SPIV where the initial segment was an obstruent, e.g. Emilian [’vde:va] ‘he saw’ <
VIDĒBAT, syllabicity was maintained in the obstruent after syncope had occurred.
Instead, if a prosthetic vowel did develop, it was evidently created to enable
syllabification to occur.
In the light of the available evidence, a tentative conclusion which can be
drawn is that U-prosthesis in lexical forms may have operated first on Romance
words which had originally contained the high-frequency prefix RE- preceding a
consonant stem, as in RE-CORDĀRE. When SPIV got under way, the word-initial
rhotic in these forms absorbed the syllabicity of the weakening vowel [e] and
became syllabic. Later, it was linearized to a vowel þ [r] sequence. Other forms
also came to acquire heterosyllabic word-initial onsets through SPIV, and those
onsets that were sonorant-initial followed the pattern established by original RE-
forms, similarly passing through a phase where the sonorant was syllabic. When
49
The link between the frequency of occurrence of a linguistic form and its consequent
predictability, on the one hand, and between its predictability and rapidity of its
articulation leading to phonetic reduction, on the other, is well known. Familiar
examples are (Golden Age Spanish) vuestra merced > (standard Spanish) usted >
(informal styles) (u)té ‘you’ (sg., polite form); (French) je ne sais pas > (informal) [ʃpP]
‘I don’t know’.
220 U-prosthesis
obstruent-initial heterosyllabic onsets developed, they too could take on a pros-

thetic vowel for syllabification purposes. The vowel used was generally identified
with the prosthetic vowel that had emerged with sonorant-initial onset se-
quences.
6.1.4.3 Actualization in proclitic forms

Monosyllabic proclitic forms, such as MĒ, TĒ, DĒ, QUID>[ke], have been subject to
SPIV just like lexical items and they too can surface with a prosthetic vowel.
However, SPIV and U-prosthesis have not always occurred in a directly parallel
way with proclitic forms and lexical forms. Three outcomes of U-prosthesis can
be distinguished:
(i) identical treatment of proclitic and lexical forms,
(ii) similar but not identical treatment of proclitic and lexical forms,
(iii) distinct treatment of proclitic forms.
Examples of (i) are found in north Gallo-Romance varieties. For example, Picard
has the following forms where a uniform vowel quality appears:
proclitic lexical form
[el smãJ pas¡] ‘the last week’ [elve s m¡] ‘to raise one’s hand’
[ty kã´ d plAʃ] ‘you (sg.) are changing [ty n edmãn pw~¡] ‘you (sg.) are not
e
place’ asking’
Data from the dialect of Mesnil-Martinsart (Flutre 1955)
Examples of (ii) appear in northern Italian varieties where a different quality
may occasionally be found in the prosthetic vowel used with proclitics. In
Grizzanese (Emilian), for instance, the prosthetic vowel with lexical items is
reportedly [a] but with proclitics it may be [i] (Loporcaro 1998), and in Turinese
a prosthetic [i] can appear with the subject proclitic [t] ‘you (sg.)’,50 although the
50
The special circumstances with the 2nd sg. clitic pronoun arise from the fact that it
has been alone amongst the subject clitics of northern Italian dialects to have emerged with
a consonantal base-form. Turinese, for example, has the paradigm: (1st sg., 1st pl., 2nd pl.)
[i], (3rd sg. and 3rd pl.) [a] (Vanelli 1984: 292). The possibility of vowel prosthesis with
these forms is therefore excluded. Vanelli (1984 and 1987) offers a useful diachronic survey
of subject pronoun evolution in northern Italian varieties. It is demonstrated inter alia that
seemingly prosthetic proclitic forms such as am in the Romagnolo am arcord ‘I remember’,
made famous as the title of a 1973 film by Federico Fellini, in reality contain a subject
clitic þ object clitic but no prosthetic vowel; thus, am = a (1st sg. subj. cl.) þ m (1st sg. obj.
cl.). However, the verb itself arcord (< RECORDO ) has of course undergone prosthesis
following SPIV.
U-prosthesis 221
usual quality of the prosthetic vowel elsewhere is [‰] (Clivio 1971: 343; Vanelli
1984: 293):
proclitic lexical form
Grizzanese [al ti ’vde:ven] ‘they (f.) saw you’ REMANĒRE>[arma’Je:] ‘to remain’
Turinese [it ‰m ’dize] ‘you (sg.) tell me’ DECEM MELŌN-Ī>[dez ‰mluN] ‘ten
melons’
However, in most northern Italian varieties there seems to be identity between the
prosthetic vowel found with proclitics and lexical items, with [a] being the most
usual outcome. For example, [a] appears for syllabification reasons as a prosthetic
vowel in proclitic sequences involving the subject proclitic t ‘you (sg.)’ followed
by the object proclitic g [qÐ ] ‘to him/her’ or m ‘(to) me’: e.g. Ferrarese t ag da an
pum and Mantuan ti t am de ‰n pum ‘you give him an apple’(Vanelli 1984: 293).
Lexical forms and object clitics likewise show the use of [a] as a prosthetic vowel
in these varieties, e.g. Mantuan (lexical) arfudar ‘to refuse’, arvgnir ‘to come back’,
aldam ‘dung’, alvar ‘to raise’ and (object clitic) as ved ‘is seen’ (= St.It. si vede), etc.
(Cherubini 1827).
Finally, cases of (iii) arise when U-prosthesis has occurred with proclitic forms
whereas lexical forms have not been subject to SPIV and hence have not under-
gone U-prosthesis. This is found in several Romance varieties, notably in Catalan,
Romanian, and certain types of Swiss Rheto-Romance. In Catalan, a range of
prosthetic clitics have developed in most varieties including the standard lan-
guage although not in western varieties and in Alguerès in Sardinia. Standard
Catalan has the forms em, et, es, ens [‰m ‰t ‰s ‰nz/‰ns] ‘me, you (sg.), him,
himself/herself etc. (reflex.), us’ < ME, TE, SE, NOS, which serve as both direct and
indirect object proclitic pronouns, e.g. em veu (a mi) ‘(s)he sees me’. Also, less
certainly, the forms el ‘him (dir.obj.)’, els ‘them (m. dir. obj. & m./f. ind. obj.), and
en ‘some (partitive), from there’ < ILLU(M), ILLOS / ILLIS, INDE may owe their vowel
to the action of prosthesis following the deletion of the etymological initial vowel.
These prosthetic forms occur just pre-consonantally. In other contexts, non-
prosthetic alternants are found, [m‰], [m]; [t‰], [t]; [s‰], [s]; [nus], [ns]; [łu],
[ł]; [łus], [ł‰s]; [n‰], [n] which appear respectively in enclitic position, volia
veure-me ‘(s)he wanted to see me’ and pre-vocalically in proclitic position,
m’ajuda ‘(s)he helps me’. Prosthetic proclitics evidently developed in two stages.
First, there was weakening and loss of the vowel in contexts in which there was an
adjacent vowel within a syntactic phrase. This is clearly illustrated, for instance, in
the prose work Libre de Evast e Blanquerna by Ramón Llull which dates from the
1280s. Here, we consistently find alternation indicated between asyllabic and
syllabic proclitics. Asyllabic realizations are evident in: (prevocalic) Evast s’asech
‘E. sat down’ (p. 105), enveja t’a tengut ‘envy has held you’ (p. 108); (postvocalic)
que nosaltres no·ns mullem ‘so that we do not get wet’ (p. 101), ni·n volia haver ‘nor
did he want any’ (p. 106), no·m dóna ‘it does not give’, que·s penedı́s ‘that he
222 U-prosthesis
should repent’ (p. 114); and fa’m considerar en la gran gràcia que Déus m’a feta ‘it
makes me think about the great grace that God has granted me’ (pp. 113–14)
showing deletion both post-vocalically and pre-vocalically.51 However, in syntac-
tic phrases where the adjacent segments were both consonants a syllabic form is
indicated: la vostra . . . caritat me fa cogitar ‘your charity makes me reflect’ (p. 113),
lo malalt se penedı́ ‘the sick man repented’ (p. 114). The pattern here thus
resembles closely that found in modern French: tu me vois [tym vwa] ‘you see
me’ and elle m’écoute [¡l mekut] ‘she listens to me’ with vowel deletion in the
proclitic pronoun, as against elle me voit [¡l m‰ vwa] ‘she sees me’ with vowel
retention. The second stage of development in Catalan saw moves to eliminate
the interconsonantal proclitic alternants me, te, se, etc. It seems likely that the
forms containing a sonorant were first affected in this development, notably me
and nos, and possibly le(s), lo(s) and ne also. In these the syllabicity of the vowel
was transferred to the sonorant, giving a syllabic consonant. A possible early
indication of this occurs in certain feudal documents dating from the eleventh
century, et nu·ls en dedebré ni mal nu·ls en menaré ‘and I will not deceive them in
this nor will I bring them harm in this’ (Russell-Gebbett 1965: 76), where <en>
may represent a syllabic nasal. Badia (1981: }125) also notes the attestation of
proclitic pronominal <el> from the late thirteenth century even in Rossellonès
(Roussillonnais). However, in both cases it is also conceivable that the vowel is a
residue of the etymological initial vowel of ILLU(M), INDE. According to Blasco
Ferrer (1995: 500), it is not until the fifteenth century that prosthetic forms start to
appear.52 Apparent examples are found in Rossellonès: lany mill quatre cents y
quinze es crema la sglesia ‘in 1415 there was a fire in the church’ (although the same
text also contains laqual se crema ‘which was on fire’) text dated 1415, and e ens ne
esposarem ‘and we will be married’ dated 1462 (Fouché [1924] 1980a: 43).
Romanian has certain dative pronouns all of which have developed a prosthetic
vowel [t_], namely ı̂mi, ı̂ţi, ı̂şi, ı̂i (< ME, TE, SE, ILLI) ‘to me, to you, to oneself, to
him/her’ and, less transparently, the masculine singular accusative pronoun ı̂l
(< ILLUM). A parallel change has also occurred with the now non-standard first
singular and third plural present indicative forms of the verb ‘to be’ ı̂s (< SUM and
53
SUNT). As in Catalan, U-prosthesis in Romanian has taken place when the forms
concerned were used proclitically within a verb phrase where they did not
immediately precede a vowel-initial clitic form (auxiliary or clitic pronoun),
e.g. ı̂mi place foarte mult ‘I like him/her/it very much’, ı̂ţi uiţi cartea ‘you (sg.)
51
We follow the edition by Salvador Galmés (1935), using his punctuation.
52
Unfortunately, few if any of the examples which Blasco Ferrer adduces clearly
demonstrate the unambiguous presence of a prosthetic vowel.
53
Forms ı̂s and ăs ‘they are’ are reported in the ALR to occur at various points in a
broad band of territory in north central Romania extending from the region around Arad
in the west across to the region around Iaşi in the east, cf. map 1619.
U-prosthesis 223
are forgetting your book’ (= ‘you are forgetting to yourself the book’), but ţi-ai
uitat cartea ‘you have forgotten your book’ mi-o dă ‘(s)he gives it to me’.
Prosthetic forms are attested from the period of the earliest surviving texts, the
sixteenth century (Densusianu 1975: 405). In addition to the forms already cited,
the sixteenth-century text Privila ritorului Lucaci (1581) shows ı̂le ‘to them’ and
ı̂lui ‘to him’ (< ILLIS, *ILLUI) but these have only ever been found in this work
(Lombard 1976).
A comparable outcome is also found in Surmeiran in the Rheto-Romance of
the Grisons. Here SPIV did not regularly operate, unlike the situation further to
the east in Upper Engadinish where it was intense (Grisch 1939: }39).54 In
Surmeiran, U-prosthesis occurred only with proclitic pronouns giving am, at,
as, ans, ats, iL, iLs ‘(to) me, you (sg.), us, self (3rd pers. refl. sg. and pl.), him, them
(m.)’. These forms, however, are now confined to literary use only (Haiman and
Benincà 1992: 127). U-prosthesis in proclitics in Surmeiran may represent a native
development but there is the possibility that the phenomenon developed as the
result of the westward diffusion of this process from the adjacent Upper Engadine
area where syncope of pre-tonic vowels was particularly strong.
It seems not unlikely that U-prosthesis with proclitics in all these Romance
varieties first operated with forms containing a sonorant. This would have
become syllabic prior to being linearized to enable syllabification to occur, and
emerging finally as a sequence of default vowel þ sonorant. It is unclear whether a
specific form established the use of a prosthetic alternant first of all and acted as a
leading form for the other proclitics, or whether prosthesis occurred as a move-
ment simultaneously affecting the subset of proclitics containing a sonorant
before it operated on the whole proclitic system. A plausible candidate as a
leading form in the former scenario might be the first person singular proclitic
ME (cf. Lutta 1923: }126). Parallel cases where tightly knit groups of grammatical
forms have been analogically remodelled on the first singular form are not
unusual in Romance, as for example the possessive pronoun forms in French.55
54
The variety of Bergün enjoys a special status as it shows clear evidence of SPIV having
operated although in other respects it seems to represent a type of Surmeiran. In the light
of his detailed study of this variety, Lütta (1923: } 11) concludes that its basis is Surmeiran
but that it later received an Engadinish overlay.
55
The possessive forms tien ‘yours’, sien ‘his, hers, theirs’ in French have been
remodelled on the basis of mien. Similarly, the Portuguese possessives teu ‘your’, seu ‘his,
her, their’ are based on meu; and in Rheto-Romance (Grisons) tiu, siu are formed on miu.
A comparable pattern of remodelling, albeit in a more limited way, has also occurred in
northern Italian dialects where the subject clitic form for the 1st sg. has widely been
extended to 1st pl. and then to the 2nd pl. (Vanelli 1984: 290). Similarly, in northern
Gallo-Romance, je has been extended in many varieties to 1st pl. (j’avons) and less
commonly to 2nd pl. (j’avez). For the latter, the ALF at pts. 334, 336 in Orne, Normandy
224 U-prosthesis
The possibility of U-prosthesis affecting just proclitic forms is significant, for it

appears to add further support to the path of actualization relating to the
prosodic hierarchy which was tentatively proposed above:
clitic phrase ! phonological phrase ! intonational phrase ! utterance
Unfortunately, it is not possible to demonstrate whether U-prosthesis operated in
principle in an identical way within the clitic noun phrase as within the clitic verb
phrase. The relevant proclitics in noun phrases, namely determiners, all
contained an etymological initial vowel which makes interpretation problematic
(ILLE, IPSE, UNU(M), UNA).
Unlike the two other principal categories of prosthesis which operated with
segmentally specific word-initial onsets, namely those composed of either s im-
pura or a rhotic, U-prosthesis has acted on a phonetically diverse range of onset
types. As a result, vowel qualities of different types have developed. However, it is
evident that a low-quality [a] has predominated. This is true for Italo-Romance
and Rheto-Romance, although in Gallo-Romance a mid front unrounded vowel
[e] or [¡] has tended to be the most usual outcome.
To try to explain the variations in vowel quality, we may recall the principle of
minimal saliency which governs the initial stage of epenthetic vowel formation
(1.6). According to this, a short vowel of indeterminate quality develops first of
all, typically a schwa, and thereafter the vowel is assigned a quality that conforms
with that of an existing vowel-type.
In most, perhaps all, Italo-Romance and Rheto-Romance varieties affected by
U-prosthesis, it is unclear whether schwa existed as a licensed vowel-type at the
time when this process first began to operate. Where schwa was lacking in the
vowel inventory, a low value [a] was typically selected for the new vowel. Two
reasons can be adduced for this. First, [a] represents the most general default
vowel-type in language. Second, and more importantly, it seems highly probable
that the first context where a prosthetic vowel became established was in forms
with a word-initial onset beginning with a rhotic and, in particular, in the
numerous forms originally containing the prefix RE-. As we have seen, these
have been particularly subject to SPIV and it is reasonable to assume that these
forms were the ones where U-prosthesis took root first of all as their initial onsets
displayed the most extreme instance of falling sonority. In the selection of the
has [áve] for both points in map 92 (vous avez), and [´Prje] (pt. 334), [é:rje] (pt. 336) in
map 95 (vous auriez).
U-prosthesis 225
quality [a], the same factors would have operated as those that guided the choice
of vowel quality in A-prosthesis (cf. 5.2.4). As other types of complex word-initial
onset gradually acquired a prosthetic vowel, it is understandable that speakers
would have adopted the quality already established for complex onsets beginning
with a rhotic.
Despite the presence of a (rhotic initial) model using the value [a] for the
prosthetic vowel, sometimes a vowel of different quality has nonetheless devel-
oped in forms containing other complex initial onsets. For example, before onsets
with an initial nasal consonant, parallelism with the reflex of forms containing
prefixal IN-, IM- has led at times to the appearance of a high quality, [i] or [y], for
the prosthetic vowel, as in imsüra ‘measure’, imsürêr and imzürêr ‘to measure’,
imnatscha ‘threat’, imnatschêr ‘to threaten’, imgiuramaint ‘improvement’, im-
giurêr, ‘to improve’, ünguotta ‘nothing’, üngiün ‘nobody’ which appear in the
sixteenth-century works of Jakob Bifrun.56 Modern Upper Engadinish (dialect of

Celerina) has [Im’natʃa] ‘threat’, [In’dzygra] ‘measure’, [YN’gu‰ta] ‘nothing’
whose initial high vowel may be compared with that found in prefixal forms
such as [INkun’tre:r] ‘to meet’, [Im’pu‰nd‰r] ‘to impose’ < INCONTRĀRE, IMPŌNERE.
In Italo-Romance, [a] became and has remained the usual quality for prosthetic
vowels in Emilia-Romagna. But in the other main prosthetizing area, Piedmont,
various adaptations have subsequently occurred locally. Telmon (1975) provides a
detailed, though not always very critical, review of prosthetic vowel qualities
attested across a wide range of different contemporary Piedmontese dialects.
Whilst Clivio (1971, 2002) identifies just the value [‰] for ‘common Piedmontese’
(based on Turinese), Telmon reports no fewer than six types: [a, e, ‰, u, y, i]. Of
these, [a] is by far the most commonly found; indeed, the others appear in only a
very small number of instances in the corpus of data presented. The vowel types
other than [a] appear to represent later localized developments conditioned by
phonetic context. Thus, the quality [u] is reported in the forms [uv’ziN] ‘near’,
[un’val] ‘avalanche’, [ur’v¡rs] ‘reverse’ < VICĪNU(M), NIVĀLE(M), RE-VĔRSU(M), where
the labiodental [v] has presumably helped to round and raise the vowel.
In Gallo-Romance, we may assume once again that the prosthetic vowel first
took on the neutral value of schwa. In certain varieties of langue d’oı̈l, this value
has been maintained albeit with slight fronting sometimes to a short rounded
value [] which commonly occurs as the realization for schwa. For instance, in
the variety of Sainte-Jamme (Seine-et-Oise) which lies close to Paris, there appear
forms such as [‰lpe:r] ‘the father’, [‰n ‰rsurs] ‘a fountain’, [‰rʃA~ é] ‘to change’
(cf. standard French le père, une (res)source, (re)changer).57 The same outcome is
56
The Latin etyma are: MENSŪRA, MENSŪRĀRE, MINĀCEA, MINACE-ĀRE, MELIORA-MĔNTUM,
MELIORĀRE, NE(C)-GŬTTA, NEC-ŪNU(M).
57
Passy (1891).
226 U-prosthesis
reflected in ‘rural Parisian’, a spoken variety distinct from the urban français
populaire and still found in the capital in the middle of the twentieth century
(Durand 1945). As in Sainte-Jamme, the prosthetic vowel appears here with both
proclitic forms and lexical items: [kPm ‰´di] ‘like I say’, [av¡k ‰lp¡r] ‘with the
father’, [apr¡ savwr ‰rturne] ‘after returning’ (cf. comme je dis, avec le père, après
s’avoir retourné). In descriptions of urban Parisian speech, such prosthetic vowels
have not traditionally been reported but there are occasional indications of their
presence. For instance, in her detailed transcriptions of the pronunciation of
fourteen Parisian speakers all of whom lived and were raised in Argenteuil,
François (1974) notes [alPK ‰ ʃ i paKti] ‘now I left . . . ’ (= alors, (e) je suis
h
parti) which appears to contain a prosthetic vowel. In some Picard varieties,
the closely related value [] is found. For instance, in the dialect of Gondecourt
(located just south of Lille), proclitics such as articles and subject pronouns as
well as the reflex of prefixal RE- developed a prosthetic schwa in contexts where an
adjacent word would create a sequence of three consonants, as in the masculine
singular definite article where the base form is [ʃl] < ECCE-ILLE which loses the
lateral when preceding a consonant-initial noun:
pre-consonantal: [prq ʃ ka:] ‘take the cat’, [rv¡t ʃ ka:]58 ‘look at the cat’
pre-vocalic: [prq ʃl õm] ‘take the man’, [rv¡t ʃl õm] ‘look at the man’
Source: Cochet (1933: 23)
However, more generally the prosthetic vowel has adopted a mid unrounded
front value of some sort, usually [e]. Thus, many Picard varieties in the départe-
ments of Somme, Oise, and Aisne show [e], e.g. ertourné ‘to return’, ercul ‘drawing
back’ in the dialect of Ledieu (Loriot 1984: 186). Similarly, in dialects of Touraine
prefixal re- has emerged as ér- on a regular basis, as in érçu ‘received (p.pt.)’,
ércounaı̂te ‘to recognize’, érvéni ‘to return’.59 This development has a parallel
amongst clitic elements only with the 1st sg. subj. pronoun which can variably
58
A retracted rounded vowel [o] ‘o vague’ occurs instead of [] in a couple of villages
within the district whose speech Cochet is describing.
59
A similar adaptation has occurred word-medially in lexical items. Here, in cases
where the deletion of earlier [‰] in [r‰] would have resulted in an unsyllabifiable sequence
of three consonants, the syllabic rhotic that developed from [r‰] was therefore
restructured to [er], e.g. vendérdi ‘Friday’, bérbis ‘sheep’, etc. It may be noted that, in
Gondecourt too, schwa is likewise adapted to [e] in word-medial contexts, cf. [ gvP] ‘a
horse’ vs [ʃ kevP] ‘the horse’. The data suggest that in both these varieties SPIV only
systematically affected lexical items beginning with a liquid and especially those beginning
with prefixal RE-.
U-prosthesis 227
appear as [e´] pre-consonantally (Davau 1979: 24, 65–77).60 Here as elsewhere, it

is striking that when the prosthetic vowel takes on a mid front unrounded value,
the same quality is also generally found with schwas that have experienced
adaptation rather than SPIV. This is the case in varieties used in Brie.61 It is
also true for the north-west and the extreme south-east of Wallonia where many
varieties present the outcome [¡] in the typically proclitic monosyllables that
correspond to standard French je, me, te, le, se, de, ne, que as well as in items
containing prefixal re- and other lexical forms subject to SPIV, for instance the
cognates of items like cerise, fenêtre; cf. ALW I, maps 8 (cerise) and 54 (le). In these
Walloon varieties, the same quality is also shared with the vowel emerging from I-
prosthesis, suggesting the durable presence of a default quality for vowels re-
quired for syllabification purposes.
Other qualities have also developed in the prosthetic vowels of langue d’oı̈l
varieties. A low vowel [a] is found, perhaps due to the lowering effect of a
following rhotic on mid front unrounded vowels; in Saintongeais, for example,
the forms argardez, artenez, armacier (= St.Fr. regardez, retenez, remercier) are
reported (Doussinet 1971: 406). However, Picard varieties show a remarkable
diversity of outcomes. The data from map 527 of the ALP (se rétablir ‘to recover
from illness’) offer a convenient overview of the range of vowel qualities found
since the great majority of Picard varieties have lexical items for this meaning
which derive from forms containing prefixal RE-, namely cognates of (se) remettre,
requinquer, retaper, refaire, revenir and a verb (se) retousler without counterpart in
Standard French (see Map 5). In these prefixal items, there are indications of three
main prosthetic vowel qualities: [a] in numerous localities of Pas-de-Calais;62 [¡]
or [e] in central and southern Somme; rounded [] or [] in northern and
central Oise.63 An isolated case of [o] is reported for the variety spoken in Carnin
in western Nord [sorfer] = se refaire, although map 375 (relaverie) indicates a
value [] or [] for the initial vowel in the same variety. A high front vowel [y]
may also appear in some dialects. This has been noted in the area of Argonne
(Ardennes) where, for instance, the dialect of Florent has urbéyi ‘to look at’,
urcommander ‘to recommend’, urvue ‘review’, urvuni ‘to come back’.64
60
With clitics other than je, schwa has likewise been adapted to [e] in contexts where
deletion would lead to sequences of three consonants, as in [me] in [´me se trõpe] ‘I was
wrong’ ([se] = St.Fr. suis).
61
P.c. Yves Charles Morin who was brought up in Brie.
62
Cf. the forms reported for the Arras region by Loriot (1984: 187): archuvoir ‘to receive’,
armucher ‘to hide’, s’arbiffer ‘to protest’, arprinde ‘to take up again (= reprendre)’.
63
Cf. eurnier ‘to deny’, eurmembrance ‘memory’, eurposo ‘altar of repose’ found in Esne,
near Cambrai (Loriot 1984).
64
The appearance of [y] has also been triggered by the presence of an adjacent labial
consonant, as is the case in Picard (cf. Flutre 1977: }23). The same development to [y] has
228 U-prosthesis
There seems little doubt that syllabic factors led to the rise of U-prosthesis. In
Romance varieties where SPIV occurred, the result was the creation of many new
types of word-initial complex onset that remained heterosyllabic. Syllabification
for these, especially in post-consonantal contexts, was impossible. Particularly
affected were new complex onset types of falling sonority, the most conspicuous
of which involved forms containing etymological RE- since the sonority fall here
could be maximal, as in [rp-] in words like R(E)PAUSĀRE. In such heterosyllabic
onsets, the appearance of a prosthetic vowel can readily be seen to have served as
a means of enabling syllabification, as in |rp- > Vr|p.
In the case of the northern Gallo-Romance varieties which experienced
U-prosthesis, the causation was similar. The weakening of unstressed non-low
vowels, especially [e], in an initial open syllable led to their development to schwa
before undergoing systematic deletion. This created sequences of word-initial
consonants which were often unsyllabifiable and prosthesis served as the means
for resolving the problem. In other langue d’oı̈l varieties, the same tendency for
schwa deletion also occurred, but it was not systematically carried through. In
standard French, for instance, in contexts where an unsyllabifiable sequence
would result from schwa deletion, schwa has typically been maintained, as in
deux chevaux [d ʃvo] ‘two horses’ but mille chevaux [mil ʃ‰vo] ‘thousand
horses’.65 Elsewhere, as we have seen, schwa was likewise retained and in many
cases it was adapted to take on a new quality [e], [¡] and less commonly [i], [y]
(cf. 4.4.3.3). In varieties where schwa was retained (or strengthened) in this way
for syllabification purposes, the incidence of U-prosthesis has predictably been
much more limited and in some cases it has failed to operate.
operated, sporadically, with the originally initial vowel [‰] of lexical items such as the
cognate of French cresson (cf. ALF map 350, pts 186, 195, 197, 166, 164, etc.). The nearest
locality in the ALF to that cited by Loriot is pt. 155 (Belval-en-Argonne) which also has [y]
for cresson, [krysõ]. The quality [y] also figures for NE Walloon dialects in another form
originally containing medial [e], e.g. [dyh~ ¡], [dyh¡:] corresponding to standard French
descends! ‘get down’ (ALW I, 28).
65
The circumstances of the retention of schwa in standard French have given rise to a
considerable literature, descriptive and theoretical. The sense of survival surrounding the
more recent history of this vowel is aptly captured in the title of a paper by Walter (1990),
‘Une voyelle qui ne veut pas mourir’.
U-prosthesis 229
6.2 U-prosthesis: later developments
In the period from the sixteenth century onward, there appear to have been few
changes in the pattern of usage with clitic U-prosthesis. According to Vanelli
(1984, 1987), in northern Italian varieties the present situation with subject clitics
in the verb phrase had been established by the end of the seventeenth century. On
the assumption that the object clitic system had likewise been established by this
date, we may hypothesize that most developments concerning U-prosthesis with
verbal clitics had been accomplished in these varieties by the seventeenth century.
Similarly, the pattern of prosthesis with proclitics in Picard varieties (for which
we have documentary evidence from the Middle Ages) shows no significant
change since the sixteenth century when prosthetic realizations are first attested
(Flutre 1977). The situation in Engadinish is, however, a little less clear. In
sixteenth-century texts, U-prosthesis in proclitics is not consistently indicated.
In the Bible translation of Jakob Bifrun published in 1560, for example, prosthetic
forms of proclitics are not found, e.g. Per che nu faschiand stima da quellas n’s
plascha da baiuer oura ‘Because, not having respect for those [fountains], it
pleases us to drink from . . . ’ in the prologue, with <ns> rather than <ans> as
the clitic form. However, in other Upper Engadine texts of the same period the
presence of a prosthetic vowel is normally indicated. Thus, in the sixteenth- or
seventeenth-century verse composition Susanna,66 prosthetic vowels are generally
represented, as in (post-pausal) am fo ün grand mel ‘it causes me great distress’
(l. 233), Zuaintar ch’els ans haun mis amaun ‘according to what they have put into
our hand’ (l. 663), la quela chi ans ho trat sü ‘she who brought us up’ (l. 686) but,
as in modern usage, after certain vowel-final grammatical monosyllables such as
nu ‘not’ and schi ‘yes; indeed’ a prosthetic vowel is not found: Hei schi m’vöglia da
te bain fider ‘Oh yes, I want to trust you’ (l.146).67 The process of actualization of
prosthesis seems to have been a little slower in Lower Engadinish, however. In the
translation of the Psalms published in 1562 by Durich Chiampel (Ulrich Campell
in German) who was born in Susch in the Lower Engadine in 1510 and died in
c. 1582, a picture of incomplete prosthesis is given. A prosthetic vowel appears in
proclitic pronouns containing a sonorant but not normally in other types: Deis
eir ans haa dat vittoargia ‘God too has given us victory’ (Preface, p. 5), Deis sul am
daa pussauntza ‘God alone gives us power’ (Psalm XVIII, l. 158; p. 78) but ch’ ell s’
poassa scriwer ‘that it can be written’, chia ls’ plaeds tuotts s’ cumbütten ‘that all the
statements may be rebutted’ (p. 5), qui nun t’ vain miss ‘Here there has not been
66
Cf. n. 23 above.
67
We follow the text for this verse work which appears as Una bela senchia historgia da
quella sainchia duonna Susanna in Decurtins ([1900] 1983–6: vol. 5, 191–249). This
reproduces the edition by J. Ulrich published in 1888.
230 U-prosthesis
set before you . . . ’ (p. 6).68 This appears to be in conformity with the pattern of
actualization proposed above for U-prosthesis (6.1.4.3), and in the following
century a letter dated 1634 written by Zoartz Jenatz in Upper Engadinish offers
some comparable evidence. Prosthesis is indicated in am sumaglia ‘it seems to
me’ which appears once post-pausally and once post-vocalically, but no vowel is
indicated in l’g tractat da Isbruck s’lyaiva mauns ‘the formal statement of I. washes
its hands of it’, L’g Segner s’vöglia acusglier ‘May the Lord wish to take to Himself ’,
and Dieu n’s cusalva ‘God preserve us!’ (cf. modern Dieu ans cussalva), though
curiously no prosthetic vowel is present with the first plural clitic in da nus n’s
vessa ‘as far as concerns us’.69
For lexical items, an important development which has directly impacted on
the incidence of U-prosthesis has been the general decline in the productivity of
SPIV, for this has necessarily entailed a reduction in the number of new forms
containing a phonological structure susceptible to prosthesis. The evidence
suggests that the retreat in productivity has been encouraged by the growing
influence of standard languages from which new lexical material including
learned borrowings has usually emanated. Significantly, the varieties which have
become established as standards in Romance have normally conserved pre-tonic
vowels.
Looking a little more closely at individual areas, we find that already in
sixteenth-century Upper Engadinish such learned forms as desert ‘desert’, devot
‘pious’, legiun ‘legion’, and segret ‘secret’ appear in Bifrun’s writings. At the
beginning of the twentieth century Walberg (1907) called attention to the appear-
ance of further borrowings in the Upper Engadinish variety of Celerina where
SPIV did not operate, [da’l¡t] ‘delight’, [sa’d¡la] ‘bucket’, and also noted cases
where U-prosthesis would otherwise have been expected to occur, such [as
r‰ba’le:r] ‘to rebel’, [r‰po’ze:r] ‘to rest’, [r‰’m¡gdi] or [rI’m¡gdi] ‘remedy’. The
dictionary of Peer (1962) cites numerous other neologisms which are similarly
unaffected by SPIV, e.g. resümer ‘to sum up’, renascher ‘to be reborn’, medaglia
‘medal, medallion’, semester ‘semester’, tenü ‘outfit, dress’, tesor ‘treasure, treasury’,
genuin ‘genuine’, devisa ‘symbol’, penibel ‘painful’, pedal ‘pedal’. And we may note
additional examples from recent editions of the newspaper Fögl Ladin which has
articles in both Upper and Lower Engadinish, such as deponia ‘disposal’, (as)
retirer ‘to retire’, sedativ ‘sedative’.
Furthermore, influence from outside prestigious varieties which had not expe-
rienced SPIV has sometimes led to reinsertion of a vowel which has served to
restore the original unstressed initial syllable destroyed by SPIV. This was noted
68
Data drawn from the edition of Chiampel’s text in Decurtins ([1900] 1983–6: vol. 5,
271–96).
69
The text of the letter appears in Decurtins ([1904] 1983–6: vol. 6, 228–9).
U-prosthesis 231
for Lower Engadinish by Pult (1897: }166) who reported cases in the variety
spoken in Sent where such restructuring appears to have occurred. The forms
in the left-hand column appear in the writings of Durich Chiampel.
Chiampel (16th century) Sent (late 19th century)
tsngur [diú’nur]
dschplaschair [diʃpla’ʃajr]
schmaiva [ʃti’me:va]
sngur [si’ Jur]
Although the forms attested in Chiampel’s writings may represent optional
syncope characteristic of more informal, allegro speech (cf. Mayerthaler 1982:
100–2), the evidence points to an increased favouring of forms with a full pre-
tonic vowel.
Comparable developments have also occurred in northern Italian varieties.
For Piedmontese, Clivio (1971: 338) reported that in the urban speech of
Turinese the heterosyllabic word-initial clusters [fn- mn- ml- vz-] may be
broken up by vowel insertion and he attributed this to the influence of
Standard Italian where these clusters are not found. However, word-initial
s impura sequences are not affected so that U-prosthesis remains an active
process in Turinese and ‘common Piedmontese’ although its incidence has
been curtailed somewhat.
In Emilian-Romagnolo, a similar decline in the productivity of U-prosthesis is
widely found. Malagoli (1910-13) noted the appearance of various lexical items in
Novellarese (Emilia) where SPIV and U-prosthesis have failed to operate. These
include borrowings such as [ro’bust] ‘sturdy’, [ri’trat] ‘portrait’, and also cases of
restoration of initial unstressed vowel through Italian influence as in [ni’su: N]
‘nobody’ beside [an’suN] and [ris’poNder] ‘to reply’, [ris’p¡rmi] ‘saving’. The
latter two forms can be compared with native outcomes like [ars’k¡:lda]
‘it warms’ < RE-EX-CALD-ĀRE, [ars’topja] ‘field after harvesting; field left fallow’ <
70
RE-STŬPULA, where we see the possibility of SPIV operating to yield word-initial
sequences of [rs] þ voicless plosive prior to the operation of U-prosthesis. The
greater incidence of this restructuring in urban usage is illustrated by [ro’tond]
‘round’ which had reportedly displaced the earlier form [ar’dond] except in rural
speech.
70
The etymon is a variant of CL STIPULA ‘stubble’ (REW 8265). The form STŬPULA is
attested epigraphically and a syncopated variant STUPLA occurs in Varro’s Res Rusticae.
Beyond Italo-Romance, reflexes appear in Old French estouble, Mod. Standard French
éteule ‘stubble’, and widely in other Gallo-Romance varieties. Prefixal forms in RE- are also
not uncommon, e.g. (Saintongeais) rétoube ‘field covered in stubble’, (Old Occitan)
restoble ‘stubble’ (FEW XII, 271–6).
232 U-prosthesis
In northern Gallo-Romance varieties, the decline in the productivity of SPIV

and, as a consequence, a reduction in the incidence of U-prosthesis have been far
less in evidence. The growing influence in more recent times from the French of
the capital, both the standard variety and working-class Parisian French, has
affected local speech patterns and led to the adoption of a certain number of
forms where the initial unstressed vowel has been preserved. Thus, the Picard
variety of Vermandois has a small number of forms such as réjeton ‘shoot’,
rénouvelance ‘renewal’, répiyé ‘snack’, répüé ‘saturated’ which stand in contrast
to items like èrlavé ‘to wash up’, èrkülé ‘to withdraw’, èrpa ‘meal’, èbzwin ‘need’,
èdviné ‘to guess’, cf. Standard French relaver, reculer, repas, besoin, deviner (Debrie
1987). The presence of the former items might suggest a more recent tendency no
longer systematically to nativize borrowings through SPIV. However, the dictio-
nary from which these items were taken is far from complete, so that firm
conclusions are difficult to draw from the limited information which it provides.
When other items of Picard data are considered such as ène èrtraduction ‘a re-
translation’ in the Vimeu dialect (cf. Standard French une retraduction), the
impression given is that U-prosthesis continues to operate generally as a robust
and productive process. This is doubtless not unconnected with the sense of
loyalty to their regional usage which Picards and Walloons appear to have retained
despite the linguistic influence from outside, a loyalty that is rather stronger than
that found amongst speakers from most other regions of the langue d’oı̈l.
To conclude, a varied picture emerges in respect of the preservation of
U-prosthesis in different Romance varieties over recent centuries. In Italo-Romance,
there has been a noticeable diminution in its productivity in those non-standard
varieties of the north where previously it has operated regularly. Growing influence
from standard Italian where the process is unknown may be seen as a major factor in
this development. In a parallel way, the earlier use of U-prosthesis in Upper
Engadinish has also experienced some decline which may perhaps owe itself in
part to the apparent diminution in prestige of this variety in relation to other
varieties of Swiss Rheto-Romance. It is significant, for instance, that the semi-official
form of written Rheto-Romance which has come to be adopted for use in govern-
ment regulations represents a consensus orthographic version of Lower Engadinish
(or Vallader), Surmeiran. and Surselvan (Haiman and Benincà 1992: 15–16). As a
result, speakers of Upper Engadinish might well be expected to engage in dialect
levelling through the elimination of this variety’s more salient phonological and
orthographic characteristics including SPIV and U-prosthesis.
Against this background, the fate of U-prosthesis in non-standard varieties of
northern France is surprising. Despite the potentially undermining influence
from Parisian usage in a nation state with one of the most strongly centralized
language policies, the process appears to have retained its productivity to a
considerable degree. The reasons for this perhaps unexpected outcome remain
rather unclear, however.
7
Conclusion: Retrospective
and Prospective
Though languishing for a long time in the little-investigated pool of “sporadic”

sound-changes, vowel prosthesis has emerged in this study as a wide-ranging
development with a clear and systematic structural basis. It unarguably represents
a type of regular sound-change and, as such, it should duly take its place within
the set of regular sound-changes that are customarily identified in histories of
individual varieties of Romance.
Three categories of Romance vowel prosthesis have operated whose historical
development we have explored in some detail. Each has its own chronological,
geographical, and structural characteristics, but it is not difficult to see certain
properties which they share over and above the basic defining characteristic of
involving word-initial vowel insertion. In particular, it is clear that factors relating
to syllable structure and, more precisely, the organization of syllable onsets have
been of central importance in their genesis. In all three categories of prosthesis, the
new prosthetic vowel can be seen to have arisen as a response to the presence of a
complex heterosyllabic onset sequence of some sort. This is especially evident in
the rise of I-prosthesis in Imperial Latin and, later on, of U-prosthesis in those
varieties of central Romance which underwent SPIV (syncope of pre-tonic word-
initial vowels). In both these cases, the presence of problematic onset sequences
acted as the trigger. Less clear at first sight is the affinity between these two
categories of vowel prosthesis and A-prosthesis. However, in this third category
of prosthesis too the trigger for the creation of a prosthetic vowel proves to have
been the pressure to eliminate a heterosyllabic word-initial onset, in this case the
rhotic [r-] which had undergone strengthening to become a geminate [rr-].
The shared structural basis of the three principal categories of Romance
prosthesis may be expected to have led to some formal overlapping when more
than one category has occurred in the evolution of a given variety. This has
sometimes happened, as in ‘common’ Piedmontese based on Turinese where
I-prosthesis and U-prosthesis have both operated. Here, [‰] has become estab-
lished as the prosthetic vowel in both cases. However, in other Romance varieties
formal differences in the reflexes of the prosthetic vowel have been maintained.
234 Conclusion
For instance, in Gascon both I-prosthesis and A-prosthesis have occurred, but
whereas the former has typically yielded the outcome [e], the latter has resulted in
a low vowel [a]. The data from these and other Romance varieties which have
experienced more than one category of vowel prosthesis appear to indicate that
the reflexes of A-prosthesis and U-prosthesis are perhaps more likely to coincide
with one another than with the outcome of I-prosthesis. However, further
research is required to establish more precisely the patterns of interplay between
the outputs of these three categories of prosthesis in Romance.
Another common property relates to the prosodic context in which vowel
prosthesis first arose and became established. Given the relevance of syllabic
structure and syllabification for the genesis of all the categories of prosthesis, it
is not surprising that prosthetic vowels typically appear to have developed first of
all in phonological contexts where permissible syllabification was not possible.
This was the case in post-consonantal and post-pausal contexts since in post-
vocalic contexts the initial consonant of the heterosyllabic word-initial onset
could be linked to the preceding syllable where it would form its coda. Only at
a later stage might there be generalization of the prosthetic form to all possible
contexts. Given the relevance of contextual factors in the rise of prosthesis, it is
unfortunate for our purposes therefore that the focus of phonological studies has
very often tended to fall on word-level forms only with few comments on
phonological phenomena appearing in prosodic units higher than the word,
such as the clitic phrase and the intonational phrase. This limitation of coverage
is found in many descriptions of the sound structure of individual varieties, and
likewise it is not uncommon even in recent times for linguistic atlases to investi-
gate almost exclusively word-level forms.1 More detailed reports of phonetic
realizations in higher-level prosodic units in different Romance varieties are
needed therefore to enable more reliable inferences to be drawn about earlier
patterns of actualization in Romance vowel prosthesis.
A further common property relates to the process of determining the quality of
the prosthetic vowel. With all categories of prosthesis, the framework which
builds on the principle of minimal salience was found to provide a fruitful
basis to account for the choice of vowel quality (1.6). However, the framework
allows for variable outcomes, and cases of variation in the quality of the vowel
triggered by a particular category of prosthesis were certainly found even in
geographically close Romance varieties. For instance, the reflex of A-prosthesis
in central Sardinian varieties could be determined either by vowel copying or by
1
More recent atlases which deal almost exclusively with word-level units include
ASLEF, ALD, ALPI, and the various regional atlases for Gallo-Romance (ALAL, ALB,
etc.). Other atlases such as ALF, AIS, ALEIC can be more revealing as the forms reported
often reflect usage within phrasal contexts.
Conclusion 235
the phonological structure of the adjacent following consonant, the rhotic [rr-].
In view of the generally high degree of congruence in Romance with respect to the
phonetic outcome of the vowel created by a specific category of prosthesis,
anomalies like this Sardinian case invite further research. A significant Romance
input could then be made to the more general ongoing debate on the form of
epenthetic vowels in language.
As has been noted, the organization of syllable structure has played a key role in
shaping the incidence of vowel prosthesis. Two considerations have emerged from
this. The first relates to the overall architecture of the syllable and the way in
which it has changed in the evolution of Romance. The maximal syllable in Latin
was characterized by, amongst other things, the relatively high degree of symme-
try which existed between its onset and its coda in respect of sequential complex-
ity (cf. 3.1). Each contained a maximum of three consonants, the outermost of
which was always and only the fricative [s]. In the early evolution of Latin-
Romance from Classical times to the end of the first millennium AD, a familiar
development has been the move towards the simplification of the non-nuclear
elements of syllable structure. Scholarly attention to this reductive change has
perhaps fallen more on evolution in coda structure. However, onsets show a
comparable tendency to simplify, and the different categories of prosthesis can
each readily be seen to have played an integral part in this broad development
within the early Romance syllable. The apparent parallelism in the reductive
changes affecting onset and coda structure invites a closer examination of syllabic
evolution in order to explore to what extent adaptation in the organization of
onsets and codas has operated symmetrically throughout the history of Romance
and across different Romance varieties.
The other aspect concerns the internal architecture of the onset itself. The role
of sonority as expressed in the sonority sequencing generalization (SSG) has
emerged as a factor of major importance in helping to explain the occurrence of
the different categories of prosthesis. Word-initial onset sequences of rising
sonority conform to the SSG and would not therefore be expected to be affected,
whereas onset sequences of falling sonority do not conform to the SSG and would
therefore be expected to be subject to vowel prosthesis. However, the details as to
which onsets of falling sonority have triggered prosthesis often prove to be rather
more complex than the SSG alone can account for. For instance, liquid-initial
onsets of falling sonority have always been susceptible to vowel prosthesis and the
resulting prosthetic forms in many Romance varieties have become lexicalized.
In contrast, obstruent-initial onsets of falling sonority have generally undergone
just the contextually conditioned prosthesis that affected all other heterosyllabic
onsets. To explain this difference, appeals might be made to the relevance of the
“sonority distance” between the initial and following consonant, i.e. to the degree
of disparity in sonority between the successive consonants; e.g. (maximal) [rd-]
down to (minimal) [vd-] and (zero) [bd-]. It might be assumed that the greater
236 Conclusion
the sonority distance in an onset, the greater its susceptibility is to vowel

prosthesis. However, this criterion likewise does not always provide a satisfactory
basis to account for the incidence of prosthesis. For example, in Celerinese
(Upper Engadinish) no prosthesis has occurred in [vd¡] “calf ” < VITĔLLU(M)
whereas there is fully generalized and hence lexicalized prosthesis in [alman”te:r]
“to lament” > LAMENTĀRE, even though in both cases there is minimal sonority
distance, fricative ! plosive, liquid ! nasal. Instead, it appears to be the inherent
phonetic and phonological structure of the individual consonants in complex
onsets and the relationship between them in respect of constituency and their
articulatory basis that have exercised a decisive role in shaping patterns of vowel
prosthesis.
It has not been possible in the present work to consider in appropriate depth
either of these two aspects of syllabic organization in the history of Romance, but
it is evident that further work in this area would be desirable. Although some
general studies on Romance syllable development have been carried out (e.g.
Granda 1966, Kiss 1971, Holm 1992, Cull 1995, Sampson 2004b), the topic still
awaits a more thorough investigation.2
One final shared feature can be identified for the different categories of vowel
prosthesis and their historical development. This is that their productivity as
phonological processes has tended to diminish over the period since the late
Middle Ages and Renaissance. Exceptions can be found, notably I-prosthesis in
Ibero-Romance and, more particularly, in Spanish and Catalan. However, as has
emerged from the previous chapters, the unmistakeable trend in many Romance
varieties has been towards the progressive abandonment of vowel prosthesis as a
live process although forms with prosthetic vowels may be retained as lexicalized
items. This more recent development, which previous historical accounts of
Romance phonological evolution have tended to pass over in silence, owes itself
in no small measure to the action of sociolinguistic factors of various types. The
principal ones have already been outlined in section 1.7.5, but we may just
highlight some key considerations.
First, it has undoubtedly been significant that in the standard varieties which
have emerged in the nation states of France, Italy, and Romania there is no
operative rule of vowel prosthesis. In view of the prestige and increasing ubiqui-
tousness of the standard variety within a nation state, especially in more recent
centuries following the growth in mass literacy, communications, and other
linguistically levelling forces, the gradual recession of prosthesis in non-standard
varieties within these states is readily understandable. Second, from the later
2
The potential relevance of the results for phonological theory may be judged from the
impact of the brief general monograph on syllable structure by Vennemann (1988). The
data used for this are very largely derived from Romance.
Conclusion 237
Middle Ages onward the emerging standard varieties have commonly undergone
elaboration whereby their lexical stocks were expanded, sometimes massively, in
order to enable them to cover the formal and literary functions formerly per-
formed by Latin. The source of most of the new lexis was Latin itself, a written
language in which any rule of vowel prosthesis was unknown. For most emerging
standard Romance varieties, the prestige associated with new learned borrowings
led to a strong tendency amongst speakers to preserve the original shape of the
latinisms as far as possible, a tendency which militated against the use for these
new lexical items of rules of vowel prosthesis that were characteristic of the
everyday vernacular. A notable exception comes with Ibero-Romance where it
was mainly as a result of other more localized sociolinguistic factors, this time
politico-religious in nature, that vernacular patterns of I-prosthesis came to
operate on learned borrowings as well (cf. 4.4.2). Third, more recent borrowing
from other Romance (standard) languages or non-Romance languages has
brought new forms which may have complex word-initial onsets, e.g. [pn-],
[sv-], [ft-], [ks-] as in French pneu, svelte, phtisie, Xérès. The influence and
prestige of the written word in modern times has been such that speakers have
modified their speech habits to accommodate complex onsets of this type rather
than subject them to some formerly current adaptive process such as vowel
prosthesis. In the light of these and other possible sociolinguistic pressures, it is
perhaps understandable that new categories of vowel prosthesis have failed to
materialize in Romance from late medieval times onward and that already
established productive processes of prosthesis should have experienced wide-
spread regression.
The changing fortunes of vowel prosthesis in post-medieval times offer one
further example of the significance that sociolinguistic factors can have in shaping
formal change in individual linguistic varieties. Romance with its wealth of
surviving philological materials reaching back over many centuries provides an
unrivalled testing ground for exploring the complex interplay that has occurred
between sociolinguistic and structural factors in particular cases of phonological
evolution. How this interplay comes to operate in guiding current and future
patterns of prosthetic usage will be intriguing for later linguists to observe.
This page intentionally left blank
MAP 1. Areas showing systematic vowel prosthesis in Romance (past or present)
MAP 2. Epenthesis with s impura forms in Wallonia
Sources: ALW I, maps 35 épine, 38 étoile, 54 le (article)
Map 3. A-prosthesis and locations in Gascony
Sources: ALG maps 2129, 2130; Bec 1968: Carte phonétique générale 1.
R.Po
MAP 4. U-prosthesis in Italo-Romance and Rheto-Romance

Sources: AIS I 18 nipote; III 548 scure; IV 644 riposati!, 645 riposiamoci!, 737 vicino; V 892 finestra, V 954 pelare; VII
1397 siccare; VIII 1512 telaio. (cf. for SPIV, Mayerthaler 1982: 232, map)
Map 5. U-prosthesis in Picardy
Source: ALP map 527 se rétablir.
Map 6. Vowel prosthesis and locations in Corsica
Map 7. Vowel prosthesis and locations in Sardinia
Principal source: Contini 1987: vol. II, maps 52, 74
MAP 8. Locations in the Iberian Peninsula
R.Po
MAP 9. Locations in Northern Italy and the Rheto-Romance area

Map 10. Locations in central-southern Italy
e
R.Rhôn
Map 11. Locations in SE France and adjacent areas of Italy

MAP 12. Locations in Northern France
Bibliography
AGI: Archivio Glottologico Italiano.

AIS: Jaberg, K. & Jud, J. (eds). 1928–41. Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der
Südschweiz, 8 vols. Zofingen: Ringier.
ALAL: Potte, J.-C. (ed.). 1975–87. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de l’Auvergne et
du Limousin, 2 vols. Paris: CNRS.
ALB: Taverdet, G. (ed.). 1975–88. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de Bourgogne,
4 vols. Paris: CNRS.
ALCat: Griera, A. (ed.). 1923–64. Atlas lingüı́stic de Catalunya, 8 vols. Barcelona:
Instituto International de Cultura Románica.
ALCB: Bourcelot, H. (ed.). 1966–78. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de la
Champagne et de la Brie. 3 vols. Paris: CNRS.
ALCe: Dubuisson, P. (ed.). 1971–82. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Centre
(Berry et Bourbonnais). 3 vols. Paris: CNRS.
ALD: Goebl, H. (ed.). 1998. Atlant linguistich dl ladin dolomitich y di dialec vejins.
7 vols. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
ALEANR: Alvar, M. et al. (eds). 1979–83. Atlas lingüı́stico y etnográfico de Aragón,
Navarra y Rioja. 12 vols. Madrid: CSIC.
ALEIC: Bottiglioni, G. (ed.). 1933–42. Atlante linguistico etnografico italiano della
Corsica, 10 vols. Pisa: L’Italia dialettale.
ALF: Gilliéron, J. (ed.). 1902–10. Atlas linguistique de la France. Paris: Champion.
ALF: Corse Gilliéron, J. (ed.). 1914–15. Atlas linguistique de la France: Corse. Paris:
Champion.
ALG: Séguy, J. (ed.). 1954–73. Atlas linguistique de la Gascogne, 6 vols. Toulouse-
Paris.
ALGa: ILG (ed.). 1990–. Atlas lingüistico galego. Santiago de Compostela: ILG.
ALI: Massobrio, L. (ed.). 1995–. Atlante linguistico italiano. Rome: Istituto
Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato.
ALIFO: Simoni-Aurembou, M.-R. (ed.). Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de l’Ile-
de-France et de l’Orléanais, 2 vols. Paris: CNRS.
ALJA: Martin, J.-B. & Tuaillon G. (eds). 1971–78. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique
du Jura et des Alpes du Nord, 3 vols. Paris: CNRS.
ALLoc: Ravier, X. (ed.). 1978–86. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Languedoc
Occidental, 3 vols. Paris: CNRS.
252 Bibliography
ALLor: Boisgontier, J. (ed.). 1981–86. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Languedoc

Oriental, 3 vols. Paris: CNRS.
ALN: Brasseur. P. (ed.). 1980–84. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique normand, 2 vols.
Paris: CNRS.
ALP: Bouvier, J.C. & Martel C.(eds). 1975–86. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique de
la Provence, 3 vols. Paris: CNRS.
ALPic: Carton, F. & Lebègue M. (eds). 1989. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique picard,
1 vol. Paris: CNRS.
ALR: Atlasul linguistic român, Serie noua, 7 vols. Bucharest: Ed. Acad., 1956–72.
ALW: Remacle, L. (ed.). 1953–. Atlas linguistique de la Wallonie Liège: Vaillant-
Carmanne,
ASLEF: Pellegrini, G.B. (ed.). 1972–84. Atlante storico-linguidtico-etnografico friulano,
5 vols. Padua: Univ. of Padua.
CGL: Loewe, G. and Goetz, G. (eds.). Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum. 7 vols.
1888–1923. Leipzig: Teubner.
CIL: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. 17 vols. 1868–. Berlin: Wiedmann-De
Gruyter.
CLS: Chicago Linguistic Society.
DCECH: Corominas, J. & Pascual, J.A. 1980–91. Diccionario critico etimológico castellano
e hispánico. 6 vols. Madrid: Gredos.
DECLC: Coromines, J. 1980–91. Diccionari etimològic i complementari de la llengua
catalana. 9 vols. Barcelona: Curial.
DELI: Cortelazzo, M.C. and Cortelazzo, M.A. 1999. Il nuovo etimologico DELI.
Dizionario etimologico della lingua italiana. 2nd ed. Bologna: Zanichelli.
DHLF: Rey, A. (ed.). [1992] 1998. Dictionnaire historique de la langue française. 3 vols.
Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert.
FEW: Wartburg, W. von. (ed.). 1922– Französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 25 vols.
Leipzig-Basel: Klopp-Zbinden.
JFLS: Journal of French Language Studies.
Keil: Keil, H. (ed.). 1857–80. Grammatici Latini, 7 vols. Leipzig: Teubner.
LN: Lingua Nostra.
LRL Holtus, G., Metzeltin, M. & Schmitt, C. (eds.). 1988–2005. Lexikon der
romanistischen Linguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
MSLP: Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris.
REW: Meyer-Lübke, W. 1935 [repr. 1968]. Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch,
3rd ed. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
RLaR: Revue des Langues Romanes.
RLiR: Revue de Linguistique Romane.
ROA: Rutgers Optimality Archive, Rutgers University.
RPh: Romance Philology.
TLL: Thesaurus Linguae Latinae.
ZrP: Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie.
Bibliography 253
Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. 1990. Normes ortográfiques. 3rd edn. Oviedo: Academia
de la Llingua Asturiana.
Adams, J. N. 1977. The Vulgar Latin of the Letters of Claudius Terentianus. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
—— 2003. Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
—— 2007. The Regional Diversification of Latin 200 BC–AD 600. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Allen, W. Sidney. 1973. Accent and Rhythm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
—— 1978. Vox Latina. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
—— 1987. Vox Graeca. 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Altamura, Antonio. 1949. Testi napoletani dei secoli XIII e XIV. Naples: Perrella.
Altamura, Antonio (ed.). 1974. Cronaca di Partenope. Naples: Società Editrice Napoletana.
—— (ed.). 1977. La regola salernitana. Naples: Società Editrice Napoletana.
Alvar, Manuel. 1953. El dialect aragonés. Madrid: Gredos.
—— 1973. Estudios sobre el dialecto aragonés. I. Zaragoza: Institución “Fernando el
Católico”.
Alvarez, Guzmán. 1985. El habla de Babia y Laciana. [Repr. of 1947 thesis]. León: Ediciones
Leonesas.
Álvarez Nazario, Manuel. 1991. Historia de la lengua espaola en Puerto Rico. Mayagüez,
Puerto Rico: Academia Puertorriquea de la Lengua Espaola.
Aly-Belfàdel, Arturo. 1933. Grammatica piemontese. Noale: L. Guin.
Andersen, Henning. 1972. “Diphthongization”. Language 48: 11–50.
Andersen, Henning. (ed.). 1986. Sandhi Phenomena in the Languages of Europe. Berlin, New
York, and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
Andersen, Henning. 1989. “Understanding linguistic innovations”. In L. E. Breivik and
E. H. Jahr (eds.). Language Change. Contributions to the Study of its Causes. Berlin and
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Andersen, Henning. (ed.). 2001. Actualization. Linguistic Change in Progress. Amsterdam
and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Anderson, James, M. 1988. Ancient Languages of the Hispanic Peninsula. Lanham:
University Press of America.
Arquint, Jachen C. 1964. Vierv ladin. 2nd edn. Chur: Stamparia Bündner Tagblatt.
Arvinte, Vasiliu. 1980. Die Rumänen. Ursprung, Volks- und Landesnam. Tübingen: Narr.
Ascoli, Graziadio I. 1878. “Varia”. AGI 3: 442–71.
Aub-Büscher, Gertrude. 1962. Le parler de Ranrupt (Bas-Rhin). Paris: Klincksieck.
Audollent, A. 1904. Defixionum tabellae. Paris: Fontemoing. [repr. Frankfurt: Minerva,
1967].
Auger, Julie. 2001. “Phonological variation and Optimality Theory: evidence from word-
initial epenthesis in Vimeu Picard”. Language Variation and Change 13: 253–303.
Avram, Andrei. 1990. Nazalitatea şi rotacismul ı̂n limba românǎ. Bucharest: Editura
Academiei Române.
254 Bibliography
Azra, J.-L. and Cheneau, V. 1994. “Jeux de langage et théorie phonologique. Verlan et
structure syllabique du français”. JFLS 4: 147–70.
Bach, Adolf. 1965. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. 8th edn. Heidelberg: Quelle & Mayer.
Badia I Margarit, Antonio. 1950. El habla del Valle de Bielsa. Barcelona: Instituto de
Estudios Pirenaicos.
—— 1981. Gramàtica històrica catalana. Barcelona: Biblioteca d’Estudis i Investigacions.
Baehrens, W. A. 1922. Sprachlicher Kommentar zur vulgärlateinischen Appendix Probi. Halle:
Niemeyer.
Bagemihl, Bruce. 1991. “Syllable structure in Bella Coola”. LI 22: 589–646.
Bagli, Giuseppe Gaspare (ed.). 1887. “Pulon Matt. Frammento inedito di poema in dialetto
cesenate”. Documenti e Studi pubblicati per cura della Reale Deputazione di Storia Patria.
Vol. 2. Bologna: Regia Tipografia, 229–334.
Baldinger, Kurt. 1972. La formación de los dominios lingüı́sticos en la Penı́nsula Ibérica. 2nd
edn. Madrid: Gredos.
Banniard, Michel. 1992. Viva voce: communication écrite et communication orale du IVe au
IXe siècle en Occident latin. Paris: Institut d’études augustiniennes.
Barbina, Alfredo (ed.). 1969. Concordanze del “Decameron”. 2 vols. Florence: Giunti.
Barbosa, Jorge Morais. [1965] 1983. Études de phonologie portugaise. 2nd edn. Évora:
Universidade de Évora.
—— 1994. “Portugiesisch: Phonetik und Phonemik / Fonética e fonologia”. LRL VI, 2:
130–42.
Bartoli Langeli, Attilio. 1989. Storia dell’alfabetismo come storia degli scriventi: gli usi della
scrittura in Italia tra Medioevo ed età moderna. Florence: Università di Firenze.
—— 2000. La scrittura dell’italiano. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Bartoli, Matteo. 1906. Das Dalmatische. Altromanische Sprachreste von Veglia bis Ragusa
und ihre Stellung in der apennino-balkanischen Romania. 2 vols. Vienna: Hölder. [Ital.
version. Aldo Duro (ed.). 2000. Il dalmatico. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.]
Bassols de Climent, Sebastián. 1981. Fonética latina. 5th impr. Madrid: CSIC.
Bauche, Henri. [1920] 1946. Le langage populaire. 4th edn. Paris: Payot.
Bayot, Alphonse. 1929. Le poème moral. Brussels-Liège: Palais des Académies & Vaillant-
Carmanne.
Bearesi, Luigi. 1982. Piccolo dizionario del dialetto piacentino. Piacenza: Berti.
Bec, Pierre. 1968. Les interférences linguistiques entre gascon et languedocien dans les parlers
du Comminges et du Couserans. Paris: PUF.
Bembo, Pietro. [1525]. In Carlo Dionisotti (ed.). 1989. Prose della volgar lingua. Gli Asolani.
Rime. Milan: TEA.
Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 1999. ‘La sillabazione dei nessi /sC/ in italiano: un’eccezione alla
tendenza “universale”?’. In P. Benincà and A. Mioni (eds). Fonologia e morfologia
dell’italiano e dei dialetti d’Italia. Rome: Bulzoni, 71–96.
Bertoni, Giulio. 1905. Il dialetto di Modena. Turin: Loeschler.
—— 1908–11. “Banchieri a Imola nel sec. XIII (1260)”. Studi Medievali 3: 683–9.
—— 1925. Profilo del dialetto di Modena. Geneva: L. Olschki.
Bibliography 255
Bezzola, Reto and Tönjachen, Rudolf. 1976. Dicziunari tudais-ch–rumantsch ladin. 2nd edn.
Chur: Lia Rumantscha.
Bianchini, A. (ed.). 1987. Tempo di affetti e di mercanti. Lettere ai figli esuli. Alessandra
Macinghi Strozzi. Milan: Garzanti.
Biasci, Gianluca. 1998. L’evoluzione del dialetto pisano in un carteggio mercantile del XV
secolo. Pescara: Libreria dell’Università Editrice.
Biville, F. 1994. “Existait-il une diphtongue ui en latin?”. In J. Herman (ed.). Linguistic
Studies on Latin. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3–18.
Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo. 1984. Grammatica storica del Catalano e dei suoi dialetti con speciale
riguardo all’Algherese. Tübingen: Narr.
—— 1995. “Sardisch / Il sardo”. LRL II, 2: 239–71.
Blevins, Juliette. 1995. “The syllable in phonological theory”. In J. A. Goldsmith (ed.). The
Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 206–44.
—— 2008. “Consonant epenthesis: natural and unnatural histories”. In J. Good (ed.).
Linguistic Universals and Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 79–107.
—— and Garrett, Andrew. 1998. “The origins of consonant-vowel metathesis”. Language
74: 508–66.
—— —— 2004. “The evolution of metathesis”. In B. Hayes, R. Kirchner, and D. Steriade
(eds). Phonetically-Based Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 117–56.
Bloomfield, Leonard. [1933] 1935. Language. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Böhne, Rudolf. 2003. Il dialetto del Sarrabus (Sardegna sud-orientale). Sestu (Cagliari):
Zonza.
Bolognesi, Roberto. 1998. The Phonology of Campidanian Sardinian. A Unitary Account of a
Self-Organizing System. HIL dissertations 38. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
Bonazzi, Giuliano. [1900] 1979. Il Condaghe di San Pietro di Silki. Rev. edn by I. Delogu.
Sassari: Dessi.
Bonelli, Giuseppe & Contini, Gianfranco. 1935. “Antichi testi bresciani”. Italia Dialettale 11:
115–151.
Bonfante, Giuliano. 1955. “Il siciliano e il sardo” Bollettino del Centro di Studi Filologici
e Linguistici Siciliani 3: 195–222.
Bonnet, Max. 1890. Le latin de Grégoire de Tours. Paris: Hachette.
Börner, Wolfgang. 1976. Schriftstruktur und Lautstruktur. Studien zur altgalizischen Skripta.
ZrPh Beiheft 155. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Bottiglioni, Gino. 1920. “Saggio di fonetica sarda”. Studi Romanzi 15: 13–114.
Bourciez, Édouard. 1936. “Le domaine gascon”. RLiR 12: 1–9.
—— 1956. Eléments de linguistique romane. 4th edn. Paris: Klincksieck.
Boutier, Marie-Guy. 1995. “Französische Skriptaformen I. Wallonie / Les scriptae françaises
I. Wallonie”. LRL II, 2: 290–300.
Brero, Camillo. 1971. Gramàtica piemontèisa. 2nd edn. Turin: Ij Brandé.
Broselow, Ellen. 1991. “The structure of fricative-stop onsets”. Unpublished manuscript.
Brun, Auguste. 1931. Le français de Marseille: étude de parler régional. Marseille: Institut
historique de Provence.
256 Bibliography
Bruneau, Charles. 1913a. Étude phonétique des patois d’Ardenne. Paris: Champion.
—— 1913b. La limite des dialectes wallon, champenois et lorrain en Ardenne. Paris:
Champion.
—— 1914–26. Enquête linguistique sur les patois d’Ardenne. 2 vols. Paris: Champion.
Brunel, Clovis. 1926. Les plus anciennes chartes en langue provençale. Paris: Champion.
—— 1952. Supplément. Paris: A. et J. Picard.
Brunot, Ferdinand. 1966. Histoire de la langue française. I. (New edn by G. Antoine). Paris:
Armand Colin.
Buck, Carl D. 1904. A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian. Boston: Ginn.
Buridant, Claude. 2000. Grammaire de l’ancien français. Paris: Nathan.
Cabré i Monné, Teresa. 1993. “Interferència, ortografia i gramàtica”. In R. Alemany,
A. Ferrando, and L.B. Meseguer (eds). Actes del Novè Col.loqui Internacional de
Llengua i Literatura Catalanes. Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat,
vol. 3, 97–109.
Caduff, Léonard. 1952. Essai sur la phonétique du parler rhétoroman de la Vallée de Tavetsch.
Berne: Francke.
Cagliaritano, Ubaldo. 1975. Vocabolario senese. Florence: Barbéra.
Calderini, Aristide. 1951a. “La corrispondenza greco-latina del soldato Claudio Tiberiano
e altre lettere del II sec. d. Cr. nel recente vol. VIII dei papiri del Michigan”. Rendiconti del
Istituto Lombardo, Classe di Lettere e Scienze Morali e Storiche. 84: 155–66.
Calderini, Rita. 1951b. “Osservazioni sul latino del P. Mich. VIII, 467–472”. Rendiconti del
Istituto Lombardo, Classe di Lettere e Scienze Morali e Storiche. 84: 250–62.
Camilli, Amerindo. 1929. “Il dialetto di Servigliano”. AR 13: 220–71.
Campus, G. 1901. Fonetica des dialetto logudorese. Turin: Bosa.
Cano, Rafael (ed.). 2004. Historia de la lengua espaola. Barcelona: Ariel.
Capidan, Theodor. 1932. Aromânii, dialectul aromân. Studiu lingvistic. Bucharest:
Imprimeria Naţionalǎ.
Caragiu Marioţeanu, Matilda. 1975. Compendiu de dialectologie românǎ (nord şi sud-
dunǎreanǎ). Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România.
——, Giosu, Ştefan, Ionescu-Ruxandoiu, Liliana, and Todoran, Romulus. 1977.
Dialectologie românǎ. Bucharest: Ed. didacticǎşi pedagogicǎ.
Carlton, Charles M. 1973. A Linguistic Analysis of a Collection of Late Latin Documents
composed in Ravenna between A.D. 445–700. The Hague: Mouton.
Carnoy, Albert. [1906] 1983. Le latin d’Espagne d’après les inscriptions. Repr. Hildesheim,
Zurich, and New York: Olms.
Carreira, M. M. 1996. “Spanish clusters: coronals, /s/ and syllable structure conditions”. In
C. Parodi, C. Quicoli, M. Saltarelli, and M.L. Zubizarreta (eds). Aspects of Romance
Linguistics. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 123–34.
Carter, Henry H. 1941. Cancioneiro da Ajuda. A Diplomatic Edition. New York and Oxford:
Modern Language Association of America and Oxford University Press.
Castellani, Arrigo. 1952. Nuovi testi fiorentini del dugento. 2 vols. Florence: Sansoni.
—— 1976. I più antichi testi italiani. Edizione e commento. 2nd edn. Bologna: Patron.
Bibliography 257
—— 1980. Saggi di linguistica e filologia italiana e romanza (1946–1976). 3 vols. Rome:

Salerno Editrice.
Cecchi, Elena (ed.) 1990. Le lettere di Francesco Datini alla moglie Margherita (1385–1410).
Biblioteca dell’Archivio storico pratese, 14. Prato: Società Pratese di Storia Patria.
Cerquiglini, Bernard. 1991. La naissance du français. Paris: PUF.
Chambon, Jean-Pierre and Greub, Yan. 2002. “Note sur l’âge du (proto)gascon”. RLiR 66:
473–95.
Chaurand, Jacques. 1983. “Pour l’histoire du mot “francien””. In (no ed.) Mélanges di
dialectologie d’oı̈l à la mémoire R. Loriot. Fontaines lès Dijon: Association
Bourguignonne de Dialectologie et d’Onomastique, 91–9.
Cherubini, Francesco. [1827] 1992. Vocabolario mantovano-italiano. Milan: Bianchi e Co.
Repr. Imola: Forni.
Christ, Karl. 1984. The Romans. London: Chatto & Windus.
Cierbide Martinena, Ricardo. 1988. Estudio lingüı́stico de la documentación medieval en
lengua occitana de Navarra. Bilbao: Universidad del Paı́s Vasco.
Claverı́a Nadal, Gloria. 1991. El latinismo en espaol. Barcelona: Departament de Filologia
Espanyola, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Clements, George N. 1990. “The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification”. In
J. Kingston and M. E. Beckman (eds). Papers in Laboratory Phonology I.. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 283–333.
Clements, George and Hume, Elizabeth (1995). “The internal organization of speech
sounds”. In J. Goldsmith (ed.). The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford:
Blackwell, 245–306.
Clivio, Gianrenzo P. 1971. “Vocalic prosthesis, schwa-deletion and morphophonemics in
Piedmontese”. ZrPh 87: 334–44.
—— 2002. “Il Piemonte”. In Cortelazzo et al., 151–95.
—— and Danesi, Marcello. 1974. Concordanza linguistica dei “Sermoni subalpini”. Turin:
Centro Studi Piemontesi.
Cochet, E. 1933. Le patois de Gondecourt (Nord). Grammaire et lexique. Paris: Droz.
Coco, Francesco. 1970. Il dialetto di Bologna. Fonetica storica e analisi strutturale. Forni:
Bologna.
Cohen, G. 1949. Recueil de farces françaises inédites du XVe siècle. Cambridge, MA: Medieval
Academy of America.
Collinge, N. E. 1970. “Computation and Latin consonants”. In N. E. Collinge, Collectanea
Linguistica. Essays in general and genetic linguistics. The Hague–Paris: Mouton, 192–218.
Collingwood, R. G. and Wright, R. P. 1965. The Roman Inscriptions of Britain. 1. Inscriptions
on Stone. Oxford: Clarendon.
Contini, Gianfranco. 1941. Le opere volgari di Bonvesin da la Riva. I. Testi. Rome: Società
Filologica Romana.
Contini, Michel. 1987. Étude de géographie phonétique et de phonétique instrumentale du
sarde. 2 vols. Turin: Edizioni dell’Orso.
258 Bibliography
Corda, Francesco. 1994. Grammatica moderna del sardo logudorese. Cagliari: Edizioni Dalla
Torre.
Cornagliotti, Anna. 1995. “Sprache der Waldenser / Il valdese”. LRL II, 2: 467–73.
Corneille, Thomas. 1687. Remarques sur la langue françoise de Monsieur de Vaugelas. 2nd
edn. 2 vols. Paris: Girard.
Coromines, Joan. 1990. El parler de la Vall d’Aran. Barcelona: Curial Ed. Catalanes.
Cornu, Jules. 1892. “Études de grammaire portugaise. II. L’a prothétique devant rr- en
portugais, en espagnol et en catalan”. Romania 11: 75–9.
Correa Rodrı́guez, José Antonio. 2004. “Elementos no indoeuropeos e indoeuropeos en
la historia lingüı́stica hispánica”. In Cano (ed.), 36–57.
Cortelazzo, Manlio, Marcato, Carla, De Blasi, Nicola, and Clivio, Gianrenzo P. (eds). 2002.
I dialetti italiani. Storia, struttura, uso. Turin: UTET.
Côté, Marie-Hélène. 2000. “Consonant cluster phonotactics: a perceptual approach.
Unpub. doctoral dissertation, MIT [# ROA 548].
Coteanu, Ion. 1981. Structura şi evoluţia limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Academiei.
Cotgrave, R. 1611. A Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues. London: Islip. [Facsimile
University of South Carolina Press, 1950].
Coulmas, Florian. 1989. The Writing Systems of the World. Oxford: Blackwell.
Coupier, J. 1995. Dictionnaire Français-Provençal. Diciounàri Francés-Prouvençau. Aix-en-
Provence: Diffusion Edisud.
Coustenoble, Hélène N. 1945. La phonétique du provençal moderne en terre d’Arles.
Hertford: S. Austin & Sons.
Covarrubias, Sebastián. 1611. Tesoro de la lengua castellana o espaola. Madrid: Sanchez.
[Facsimile Barcelona: Horta, 1943].
Cravens, Thomas D. 2002. Comparative Historical Dialectology. Italo-Romance Clues to
Ibero-Romance Sound Change. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Cull, Naomi. 1995. “Reconstruction of the Proto-Romance syllable”. Dans H. Andersen
(dir.). Historical Linguistics 1993. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 117–32.
Curchin, Leonard A. 1991. Roman Spain: Conquest and Assimilation. London: Routledge.
Cyran, Eugeniusz and Gussmann, Edmund. 1999. “Consonant clusters and governing
relations: Polish initial consonant sequences”. In Hulst and Ritter (eds.), 219–47.
Dalbera, Jean-Philippe. 1994. Les parlers des Alpes-Maritimes: étude comparative: essai de
reconstruction. London: AIEO.
Dalbera-Stefanaggi, Maria-Jose. 1978. Langue corse. Une approche linguistique. Paris:
Klincksieck.
—— 1991. Unité et diversité des parlers corses. Alessandria: Ed. dell’Orso.
D’Ambra, Raffaele. 1873. Vocabolario napolitano-toscano domestico di arti e mestieri. Naples:
publ. by author. [Facsimile 1996. Imola: Arnaldo Forni Editore].
Danesi, Marcel. 1976. La lingua dei “Sermoni subalpini”. Turin: Centro Studi Piemontesi.
D’Aronco, Gianfranco. 1960. Nuova antologia della letteratua friulana. Udine-Tolmezzo:
Aquileia.
Bibliography 259
Davau, Maurice. 1979. Le vieux parler tourangeau: sa phonétique, ses mots et locutions, sa
grammaire. Chambray-lès-Tours: Éd. C.L.D.
Davis, Stuart. 1988. “Syllable onsets as a factor in stress rules”. Phonology 5: 1–19.
—— 1990. “The onset as a constituent of the syllable”. CLS 26: 71–81.
—— 1999. “On the representation of initial geminates”. Phonology 16: 93–104.
De Blasi, Nicola. 1986. Libro de la destructione de Troya. Rome: Bonacci.
De Giovanni, Marcello. 2003. Molise. Pisa: Pacini.
De Gregorio, Giacomo. [1890] 1993. Saggio di fonetica siciliana. Repr. S. Cristina Gela
(Palermo): Librarie Siciliane.
De Mauro, Tullio. [1963, 21970] 1993. Storia linguistica dell’Italia unita. Rome-Bari: Laterza.
Debrie, René. 1987. Lexique picard des parlers du Vermandois. Amiens: Université de
Picardie.
Decurtins, Caspar (ed.). [1900] 1983–6. Rätoromanische Chrestomathie. 15 vols. Erlangen:
Fr. Junge. Repr. Chur: Octopus Verlag.
Deferrari, Harry A. 1954. The Phonology of Italian, Spanish, and French. Washington, DC:
Roy J. Deferrari.
Degli Innocenti, Mario (ed.). 1984. L’“Elucidario”. Volgarizzamento in antico milanese
dell’“Elucidarium” di Onorio Augustodunense. Padua: Antenore.
Dell, François. 1980. Generative Phonology and French Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. [revised trans. of Les règles et les sons. 1973. Paris: Hermann]
Deloffre, Frédéric. [1961] 1999. Agréables conférences de deux paysans de Saint-Ouen et de
Montmérency sur les affaires du temps (1649–1651). Repr. with additions. Geneva:
Slatkine.
Densusianu, Ovid. [1901–38] 1975. Histoire de la langue roumaine. 2 vols. [Original edition,
Paris: Welter]. Bucharest: Editura Minerva.
Desgranges, J.-C.-L.-P. 1821. Petit dictionnaire du peuple à l’usage des quatre cinquièmes de la
France. Paris: Chaumerot Jeune.
Dessau, H. 1892–1914. Inscriptiones latinae selectae. 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann.
Deutschmann, Otto. 1971. Lateinisch und Romanisch. Munich: Hueber.
Diehl, E. 1924–31. Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres. 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann.
Diez, Friedrich. [1836–43] 1856/58/60. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. 2nd edn.
3 vols. Bonn: Weber.
Dinguirard, J.-C. 1979. “Observations sur le gascon des plus anciennes chartes”. Annales de
la Faculté des Lettres de Toulouse-Le Mirail 15: 9–46.
Doussinet, Raymond. 1971. Grammaire saintongeaise. La Rochelle: Rupella.
Dressler, Wolfgang. 1965. “i-Prosthese vor s-impurum in Kleinasien (und in Vulgarlatein)”.
Balkanso Ezikoznanie 9: 93–100.
Dubois, Jacques. [= Iacopus Sylvius]. 1531. In linguam gallicam isagge, vna cum eiusdem
Grammatica Latino-gallica, ex Hebræis, Græcis, & Latinis authoribus. Paris:
R. Stephanus. [Repr. Geneva: Slatkine, 1971].
Dubuis, Roger. 1996. Lexique des “Cent nouvelles nouvelles”. Paris: Klincksieck.
260 Bibliography
Ducibella, Joseph W. 1934. The Phonology of the Sicilian Dialects. Washington DC: Catholic
University of America.
Durand, Jacques. 1990. Generative and Non-linear Phonology. London: Longman.
Durand, Marguerite. 1945. “Quelques observations sur un exemple de parisien rural”.
Le Français Moderne 13: 83–91.
Echenique Elizondo, Marı́a Teresa. 2004. “La lengua vasca en la historia lingüı́stica
hispánica”. In Cano (ed.), 59–80.
Elwert, W. Theodor. 1972. Die Mundart des Fassa-Tals. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.
Erasmus, Desiderius. [1528]. In J. Kramer (ed.). Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami. De recta
Latini Graecique sermonis pronuntiatione dialogus. 1978. Meisenheim am Glan: Anton
Hain.
Ernout, Alfred. 1957. “Exstō et les composés latins en ex-”. In Alfred Ernout, Philologica.II.
Paris: Klincksieck, 198–207.
Ernst, Gerhard. 1985. Gesprochenes Französisch zu Beginn des 17. Jahrhunderts. ZrP Beih.
204. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Espinosa, Aurelio M. 1925. “Syllabic consonants in New Mexican Spanish”. Language 1:
109–18.
Estienne, Henri. [1582] 1999. Hypomneses. Ed. J. Chomarat. Paris: Champion.
Everett, Nicholas. 2003. Literacy in Lombard Italy, c. 568–774. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ewen, Colin J. 1982. “The internal structure of complex segments”. In Hulst and Smith
(eds), 27–67.
Falcone, Giuseppe. 1976. Calabria. Profilo dei dialetti italiani, 18. Pisa: Pacini.
Fermin, Maria H. J. 1954. Le vocabulaire de Bifrun dans sa trduction des quatre évangiles.
Amsterdam: L. J. Veen.
Féry, Caroline and Vijver, Ruben van de (eds). 2003. The Syllable in Optimality Theory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fleischhacker, Heidi. 2001. “Cluster-dependent epenthesis asymmetries”. UCLA Working
Papers in Linguistics 7: 71–116.
Floricic, Franck. 2004. “A propos de certaines épenthèses en sarde”. Cahiers de Grammaire
29: 59–87.
Flutre, Louis-Fernand. 1955. Le parler picard de Mesnil-Martinsart (Somme). Geneva: Droz.
—— 1977. Du moyen picard au picard moderne. Amiens: Musée de Picardie.
Fouché, Pierre. [1924] 1980a. Phonétique historique du roussillonnais. Toulouse: Privat.
Repr. Geneva: Slatkine.
—— [1924] 1980b. Morphologie historique du roussillonnais. Toulouse: Privat. Repr.
Geneva: Slatkine.
—— 1966. Phonétique historique du français. III. Les consonnes. 2nd edn. Paris: Klincksieck.
—— 1969. Phonétique historique du français. II. Les voyelles. 2nd edn. Paris: Klincksieck.
Fougeron, Cécile. 2001. “Articulatory properties of initial segments in several prosodic
constituents in French”. 29: 109–35.
Bibliography 261
Francard, Michel. 1980. Le parler de Tenneville. Introduction à l’étude linguistique des parlers
wallo-lorrains. Louvain-la-Neuve: Cabay.
—— 1981. “Voyelles instables en wallon: propositions pour une approche globale”. Cahiers
de l’Institut de Linguistique de l’Université de Louvain 7: 169–200.
François, Denise. 1974. Français parlé. 2 vols. Paris: SELAF.
Frati, Lodovico. 1900. La vita privata di Bologna dal secolo XIII al XVII. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Fudge, Erik. 1969. “Syllables”. JL 5: 253–86.
Gaeng, Paul. 1968. An Inquiry into Local Variations in Vulgar Latin as reflected in the
Vocalism of Christian Inscriptions. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Gaeta, Franco (ed.). 1981. Machiavelli. Lettere. Milann: Feltrinelli.
Galmés de Fuentes, Álvaro. 1962. Las sibilantes en la Romania. Madrid: Gredos.
—— 1983. Dialectologı́a mozárabe. Madrid: Gredos.
Galmés, Salvador (ed.). 1935. Ramon Llull. Libre de Evast e Blanquerna. Vol. 1. Barcelona:
Barcino.
Garcı́a Arias, Xosé Lluis. 1988. Contribución a la gramática histórica de la lengua asturiana y
a la caracterización etimológica de su léxico. Oviedo: Biblioteca de Filoloxı́a Asturiana.
Garcı́a Rey, Verardo. 1934. Vocabulario del bierzo. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Históricos.
Garcı́a Turza, Claudio and Garcı́a Turza, Javier. 1998. “Los glosarios hispánicos: el
manuscrito 46 de la Real Academia de la Historia”. In Actas del IV Congreso
Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Espaola, vol. II: 939–60.
Gartner, Theodor. 1883. Raetoromanische Grammatik. Heilbronn: Gebr. Henninger.
—— 1892. “Die Mundart von Erto”. ZrP 16: 183–209, 308–71.
—— 1912. Das Neue Testament des Jakob Bifrun. Gesellschaft für romanische Literatur 32,
2. Dresden: Niemeyer.
Gasca Queirazza, Giuliano. 1995. “Piemont, Lombardei, Emilia-Romagna / Piemonte,
Lombardia, Emilia e Romagna”. LRL II, 2: 98–111.
Gaspari, Gianluigi and Tirondola, Giovanna. 1976. “Analisi dell’area vocalica nel linguaggio
infantile dai due a quattro anni”. In R. Simone, U. Vignuzzi, and G. Ruggiero (eds).
Studi di fonetica e fonologia. Rome: Bulzoni, 117–28.
Gaudenzi, Augusto. 1889. I suoni, le forme e le parole dell’odierno dialetto della città di
Bologna. Turin: Loescher.
Gavel, Henri. 1920. Éléments de phonétique basque. Paris-Biarritz: Champion.
—— 1936. “Remarques sur les substrats ibériques, réels ou supposés, dans la phonétique
du gascon et de l’espagnol”. RLiR 12: 36–43.
Gheţie, Ion. 1974. Inceputurile scrisului ı̂n limba românǎ. Bucharest: Editura Academiei
Republicii Socialiste România.
Giammarco, Ernesto. 1968–79. Dizionario abruzzese e molisano. 4 vols. Rome: Edizioni
dell’Ateneo.
Giannelli, Luciano. 2000. Toscana. Profilio dei dialetti italiani 9. Pisa: Pacini.
Giese, W. 1965. “Urrumänisches anlautendes r- im Aromunischen”. In (no ed.) Omagui lui
Alexandru Rosetti la 60 de ani. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste
România, 299–301.
262 Bibliography
Gil, Juan. 2004. “El latı́n tardı́o y medieval (siglos VI–XIII)”. In Rafael Cano (ed.). Historia
de la lengua espaola. Barcelona: Ariel, 149–82.
Glatigny, M. 1989. “Norme et usage dans le français du XVIe siècle”. In P. Swiggers and
W. van Hoecke (dir.). La langue française au XVIe siècle: usage, enseignement et approches
descriptives. Louvain: Leuven University Press–Peeters, 7–31.
Glessgen, Martin-Dietrich. 1989. Lo Thesaur del hospital de Sant Sperit. Edition eines
Marseiller Urkundeninventars (1399–1511). ZrPh Beiheft 226. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
—— 1995. “Okzitanische Skriptaformen III. Provence, Dauphinois / Les scriptae occitanes
III. Provence, Dauphinois”. LRL II, 2: 425–34.
Gökçen, Adnan M. 1996. I volgari di Bonvesin da la Riva. New York: Lang.
Goldsmith, John. 1990. Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology: An Introduction. Oxford:
Blackwell.
González Palencia, Angel. 1926–30. Los mozárabes de Toledo en los siglos XII y XIII. 4 vols.
Madrid: Instituto de Valencia de Don Juan.
Gorra, Egidio. 1890. “Fonetica del dialetto di Piacenza”. ZrP 14: 133–58.
—— 1892. “Il dialetto di Parma”. ZrP 16: 372–9.
Gossen, Carl T. 1970. Grammaire de l’ancien picard. Paris: Klincksieck.
Goudeket, Maurice (ed.). 1964. Lettres de la Princesse Palatine de 1672 à 1722. Paris: Editions
Le Club du Livre.
Gouskova, Maria. 2001. “Falling sonority onsets, loanwords, and syllable contact”. CLS
37: 175–85.
Grafström, Åke. 1958. Étude sur la graphie des plus anciennes chartes languedociennes avec un
essai d’interprétation phonétique. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Grammont, Maurice. 1894. “La loi des trois consonnes”. MSLP 8: 53–90.
Granda, Germán de. 1966. La estructura silábica y su influencia en la evolución fonética del
dominio ibero-románico. Madrid: CSIC.
Grandgent, Charles H. 1907. An Introduction to Vulgar Latin. Boston-London: Heath.
[1963. Introducción al latı́n vulgar. Tr. F. B. de Moll. 3rd edn. Madrid: CSIC.]
Gratwick, Adrian. 1967. “Ipsithilla: a vulgar name. Catullus, XXXII, 1”. Glotta 44: 174–6.
Green, Antony D. 2003. “Extrasyllabic consonants and onset well-formedness”. In Féry and
Vijver, 238–53.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. “Some generalizations concerning initial and final consonant
clusters”. In J. H. Greenberg (ed.). Universals of Human Language 2. Phonology. Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 243–79.
Gregory, Stewart. 1981. “Le dialecte wallon avant 1165”. TraLiLi 19: 7–51.
—— 1982. “Quelques attestations de mots wallons au 12e siècle”. RLiR 45: 271–322.
—— 1990. The Twelfth-Century Psalter Commentary for Laurette d’Alsace (an Edition of
Psalms I-L). 2 vols. London: Modern Humanities Research Association.
—— 1994. La traduction en prose française du 12e siècle des Sermones in Cantica de saint
Bernard. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Grignani, Maria Antonietta. 1980. “Testi volgari cremonesi del XV secolo”. SFI 38: 55–70.
Bibliography 263
Grisch, Mena. 1939. Die Mundart von Surmeir (Ober- und Unterhalbstein). Paris, Zurich,
and Leipzig: Droz-Niehans.
Gröber, Gustav. 1878. “Gli, egli, ogni”. ZrPh 2: 594–600.
Guarnerio, Pier Enea. 1906. “L’antico campidanese dei sec. XI-XIII secondo “le antiche
carte volgari dell’Archivio arcivescovile di Cagliari””. Studi Romanzi 4: 189–259.
—— 1918. Fonologia romanza. [repr. 1978]. Milan: Hoepli.
Guiraud, Pierre. 1978. Le français populaire. 4th edn. Paris: PUF.
Hadlich, Roger L. 1965. The Phonological History of Vegliote. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press.
Haiman, John and Benincà, Paola. 1992. The Rhaeto-Romance Languages. London:
Routledge.
Hajek, John and Goedemans, Rob W. N. 2003. “Word-initial geminates and stress in Patani
Malay”. The Linguistic Review 20: 79–94.
Hall, Robert A. 1964. “Initial consonants and syntactic doubling in West Romance”.
Language 40: 551–6.
Hall, T. A. 1997. The Phonology of Coronals. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Ham, William. 2001. Phonetic and Phonological Aspects of Geminate Timing. New York and
London: Routledge.
Hammarström, Göran. 1953. Étude de phonétique auditive sur les parlers de l’Algarve.
Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Hammond, Robert M. 2000. “The phonetic realizations of /rr/ in Spanish—a
psychoacoustic analysis”. In H. Campos et al. (eds). Hispanic Linguistics at the Turn of
the Millennium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 80–100.
Harris, James W. 1983. Syllable Structure and Stress in Spanish. A Nonlinear Analysis.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Harris, Roy. 2000. Rethinking Writing. London: Athlone.
Harris, William V. 1989. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hartman, Stephen L. 1986. “Learned word, popular words, and “first offenders””. In
O. Jaeggli and C. Silva-Corvalán (eds). Studies in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht:
Foris, 87–98.
Haugen, Einar. [1966] 1972. “Dialect, language, nation”. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds).
Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 97–111.
Haust, Jean. 1933. Dictionnaire liégeois. Liège: Vaillant-Carmanne, Imprimerie de
l’Académie.
Helfenstein, Ruth, Keller, Deborah, and Kristol, Andres. 1993. “Bethmale: la fin d’une
tradition”. In Wüest and Kristol, 83–108.
Herculano de Carvalho, José. 1958. Fonologia mirandesa. I. Coimbra: s.n.
Herman, József. 1990. Du latin aux langues romanes. Études de linguistique historique.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Herzog, Eugen. 1904. Streitfragen der romanischen Philologie. I. Die Lautgesetzfrage zur
französischen Lautgeschichte. Halle: Niemeyer.
264 Bibliography
Hesseling, D. C. and Pernot, H. 1919. “Érasme et les origines de la prononciation

érasmienne”. Revue des Études Grecques 32: 278–301.
Hill, Archibald A. 1954. “Juncture and syllable division in Latin”. Language 30: 439–47.
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1986. Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
—— and Joseph, Brian D. 1996. Language History, Language Change, and Language
Relationship. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1949. “A note on Latin prosody: initial s impure after short vowel”.
Transactions of the American Philological Association 80: 271–80.
—— 1964. “Graduality, sporadicity, and the minor sound change processes”. Phonetica 11:
202–15.
Holm, Catherine. 1992. “La structure syllabique dans l’histoire du français”. In R. Lorenzo
(ed.). Actas do XIX Congreso Internacional de Lingüı́stica e Filoloxı́a Románicas. A Corua:
Fundación “Pedro Barrié de la Maza, Conde de Fenosa”. Vol. 5, 171–82.
Holmes, Urban T. 1935. “French words with e for o in unaccented initial syllables”. Language
11: 231–7.
Holt, D. Eric (ed.). 2003. Optimality Theory and Language Change. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Holt, D. Eric. 2004. “Optimization of syllable contact in Old Spanish via the sporadic
sound change metathesis”. Probus 16: 43–61.
Hope, T. Edward. 1971. Lexical Borrowing in the Romance Languages. 2 vols. New York: New
York University Press.
Horning, Adolf. 1887. Die ostfranzösischen Grenzdialekte zwischen Metz und Belfort.
Französische Studien 5, no. 4. Heilbronn: Gebr. Henninger.
Huguet, E. 1925–67. Dictionnaire de la langue française du seizième siècle. 7 vols. Paris:
Didier.
Hulst, Harry van der and Smith, N. (eds). 1982. The Structure of Phonological
Representations. II. Dordrecht: Foris.
—— and Ritter, Nancy (eds). 1999. The Syllable. Views and Facts. Berlin and New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Ive, A. 1886. “L’antico dialetto di Veglia”. AGI 9: 114–87.
Jackson, Kenneth. 1953. Language and History in Early Britain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Jäggli, Peter. 1959. Die Mundart von Sennori. Zürich: Juris-Verlag.
Jennings, Augustus C. 1940. A Linguistic Study of the Cartulario de San Vincente [sic] de
Oviedo. New York: Vanni.
Jespersen, Otto. 1904. Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner.
Joos, Martin. 1952. “The medieval sibilants”. Language 28: 222–31.
Jungemann, Fredrick H. 1956. La teorı́a del sustrato y los dialectos hispano-romances
y gascones. Madrid: Gredos.
Kasten, Lloyd A. and Nitti, John J. (eds). 1978. Concordances and Texts of the Royal
Scriptorium Manuscripts of Alfonso X, El Sabio. Madison: Hispanic Seminary of
Medieval Studies.
Bibliography 265
—— 2002. Diccionario de la prosa castellana del Rey Alfonso X. 3 vols. New York: Hispanic
Seminary of Medieval Studies.
Kaye, Jonathan. 1992. “Do you believe in magic? The story of s+C sequences”. SOAS
Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 2: 292–313.
Keating, Patricia, Cho, Taehong, Fougeron, Cécile, and Hsu, Chai-Shune. 2003. “Domain-
initial articulatory strengthening in four languages”. In John Local, Richard Ogden,
and Rosalind Temple (eds). Phonetic interpretation. Papers in Laboratory Phonology 6.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 145–63.
Keller, Emil. 1934. Die Reimpredigt des Pietro da Barsegapé. 2nd edn. Frauenfeld: Huber.
Kelly, Reine Cardaillac. 1973. A Descriptive Analysis of Gascon. The Hague: Mouton.
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
—— 2003. “The role of perception in loanword phonology”. Studies in African Linguistics
32: 95–112.
Kent, Roland G. 1945. The Sounds of Latin: A Descriptive and Historical Phonology. 3rd edn.
Baltimore: Publications of the Linguistic Society of America.
Kerswill, Paul and Williams, Ann. 2002. ‘“Salience” as an explanatory factor in language
change: evidence from dialect levelling in urban England’. In Mari C. Jones and Edith
Esch (eds). Language Change: The Interplay of Internal, External, and Extra-Linguistic
Factors. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 81–110.
King, Robert D. 1969. Historical Linguistics and Generative Grammar. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. “How abstract is phonology?”. Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Repr. in P. Kiparsky. 1982. Explanation in Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris, 119–63.
Kiss, Sándor. 1971. Les transformations de la structure syllabique en latin tardif. Debrecen:
Kossuth Lajos Tudományegyetem.
—— 1992. “La portion initiale de la syllabe en préroman. Étude de phonologie
diachronique”. Actas do XIX Congreso Internacional de Lingüı́stica e Filoloxı́a
Románicas V, 71–8. Corua: Fundación Barrié de la Maza. Conde de Fenosa.
Kitto, Catherine and De Lacy, Paul. [1999] 2006. “Correspondence and epenthetic quality”.
Proceedings of AFLA VI. Toronto: Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics [ROA #337],
181–200.
Klob, Otto. 1901. “A Vida de Sancto Amaro. Texte portugais du XIVe siècle”. Romania
30: 504–18.
Kohler, Klaus. 1967. “Modern English phonology”. Lingua 19: 145–76.
Kontzi, Reinhold (ed.). 1982. Substrate und Superstrate in den romanischen Sprachen.
Darmstadt : Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Kramer, Johannes. 1977. Historische Grammatik des Dolomitenladinischen. Gerbrunn bei
Würzburg: A Lehmann.
Krötsch, Monique. 2004. “La formation de groupes de consonnes au début des unités
phoniques en français parlé”. In T. Meisenburg and M. Selig (eds). Nouveaux départs en
phonologie. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 217–33.
Kuen, Heinrich. 1995. “Ladinisch / Le ladin”. LRL II, 2: 61–8.
266 Bibliography
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1966. “A problem of German alliteration”. In Mieczyslaw Brahmer,

Stanislaw Helsztynski, and Julian Krzyzanowski, (eds). Studies in Language and
Literature in Honour of Margaret Schlauch. Warsaw: PWN–Polish Scientific Publishers,
195–201.
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
—— 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change. II. Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ladefoged, P. and Maddieson, I. 1996. The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Blackwell:
Oxford.
Laeufer, Christiane. 1991. “Syllabification and resyllabification in French”. In D. Wanner
and D. A. Kibbee (eds). New Analyses in Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins,
19–36.
Lalanne, Ludovic. [1880] 1970. Lexique des œuvres de Brantôme. Paris. Repr. Geneva:
Slatkine.
La Noue, Odet de. [1596] 1623. Dictionnaire des rimes françoises. Cologny: M. Berjon.
La Scala, Frank J. 1975. The Development of Prosthetic Vowels in Latin and the Romance
Languages. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. [Facsimile University
Microfilms International 1981].
Lass, Roger. 1980. On Explaining Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
—— 1984. Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lausberg, Heinrich. 1963. Romanische Sprachwissenschaft. I. Einleitung und Vokalismus. 2nd
edn. Berlin: De Gruyter.
—— 1967. Romanische Sprachwissenschaft. II. Konsonantismus. 2nd edn. Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Le Blant, Edmond M. 1892. Nouveau recueil des inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule
antérieures au VIIIe siècle. Paris: Imprimerie nationale.
Leite de Vasconcellos, José. 1929a. “O dialecto mirandés”. In Opúsculos. IV.2. Filologia.
Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 679–722.
—— 1929b. “Breve estudo dos falares de Riodonor e Guadramil”. In Opúsculos. IV.2.
Filologia. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 741–90.
—— 1970. Esquisse d’une dialectologie portugaise. [Repr. of 1901 edn.]. Lisbon: Centro de
Estudos Filológicos.
Leonard, Clifford S. 1978. Umlaut in Romance. Grossen-Linden: Hoffman.
Léon, Pierre R. 1992. Phonétisme et prononciations du français. Paris: Nathan.
Leumann, M. 1977. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. I. Munich: C. H. Beck’sche
Verlagsbuchhandlung. [Rev. edn of Leumann-Hofmann-Szantyr, Lateinische
Grammatik. I. 5th edn. 1926]
Lindau, Mona. 1985. “The story of /r/”. In V. A. Fromkin (ed.). Phonetic Linguistics. Essays
in Honor of Peter Ladefoged. Orlando: Academic Press, 157–68.
Lindley Cintra, M. L. F. 1963a. “Les anciens textes portugais non littéraires. Classement et
bibliographie”. RLiR 27: 40–58.
Bibliography 267
—— 1963b. “Observations sur l’orthographe et la langue de quelques textes non littéraires

galiciens-portugais de la seconde moitié du XIIIe siècle”. RLiR 27: 59–77.
Lindsay, W. M. 1894. The Latin Language. Oxford: Clarendon.
Linnell, Per. 2005. The Written Language Bias in Linguistics. London: Routledge.
Liver, Ricarda. 1982. Manuel pratique de romanche. Chur: Lia Rumantscha.
Lloyd, Paul M. 1971. “A Note on Latin Syllable Structure”. Classical Philology 64: 41–2.
Lodge, R. Anthony. 1993. French. From Dialect to Standard. London: Routledge.
—— 1996. “Stereotypes of vernacular pronunciation in 17th-18th century Paris” ZrP 112:
205–31.
—— 2004. A Sociolinguistic History of Parisian French. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Löfstedt, Bengt. 1961. Studien über die Sprache der langobardischen Gesetze. Stockholm: Acta
Universitatis Uppsala.
Lombard, Alf. 1976. Le ı̂ prosthétique du roumain. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis Nova
Series 2:5. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell, 111–18.
Lombardi, Lisa. 2003. “Markedness and the typology of epenthetic vowels”. Unpublished
MS, University of Maryland. [ROA #578].
Longobardi, Monica. 1994. “Un frammento di ricettario del Trecento”. L’Archiginnasio 89:
249–78.
Loporcaro, Michele. 1988. Grammatica storica del dialetto di Altamura. Pisa: Giardini.
—— 1996. “On the analysis of geminates in Standard Italian and Italian dialects”. In
B. Hurch and R. A. Rhodes (eds). Natural Phonology: The State of the Art. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter, 153–87.
—— 1997a. L’origine del raddoppiamento fonosintattico: saggi di fonologia diacronica
romanza. Basle: Francke.
—— 1997b. “On vowel epenthesis in Alguer Catalan”. In P. M. Bertinetto (ed.). Certamen
Phonologicum III. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier, 205–27.
—— 1998. “Syllable structure and sonority sequencing. Evidence from Emilian”. In
A. Schwegler, B. Tranel, and M. Uribe-Etxebarria (eds). Romance Linguistics.
Theoretical Perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 155–70.
—— 1999. “On possible onsets”. In Rennison and Kühnhammer (eds), 133–51.
—— 2005. “La sillabazione di muta cum liquida dal latino al romanzo”. In S. Kiss,
L. Mondin, and G. Salvi (eds). Latin et langues romanes. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 419–30.
Lorck, J. Étienne. 1893. Altbergamaskische Sprachdenkmäler (IX.-XV. Jahrhundert). Halle:
Niemeyer.
Lorenzo, Emilio. 1996. Anglicismos hispánicos. Madrid: Gredos.
Lorenzo Vázquez, Ramón. 2003. “El gallego en los documentos medievales escritos en
latı́n”. In H. Perdiguero Villareal (ed.). Lengua Romance en textos latinos de la Edad
Media. Burgos: Universidad de Burgos, 161–92.
Loriot, Robert. 1984. Les parlers de l’Oise. Dijon-Amiens: Association bourguignonne de
dialectologie et d’onomastique & Société de linguistique picarde.
268 Bibliography
Lovera, L., Bettarini, R. and Mazzarello, A. (eds). 1975. Concordanza della Commedia di
Dante Alighieri. 3 vols. Milan: Einaudi.
Lowenstamm, Jean. 1981. “On the maximal cluster approach to syllable structure”.
Linguistic Inquiry 12: 575–603.
—— 1996. “Remarks on Mutae cum Liquidā and branching onsets”. In J. Durand and
B. Laks (eds.). Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods. Salford: ESRI,
University of Salford, 419–43.
—— 1999. “The beginning of the word”. In Rennison and Kuhnhammer (eds), 153–66.
Lucas Álvarez, M. 1986. El tumbo de San Julián de Samos (siglos VIII–XII). Santiago de
Compostela: Caixa Galicia.
Luchaire, Achille. 1877. Les origines linguistiques de l’Aquitaine. Extrait du Bulletin de la
Société des Sciences, Lettres et Arts de Pau. Pau.
—— 1879. Études sur les idiomes pyrénéens de la région française. [Repr. 1973. Geneva:
Slatkine].
—— 1881. Recueil de textes de l’ancien dialecte gascon. Paris: Maisonneuve.
Lüdtke, Helmut. 1957. “Sprachliche Beziehungen der apulischen Dialekte zum
Romänischen”. Revue des Études Roumaines 3–4: 130–46.
Lurati, Ottavio. 1988. “Lombardei und Tessin / Lombardia e Ticino”. LRL IV: 485–516.
—— 2002. “La Lombardia”. In Cortelazzo et al., 226–60.
Lutta, C. Martin. 1923. Der Dialekt von Bergün. ZrP Beih. 71. Halle: Niemeyer.
Lyche, Chantal. 1994. “Government phonology and s+C clusters in French”. In C. Lyche
(ed.). French Generative Phonology: Retrospective and Perspectives. University of Salford,
Salford: AFLS & ESRI, 259–75.
Machado, José Pedro. 1977. Dicionário etimológico da lı́ngua portuguesa. 5 vols. Lisbon:
Livros Horizonte.
McMahon, April M. S. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
—— 2003. “When history doesn’t repeat itself ”. In Holt (ed.), 121–42.
Macinghi Strozzi, Alessandra. 1987. See Bianchini 1987.
Maffei Bellucci, Patrizia. 1977. Lunigiana. Profilo dei dialetti italiani 9,1. Pisa: Pacini.
Maia, Clarinda de Azevedo. 1975–8. “Os falares do Algarve”. RPF 17: 37–205.
—— 1977. Os falares fronetiriços do concelho de Sabugal e da vizinha região de Xalma
e Alamedilla. Coimbra: Instituto de Estudos Românicos.
—— 1986. História do Galego-Português. Estudo lingüı́stico da Galiza e do Noroeste de
Portugal desde o século XIII ao século XVI. Coimbra: INIC.
Maiden, Martin. 1995. A Linguistic History of Italian. London: Longman.
Maiden, Martin and Parry, Mair (eds). 1997. The Dialects of Italy. London and New York:
Routledge.
Maiden, Martin and Robustelli, Cecilia. 2000. A Reference Grammar of Modern Italian.
London: Arnold.
Mainoldi, Pietro. 1967. Vocabolario del dialetto bolognese. Bologna: Forni.
Bibliography 269
Malagoli, Giuseppe. 1910–13. “Studi sui dialetti reggiani. Fonologia del dialetto di
Novellara”. AGI 17: 29–146, 147–97.
—— 1930. “Fonologia del dialetto di Lizzano in Belvedere (BO)”. ID 6: 125–96.
—— 1934. “Studi sui dialetti reggiani: fonologia del dialetto di Valèstra”. ID 10: 63–110.
—— 1954. “Intorno ai dialetti dell’alta montagna reggiana”. ID 19: 111–42.
Malkiel, Yakov. 1975. “Conflicting prosodic inferences from Ascoli’s and Darmesteter’s
Laws ?”. RPh 28: 483–520.
Maneca, Constant. 1965. “Considerazioni sopra la protesi vocalica in italiano”. Revue
roumaine de linguistique 10: 499–507.
Maniet, Albert. 1975. La phonétique historique du latin. Paris: Klincksieck.
Maragliano, A. 1976. Dizionario dialettale vogherese. Bologna: Patron.
Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. 1995. L’évolution du français. Paris: Armand Colin.
Marshall, M. M. 1984. The Dialect of Notre-Dame-de-Sanilhac. Saratoga, CA: ANMA Libri.
Marotta, Giovanna. 1999. “The Latin syllable”. In Hulst and Ritter, 285–310.
Marrese, Maria (ed.). 1996. Lettere. Marco Parenti. Florence: Olschki.
Martinet, André. 1952. “Celtic lenition and western Romance consonants”. Language 28:
192–217. [Cf. Martinet 1955 [1964]: 257–96].
—— [1955] 1964. Économie des changements phonétiques. Traité de phonologie diachronique.
2nd edn. Berne: Francke.
—— 1956. Description phonologique, avec application au parler franco-provençal
d’Hauteville (Savoie). Geneva: Droz.
—— 1969. “Qu’est-ce que le “e muet””. In id. Le français sans fard. Paris: PUF, 209–19.
Mateus, Maria H. and d’Andrade, Ernesto. 2000. The Phonology of Portuguese. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Mayerthaler, Eva. 1982. Unbetonter Vokalismus und Silbenstruktur im Romanischen.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
McCarthy, John J. (ed.). 2004. Optimality Theory in Phonology. A Reader. Oxford:
Blackwell.
McKenzie, Kenneth. 1912. Concordanza delle rime di Francesco Petrarca. Oxford and New
Haven: Oxford University Press and Yale University Press.
McMahon, April. 2000. Change, Chance, and Optimality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meillet, Antoine. 1927. “De la prothèse vocalique en grec et arménien”. BSLP 27: 129–35.
Melillo, A. M. 1977. Corsica. Profilo dei dialetti italiani 21. Pisa: Pacini.
Menéndez Pidal, Ramón. 1964a. Orı́genes del espaol. 5th edn. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.
—— 1964b. Cantar de Mio Cid. 3 vols. 4th edn. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.
—— 1966. Manual de gramática histórica espaola. 12th edn. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.
Merci, Paolo. 1992. Il Condaghe di San Nicola di Trullas. Sassari: Delfino.
Merlo, Clemente. 1959. “Contributi alla conoscenza dei dialetti della Liguria odierna”.
In Clemente Merlo. Saggi linguistici. Pisa: Pacini-Mariotti, 127–60.
Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. 1890. Grammaire des langues romanes. I. Phonétique. Paris: Welter.
270 Bibliography
—— 1929. “Unterschicht und Oberschicht und der Lautwandel”. In Behrens-Festschrift.

Supplementheft der Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Litteratur 13. Jena-Leipzig:
Gronau, 16–36.
Michel, Franciscus. 1860. Libri Psalmorum. Versio Antiqua Gallica. Oxford: Clarendon.
Michel, Louis. 1948. “La vocalisation de l’S dans l’Aude”. RLaR 70: 29–38.
—— 1956. Étude du son “s” en latin et en roman. Montpellier: PUF.
Michelena, Luis. 1990. Fonética histórica vasca. [Repr. of 2nd edn. 1977]. San Sebastián:
Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa.
Migliorini, Bruno. 1984. The Italian Language. Rev. edn. London: Faber and Faber. [tr. and
recast by T. G. Griffith from Storia della lingua italiana. 2nd edn. 1960. Florence:
Sansoni].
Mignani, Rigo (ed.). 1979. El Conde Lucanor. Florence: Licosa Ed.
Mihǎescu, Haralambie. 1978. La langue latine dans le sud-est de l’Europe. Bucharest and
Paris: Ed. Academiei-Les Belles Lettres.
Mihǎilǎ, Gheorghe. 1974. Dicţionar al limbii române vechi. Bucharest: Editura
enciclopedicǎ românǎ.
Milanesi, Gaetano (ed.). 1875. Le lettere di Michelangelo Buonarroti. Florence: Le Monnier.
Millardet, Georges. 1909. “Le domaine gascon (jusqu’en 1907)”. Revue de Dialectologie
Romane 1: 122–56.
—— 1910. Étude de dialectologie landaise. Toulouse: Privat.
Molho, Maurice. 1961. “Les homélies d’Organyà”. Bulletin Hispanique 63: 186–210.
Moll, Francisco B. de. 1952. Gramática histórica catalana. Madrid: Gredos.
Monfrin, Jacques. 2001. “Humanisme et traductions au Moyen-Âge”. In Jacques Monfrin.
Études de philologie romane. Paris: Droz, 757–85.
Montreuil, Jean-Pierre. 1986. “Null segments in Romance”. In O. Jaeggli and C. Silva-
Corvalan (eds). Studies in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, 265–81.
—— 2000. “Sonority and derived clusters in Raeto-Romance and Gallo-Italic”. In
L. Repetti (ed.). Phonological Theory and the Dialects of Italy. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: Benjamins, 211–37.
Morelli, Frida. 2003. “The relative harmony of /s+stop/ onsets: obstruent clusters and the
Sonority Sequencing Principle”. In Féry and Vijver, 356–71.
Morin, Yves Charles. 1979. “La morphophonologie des pronoms clitiques en français
populaire”. Cahier de Linguistique 9: 1–36.
—— 2003a. “Remarks on prenominal liaison consonants in French”. In Ploch (ed.),
385–400.
—— 2003b. “Le statut linguistique du chva ornemental dans la poésie et la chanson
françaises”. In J.-L. Aroui (ed.). Le sens et la mesure: de la pragmatique à la métrique.
Hommage à Benoı̂t Cornulier. Paris: Champion, 459–98.
Morosi, G. 1888. “L’odierno linguaggio dei valdesi del Piemonte”. AGI 11: 309–415.
Mott, Brian. 1989. El habla de Gistaı́n. Huesca: Diputación Provincial.
Munthe, Åke W. 1887. Anteckningar om folkmålet i en trakt af vestra Asturien. Uppsala:
Almqvist & Wiksell.
Bibliography 271
Mushacke, Wilhelm. 1884. Geschichtliche Entwicklung der Mundart von Montpellier

(Languedoc). Französische Studien 4, Schlussheft 5. Heilbronn: Gebr. Henninger.
Mussafia, Adolf. 1873. Beitrag zur Kunde der norditalienischen Mundarten im XV.
Jahrhunderte. Denkschriften der philosophisch-historischen Classe der kaiserlichen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 22. Vienna: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften,
103–228.
Nandriş, Octave. 1963. Phonétique historique du roumain. Paris: Klincksieck.
Nauton, Pierre. 1974. Géographie phonétique de la Haute-Loire. Paris: Belles Lettres.
Nebbia, Sergio. 2001. Dizionario Monferrino. Savigliano: Ed. Artistica Piemontese.
Nebrija, Antonio de. [1481] 1981. Introductiones Latinae. Ed. E. de Bustos. Salamanca:
Universidad de Salamanca.
—— [1492] 1946. Gramatica Castellana. Ed. Galindo Romeo and L. Ortiz Muoz. 2 vols
[critical edition and facsimile]. Madrid: Ed. de la Junta del Centenario.
—— [1517] 1957. Reglas de orthographia en la lengua castellana. Ed. A. de Quilis. Bogotá:
Publicaciones del Instituto Caro y Cuervo.
Nespor, Marina and Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Niedermann, Max. 1954. Recueil Max Niedermann. Neuchâtel: Faculté des Lettres,
Université de Neuchâtel.
Nieri, Idelfonso. 1902. Vocabolario lucchese. Memorie e documenti per servire alla storia di
Lucca, 15. Lucca: Tipografia Giusti.
Nigra, Costantino. [1901] 1973. “Il dialetto di Viverone”. In Miscellanea linguistica in onore
di Graziadio Ascoli. Turin. Repr. Geneva: Slatkine, 247–62.
Nisard, Charles. 1872. Étude sur le langage populaire en patois de Paris et de sa banlieue.
Paris: A. Franck.
Noske, Roland. 1982. “Syllabification and syllable changing rules in French”. In Hulst and
Smith (eds), 257–310.
Nyrop, Kristoffer. [1899] 1935. Grammaire historique de la langue française. 4th edn.
Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel.
Ohala, John J. 1990. “Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental
sequential constraints”. Chicago Linguistic Society 26, vol. 2: 319–38.
Omeltchenko, Stephen W. 1977. A Quantitative and Comparative Study of the Vocalism of
the Latin Inscriptions of North Africa, Britain, Dalmatia, and the Balkans. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
Orazi, Veronica. 1997. El dialecto leonés antiguo. Madrid: Univ. Europea-CEES Ediciones.
Ott, Wilhelm. 1973–85. Metrische Analysen zu Vergil Aeneis. 12 vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Palay, Simin. 1971. Dictionnaire du Béarnais et du Gascon modernes. Paris: CNRS.
Palsgrave, John. 1530. Lesclarcissement de la langue francoyse. In F. Genin (ed.). Documents
inédits sur l’histoire de France. Deuxième série. Histoire des lettres et des sciences. Paris:
Imprimerie nationale, 1852. [Facsimile and French translation and notes: Susan
Baddeley (ed.). 2003. L’éclaircissement de la langue française. Paris: Champion].
Paoli, Cesare and Piccolomini, Enea. 1871. Lettere volgari del secolo XIII scritte da Senesi.
Bologna: G. Romagnoli.
272 Bibliography
Papahagi, Tache. 1974. Dicţionarul dialectului aromân. 2nd edn. Bucharest: Ed. Acad.
Republ. Soc. România.
Paradis, C. and Prunet, J.-F. (eds). 1991. Phonetics and Phonology. The Special Effect of
Coronals: Internal and External Evidence. San Diego: Academic Press.
Parenti, Marco. 1996. See Marrese 1996.
Pariente, Angel. 1968. “El problema de las formas stlocus, stlis, stlat(t)a y stlatarius”.
Emerita 36: 247–69.
Parry, Mair. 2005. Sociolinguistica e grammatica del dialetto di Cairo Montenotte. Savona:
Società Savonese di Storia Patria.
Passy, Paul. 1891. “Patois de Sainte-Jamme (Seine-et-Oise)”. Revue des patois gallo-romans
4: 7–16.
Peer, Oscar. 1962. Dicziunari rumantsch ladin - tudais-ch. Samedan: Lia Rumantscha.
Pei, Mario A. 1932. The Language of the Eighth-Century Texts in Northern France. New York:
Carranza & Co.
Peixoto de Fonseca, F. V. 1978. “Prothèse, épenthèse et épithèse en ancien portugais”. RLiR
42: 53–5.
Peletier, Jacques. 1550. Dialogue de l’ortografe e prononciation francoese. [Facsimile: Geneva:
Slatkine 1964]. Poitiers: Ian & Enguilbert de Marnef.
Penny, Ralph. 2002. A History of the Spanish Language. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Pensado, Carmen. 1985. “On the interpretation of the non-existent: nonoccurring syllable
types in Spanish phonology”. Folia Linguistica 19: 313–20.
—— 2006. “Existió alguna vez la “variación del romance occidental””. RLiR 70: 5–19.
Petrocchi, Policarpo. 1966–7. La Divina Commedia. 2 vols. Società Dantesca Italiana.
Milan: Mondadori.
Petrovici, Emil. 1930. De la nasalité en roumain. Recherches expérimentales. Cluj: Institutul
de arte graficǎ “Ardealul”.
—— 1957. Kann das Phonemsystem einer Sprache durch fremden Einfluß umgestellt werden ?.
The Hague: Mouton.
Piccitto, Giorgio. 1977–2002. Vocabolario siciliano. 5 vols. Catania: Centro di Studi
Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani.
Pieri, Silvio. 1890–2. “Fonetica del dialetto lucchese”. AGI 12: 107–34.
Pieros, Carlos-Eduardo. 2005. “Syllabic-consonant formation in Traditional New Mexican
Spanish”. Probus 17: 253–301.
Pirandello, Luigi. [1891] 1973. Laute und Lautentwickelung der Mundart von Girgenti. Halle:
Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses. Repr. Pisa: Edizioni Marlin.
Pittau, Massimo. 1972. Grammatica del sardo-nuorese. Bologna: Patron.
Plénat, Marc. 1993. “Observations sur le mot minimal français. L’oralisation des sigles”.
In B. Laks and M. Plénat (eds). De Natura Sonorum. Essais de phonologie. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de Vincennes, 143–72.
Ploch, Stefan (ed.). 2003. Living on the Edge. 28 Papers in Honour of Jonathan Kaye. Berlin
and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bibliography 273
Plomteux, Henri. [1975] 1981. I dialetti delle Liguria orientale odierna, la val Graveglia.
Bologna: Patron.
Politzer, Robert L. 1949. “A study of the language of the eighth-century Lombardic
documents”. Ph.D. dissertation. New York: Columbia University.
—— 1959. “A note on the distribution of prothesis in Late Latin”. Modern Language Notes
74: 31–7.
—— 1961. “The interpretation of correctness in Late Latin texts”. Language 37: 209–14.
—— 1967. Beitrag zur Phonologie der Nonsberger Mundart. Romanica Aenipontana 6.
Innsbruck: Institut für Romanische Philologie der Leopold-Franzens-Universität.
Politzer, Frieda N. and Politzer, Robert L. 1953. Romance Trends in 7th and 8th-Century
Documents. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Pop, Sever. 1966. “Romania e Sardegna: rapporti linguistici”. Acta Philologica 4: 547–85.
Pope, Mildred K. 1952. From Latin to Modern French. 2nd edn. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Posner, Rebecca. 1961. Consonantal Dissimilation in the Romance Languages. Oxford:
Blackwell.
—— 1996. The Romance Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Price, P. J. 1980. “Sonority and syllabicity: acoustic correlates of perception”. Phonetica 37:
327–43.
Prince, Alan and Smolensky, Paul. [1993] 2004. “Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction
in Generative Grammar”. In McCarthy, 2004, 3–71.
Prinz, Otto. 1938. “Zur Entstehung der Prothese vor s-impurum im Lateinischen”. Glotta
26: 97–115.
Prou, Maurice. 1892. Les monnaies mérovingiennes. Paris: Rollin & Feuardent.
Pulgram, Ernst. 1958. The Tongues of Italy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pult, Gaspar. 1897. Le parler de Sent (Basse-Engadine). Lausanne: Pache.
Rafel i Fontanals, J. 1980. “Sobre el benasquès”. In J. Bruguera (ed.). Actes del cinque col.
loqui internacional de llengua i literatura catalanes. Montserrat: Publicacions de l’Abadia
de Montserrat.
Reichenkron, Günter. 1965. Historische Latein-altromanische Grammatik. I. Einleitung: das
sogenannte Vulgärlatein und das Wesen der Romanisierung. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.
Reighard, John. 1985. “La vélarisation de l’<r> en français et en portugais”. Actes du XVIIe
Congrès de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes vol. 2. Aix: Presses de l’Université de
Provence, 311–24.
Reiss, Charles. 2003. “Language change without constraint reranking”. In Holt (ed.),
143–68.
Remacle, Louis. 1948. Le problème de l’ancien wallon. Liège: Fac. de Philo. et Lettres.
Rennison, John R. and Kühnhammer, Klaus (eds). 1999. Phonologica 1996. Syllables!?.
Proceedings of the 8th International Phonology Meeting. Vienna, 1–3 November 1996.
The Hague: Thesus.
Repetti, Lori. 1997. “The syllable”. In Maiden and Parry, 52–7.
274 Bibliography
Restaut, Pierre. [1730] 1773. Principes généraux et raisonnés de la grammaire françoise. 10th
edn. Paris: Lottin.
Rézeau, Pierre. 1976. Un patois de Vendée. Le parler rural de Vouvant. Paris: Klincksieck.
Richter, Elise. 1934. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Romanismen. I: Chronologische Phonetik des
Französischen bis zum Ende des 8. Jahrhunderts. [ZrP Beih. 82]. Halle: Niemeyer.
Rickard, Peter. 1976. Chrestomathie de la langue française au quinzième siècle. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1966/68/69. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti.
3 vols. I. Fonetica, II. Morfologia, III. Sintassi e formazione delle parole. Turin: Einaudi.
—— 1970. Le gascon. Études de philologie pyrénéenne. ZrP Beih. 85. 2nd edn. Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
—— 1977. Nuovo dizionario dialettale della Calabria. 2nd edn. Ravenna: Longo.
Ronjat, Jules. 1930–41. Grammaire istorique des parlers provençaux modernes. 4 vols.
I. Fonétique (Vowels) 1930, II. Fonétique (Consonants) 1932, III. IV. Montpellier:
Société des Langues Romanes.
Rönsch, Hermann. [1868] 1965. Itala und Vulgata. Munich: Max Hueber.
Rosati, Valeria (ed.). 1977. Le lettere di Margherita Datini a Francesco (1384–1410). Biblioteca
dell’Archivio storico pratese, 2. Prato: Cassa di Risparmi e Depositi.
Rose, Yvan and Demuth, Katherine. 2006. “Vowel epenthesis in loanword adaptation:
representational and phonetic considerations”. Lingua 116: 1112–39.
Rosetti, Alexandru. 1978. Istoria limbii române. 2nd edn. Bucharest: Editura ştiinţificǎ şi
enciclopedicǎ
Rousselot, abbé Pierre. 1893. “Les modifications phonétiques du langage étudiées dans
le patois d’une famille de Cellefrouin (Charente)”. Revue des patois gallo-romans 5:
209–386. (One of four parts, the others being 4: 65–208, 6: 9–48, 65–208).
Rubach, Jerzy and Booij, Geert E. 1990. “Edge of constituent effects in Polish”. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 427–63.
Rupp, Theodor. 1963. Lautlehre der Mundarten von Domat, Trin und Flem. Chur: Sulser.
Russell-Gebbett, Paul. 1965. Medieval Catalan Linguistic Texts. Oxford: Dolphin.
Sala, Marius. 1976. Contributions à la phonétique historique du roumain. Paris: Klincksieck.
Salvador Galmés, Mn. 1935. Libre de Evast e Blanquerna. Barcelona: Ed. Barcino.
Salvioni, Carlo. 1886. “Saggi intorno ai dialetti di alcune vallate all’estremità settentrionale
del Lago Maggiore”. AGI 9: 188–234, 249–59.
Sampson, Rodney. 1980. Early Romance Texts. An Anthology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
—— 1985. “The pattern of evolution of Proto-Romanian //”. Revue roumaine de
linguistique 30: 327–59.
—— 1999. Nasal Vowel Evolution in Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
—— 2004a. “Henri Estienne and vowel prosthesis: a problem in the phonetic adaptation
of 16th-century Italianisms”. French Studies 58: 327–41.
—— 2004b. “Tendances et contretendances dans la structuration de la syllabe en
protoroman”. Aemilianense 1: 481–500.
Bibliography 275
—— 2005. “Vowel prosthesis and its maintenance in Spanish: a comparative perspective”.

In Roger Wright and Peter Ricketts (eds). Studies on Ibero-Romance Linguistics
Dedicated to Ralph Penny. Newark, DE: Juan de la Cuesta, 241–58.
—— 2006. “L’évolution de la voyelle accentuée des formes tinto, pinta, punto, unto, etc. en
castillan”. RLiR 70: 21–40.
Sanga, Glauco. 1995. “Italienische Koine / La koinè italiana”. LRL II, 2: 81–98.
Santos Silva, Maria Helena. 1961. “Caracterı́sticas fonéticas do falar minhoto”. BF 20:
309–21.
Saralegui, Carmen. 1977. El dialecto navarro en los documentos des monasterio de Irache
(958–1397). Pamplona: Diputación Foral de Navarra & CSIC.
Sarrieu, B. 1902–6 “Le parler de Bagnères-de-Luchon et de sa vallée”. RLaR 5: 385–446; 6:
317–98; 7: 97–153, 481–534; 9: 5–48, 465–94.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. [1916] 1974. Cours de linguistique générale. Édition critique
préparée par Tullio de Mauro. Geneva: Payot.
Schädel, Bernd. 1908. “La frontière entre le gascon et le catalan”. Romania 37: 140–56.
Schane, Sanford A. 1968. French Phonology and Morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schiaffini, Alfedo. 1926. Testi fiorentini del Dugento e dei primi del Trecento. Florence:
Sansoni.
—— 1928. “Influssi dei dialetti centro-meridionali sul toscano e sulla lingua letteraria”.
Italia Dialettale 4: 77–129.
—— 1961. I mille anni della lingua italiana. Milan: All’Insegna del Pesce d’Oro.
Schiaparelli, Luigi. 1929–33. Codice diplomatico lombardo. 2 vols. Rome: Tipografia del
Senato.
Schizzerotto, Giancarlo. 1985. Sette secoli di volgare e di dialetto mantovano. Mantua:
Publi-Paolini Ed.
Schlösser, Rainer. 1985. Historische Lautlehre des Aromunischen von Metsovon. Hamburg:
Buske.
Schmitt, Christian. 1984. “Variété et développement linguistiques. Sur les tendances
évolutives en français moderne et en espagnol”. RLiR 48: 397–437.
Schneegans, Heinrich. 1888. Laute und Lautentwickelung des sicilianischen Dialectes.
Strasbourg: Trübner.
Schönthaler, Willy. 1937. Die Mundart des Bethmale-Tales. Tübingen: Göbel.
Schorta, Andrea. 1938. Lautlehre der Mundart von Müstair. Paris, Zurich, and Leipzig:
Droz-Niehans.
Schrijver, P. 1995. Studies in British Celtic Historical Phonology. Amsterdam and Atlanta,
GA: Rodopi.
Schneegans, Heinrich. 1888. Laute und Lautentwickelung der sicilianischen Dialectes.
Strassburg: Trübner.
Schortz, Michèle. 1998. Le parler de Senneville-sur-Fécamp. Uppsala: Uppsala University
Press.
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1866/67/68. Der Vokalismus des Vulgärlateins. 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner.
Schürr, Friedrich. 1918–19. Romagnolische Dialektstudien. 2 vols. Vienna: Hölder.
276 Bibliography
Schwarze, Christoph. 1963. Der altprovenzalische “Boeci”. Münster: Aschendorffsche

Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Seelmann, Emil. 1885. Die Aussprache des Latein nach physiologisch-historische Grundsätzen.
Heilbronn: Henninger.
Séguy, Jean. [1950] 1978. Le français parlé à Toulouse. Toulouse: Privat.
Seklaoui, Diana R. 1989. Change and Compensation. Parallel Weakening of [s] in Italian,
French and Spanish. New York, Berne, Frankfurt, and Paris: Lang.
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1982. “The syllable”. In Hulst and Smith (eds), 337–83.
Serianni, Luca. 1977. Il dialetto pratese nel Medioevo. Prato: Cassa di Risparmi e Depositi.
—— and Castelvecchi, Alberto. 1988. Grammatica Italiana. Italiano comune e lingua
letteraria. Turin: UTET
Sgrilli, Paola (ed.). 1983. Il “Libro di Sidrac” salentino. Pisa: Pacini.
Şiadbei, T. 1958. “La prothèse vocalique dans les langues romanes”. Revue de Linguistique
3: 153–63.
Sievers, E. [1881]1901. Grundzüge der Phonetik. 5th edn. Leipzig: von Breitkopf & Härtel.
Simon, Hans Joachim. 1967. Beobachtungen an Mundarten Piemonts. Heidelberg: Winter.
Singh, Rajendra. 1985. “Prosodic adaptation in interphonology”. Lingua 67: 269–82.
Skytte, Gunver. 1975. Italiensk Fonetik. Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag.
Smith, Colin. 1983. “Vulgar Latin in Roman Britain: epigraphic and other evidence”. In
H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds). Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. II,
2. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 893–948.
Solé, Maria-Josep. 2002a. “Aerodynamic characteristics of trills and phonological
patterning”. Journal of Phonetics 30: 655–88.
—— 2002b. “Assimilatory processes and aerodynamic factors”. In C. Gussenhoven and N.
Warner (eds). Laboratory Phonology 7. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 351–86.
Solmi, Arrigo. 1905. “Le carte volgari dell’Archivo Arcivescovile di Cagliari”. Archivio
Storico Italiano 35: 273–330.
Spence, Nicol. 1990. ““Sporadic” changes in Jersey French”. In J. N. Green and W. Ayres-
Bennett (eds). Variation and Change in French. London: Routledge, 210–25.
Spoerri, Teofilo. 1918. “Il dialetto della Valsesia”. Rendiconti dell’Istituto Lombardo. Serie II.
51: esp. 391–409, 683–98.
Staaff, Erik. 1907. Étude de l’ancien dialecte léonais d’après les chartes du XIIIe siècle.
Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Stella, Angelo. 1969. “Tre lettere bolognesi del secolo XIV”. LN 30: 51–2.
Steriade, Donca. 1988. “Gemination and the Proto-Romance syllable shift”. In D. Birdsong
and J.-P. Montreuil (eds). Advances in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, 371–409.
—— 1994. “Complex onsets as single segments: the Mazateco pattern”. In J. Cole and
C. Kisseberth (eds). Perspectives in Phonology. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 202–91.
Stotz, Peter. 1996–2004. Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters. 5 vols. Munich:
C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. [Esp. vol. 3. Lautlehre. 1996].
Straka, Georges. 1979. Les sons et les mots: choix d’études de phonétique et de linguistique.
Paris: Klincksieck.
Bibliography 277
Stussi, Alfredo. 1965. Testi veneziani del Duecento e dei primi del Trecento. Pisa: Nistri-
Lischi.
—— 1982. “Antichi testi salentini in volgare”. In Alfredo Stussi. Studi e documenti di storia
della lingua e dei dialetti italiani. Bologna: Mulino, 155–81.
Svenson, Lars-Owe. 1959. Les parlers du Marais vendéen. 2 vols. Gothenburg: Almqvist &
Wiksell.
Sylvius, Iacobus. (= Jacques Dubois). 1531. In linguam gallicam isagge…Paris: R. Stephanus.
[Repr. Geneva: Slatkine, 1971].
Taboada, Manuel. 1979. El habla del Valle de Verı́n. Verba, Anejo 15. Compostela:
Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.
Tabourot, Etienne. 1588. Les bigarrures du Seigneurs des Accords. [Repr. Geneva: Slatkine,
1969].
Tardif, Jules. 1866. Fac-similé de chartes et diplômes mérovingiens et carlovingiens. Paris:
J. Claye.
Taylor, R. 1965. “Les néologismes chez Nicole Oresme traducteur du XIVe siècle”. Actes du
Xe Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes vol. 2. Paris: Klincksieck,
727–36.
Tekavčić, Pavao. 1972. Grammatica storica dell’italiano. I: Fonematica. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Telmon, Tullio. 1975. “La prosthèse vocalique dans les parlers du Piémont”. RLiR 39: 122–71.
Ternes, Elmar. 1986. “A grammatical hierarchy of joining”. In Andersen (ed.), 11–21.
Teyssier, Paul. 1980. Histoire de la langue portugaise. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language Contact. An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
—— and Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics.
Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford: University of California Press.
Thurot, Charles. 1881. De la prononciation française depuis le commencement du XVIe siècle.
2 vols. Paris: Welter. [Repr. Geneva: Slatkine, 1966].
Tjäder, Jan-Olof. 1955. Die nichtliterarischen Papyri Italiens aus der Zeit 445–700, I. Lund:
Gleerup.
Tomasini, Giulio. 1951. “Minime di grammatica dialettale. La vocale prostetica nel
Trentino”. Studi Trentini di Scienze Storiche 30: 115–17.
Tomasoni, Piera. 1985. “L’antica lingua non letteraria a Bergamo. Un formulario notarile
inedito del secolo XV”. In G. Vitali and G. O. Bravi (eds). Lingue e culture locali.
Le ricerche di Antonio Tiraboschi. Bergamo: Lubrina, 229–61.
Topintzi, Nina. 2006. “Moraic onsets”. Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation. University College
London.
Toppino, Giuseppe. 1902–5. “Il dialetto di Castellinaldo”. AGI 16: 517–48.
Traina, Alfonso. 1973. L’alfabeto e la pronunzia del latino. 4th edn. Bologna: Patron.
Trask, R. Larry. 1996. Historical Linguistics. London and New York: Arnold.
—— 1997. The History of Basque. London: Routledge.
Tschirch, Fritz. 1966–9. Geschichte des deutschen Sprache. 2 vols. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
278 Bibliography
Turchi, Laura and Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 2000. “La durata vocalica di fronte ai nessi /sC/:
un’indagine su soggetti pisani”. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 29:
389–421.
Uffmann, Christian. 2006. “Epenthetic vowel quality in loanwords: empirical and formal
issues”. Lingua 116: 1079–111.
Ulrich, Jacob. 1885–6. “Sacra rappresentazione del secolo XVII, testo ladino, varietà di
Bravugn”. AGI 8: 263–303, 9: 107–14.
Väänänen, Veikko. 1966. Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompéiennes. 3rd edn. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag.
Valdés, Juan de. [1535] 1967. Diálogo de la lengua. Ed. C. Barbolani de Garcı́a. Messina-
Firenze: G. D’Anna.
Valkhoff, Marius. 1931. Étude sur les mots français d’origine néerlandaise. Amersfoort:
Valkhoff and Co.
Vanelli, Laura. 1984. “Pronomi e fenomeni di prostesi vocalica nei dialetti italiani
settentrionali”. RLiR 48: 281–95.
—— 1987. “I pronomi soggetto nei dialetti italiani settentrionali dal Medioevo a oggi”.
Medioevo Romanzo 13: 173–211.
Varvaro, Alberto. 1984. “La situazione linguistica della Sicilia nel basso Medioevo”. In
Alberto Varvaro. La parola nel tempo. Lingua, società e storia. Bologna: Il Mulino, 145–74.
Vasconcellos, José Leite de. See Leite de Vasconcellos, José.
Velázquez, Isabel. 2000. Documentos de época visigoda escritos en pizarra (siglos VI–VIII).
2 vols. Turnhout: Brepols.
—— 2003. Latine dicitur, vulgo vocant. Aspectos de la lengua escrita y hablada en las obras
gramaticales de Isidoro de Sevilla. Logroo: Fundación San Millán de la Cogolla.
Vennemann, Theo. 1988. Preference Laws for Syllable Structure. Berlin, New York, and
Amsterdam: Mouton-De Gruyter.
Veny, Joan. 1987. Els parlars catalans. 7th edn. Palma de Mallorca: Ed. Moll.
Verner, Karl. 1877. “Eine Ausnahme der ersten Lautverschiebung”. Zeitschrift für
vergleichende Sprachforschung 23: 97–130. [Eng. tr. “An Exception to Grimm’s Law”. In
P. Baldi and R. N. Werth (eds). 1978. Readings in Historical Phonology. University Park
and London: Pennsylvania State University Press, 32–63].
Vielliard, Jeanne. 1927. Le latin des diplômes royaux et chartes privées de l’époque
mérovingienne. Paris: Champion.
Vineis, E. 1998. “Latin”. In A. G. and P. Ramat (eds). The Indo-European Languages. London
and New York: Routledge, 261–321.
Virdis, Maurizio. 1978. Fonetica del dialetto sardo campidanese. Cagliari: Edizioni della
Torre.
Vitale, Maurizio. 1992. Studi di storia della lingua italiana. Milan: LED.
Vives, José. 1969. Inscripciones cristianas de la Espaa romana y visigoda. 2nd edn. Barcelona:
CSIC.
—— 1971–2. Inscripciones latinas de la Espaa romana. 2 vols. Barcelona: CSIC.
Bibliography 279
Wagner, Max L. 1936. Restos de latinidad en el norte de Africa. Coimbra: Biblioteca da

Universidade.
—— 1941. Historische Lautlehre des Sardischen. ZrPh Beiheft 93. Halle: Niemeyer.
—— 1951. La lingua sarda. Storia, spirito e forma. Berne: Francke.
Walberg, Emmanuel. 1907. Saggio sulla fonetica del parlare di Celerina-Cresta (Alta
Engadina). Lund: Gleerup.
Walde, A. and Hofmann, J. B. 1938–56. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der lateinischen Sprache.
3rd edn. 2 vols. Heidelberg: C. Winter.
Walter, Henriette. 1990. “Une voyelle qui ne veut pas mourir”. In J. N. Green and W. Ayres-
Bennett (eds). Variation and Change in French. London and New York: Routledge,
27–36.
Waquet, Françoise. 2001. Latin or the Empire of a Sign. [tr. of J. Howe. Latin ou l’empire d’un
signe. 1998. Paris: Michel]. London and New York: Verso.
Warnant, Léon. 1956. Constitution phonique du mot en wallon. Paris: Société d’édition “Les
Belles Lettres”.
Wartburg, Walther von. 1936. “Die Ausgliederung der romanischen Sprachräume”. ZrP 56:
1–48.
—— 1950. Die Ausgliederung der romanischen Sprachräume. Berne: Francke. [Spanish
tr. 1952, French tr. 1967].
Weinrich, Harald. 1969. Phonologische Studien zur romanischen Sprachgeschichte. 2nd edn.
Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in Contact. The Hague: Mouton.
Wheeler, Max. 1979. Phonology of Catalan. Publications of the Philological Society 28.
Oxford: Blackwell.
—— 2005. The Phonology of Catalan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wiese, Richard. 1996. The Phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon.
Woledge, Brian and Clive, H. P. 1964. Répertoire des plus anciens textes en prose française
depuis 842 jusqu’aux premières années du XIIIe siècle. Geneva: Droz.
Wright, Roger. 1982. Late Latin and Early Romance. Liverpool: Francis Cairns.
—— 2000. El Tratado de Cabreros (1206): estudio sociofilológico de una reforma ortográfica.
Papers of the Medieval Hispanic Research Seminar 19. London: Department of Hispanic
Studies, Queen Mary and Westfield College.
Wüest, Jakob. 1979. La dialectalisation de la Gallo-Romania. Berne: Francke.
—— 1995. “Dauphinois”. LRL II, 2: 434–40.
—— and Kristol, Andreas M. (eds). 1993. Aqueras montanhas. Études de linguistique
occitane: Le Couserans (Gascogne pyrénéenne). Tübingen and Basle: Francke.
Wunderli, Peter. 1969. Die okzitanischen Bibelübersetzungen des Mittelalters. Frankfurt:
Klostermann.
Wyatt, William F. 1972. The Greek Prothetic Vowel. Philological Monographs of the
American Philological Association 31. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University.
Yip, Moira. 1991. “Coronals, coronal clusters, and the coda condition”. In Paradis and
Prunet (eds), 61–78.
280 Bibliography
Young, Christopher and Gloning, Thomas. 2004. A History of the German Language
through Texts. London: Routledge.
Zamboni, Alberto, Cortelazzo, Manlio, Pellegrini, Giovanni Battista, Benincà, Paola,
Vanelli Renzi, Laura and Francescato, Giuseppe (eds). 1984–7. Dizionario etimologico
storico friulano. 2 vols. [up to ezzita only]. Udine: Casamassima.
Zamora Vicente, Alonso. 1967. Dialectologı́a espaola. 2nd edn. Madrid: Gredos.
Zink, Gaston. 1986. Phonétique historique du français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
Zirin, Ronald A. 1970. The Phonological Basis of Latin Prosody. The Hague: Mouton.
Zörner, Lotte. 1989. Die Dialekte von Travo und Groppallo. Vienna: Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Zufferey, François. 1987. Recherches linguistiques sur les chansonniers provençaux. Paris:
Droz.
Index
A-prosthesis additive processes 1

actualization 169–71 Agrigento, A-prosthesis 152
causation 171–80 Al-Andalus 102–3
chronology 154–9 Albigeois text 131
contact approach to 178–80 Alguerès, regression of A-prosthesis 187–8
enhancement 190–3 Alsace 126
vs etymological initial r- 148–9 alternation 10–13
examples 146 in A-prosthesis 169–70
geography 150–1 Ancona, sonorant-initial words and
identification 147–50 U-prosthesis 218
and initial rhotic 159–63 aphaeresis 1, 4, 56–8, 128, 143–4
maintained 189–90 in Balkan-Romance 78
origins 158–9 Occitan 132–3
overview 37 in Sardinian 98–9
phonetic approach 175–7 southern Italian 79–80
phonological approach 177–8 apocope 1
vs prefixation 148 Appendix Probi 59
regression 182–8 Arabic script 102–3
vs syncope of pre-tonic vowel 149 Aragonese 102, 155
vowel quality 164–8 Aromanian 26, 146
abandonment of I-prosthesis 78–80 and A-prosthesis 158, 169, 191–3
in Castilian 106 initial rhotic 162
in Corsica 99 Arquint, J.C. 183
in French 119–26 assimilation of vowels 164–5
in Gallo-Romance 129 Asturian dialects 102, 111
in Italian 94 Asturo-Leonese area 109, 112
in Italo-Romance 143–4 attitude to prosthesis in French 134
in Portuguese 110–11 Auger, J. 211–12
in Rheto-Romance 136
in Tuscan 86 Badia, A. 150n, 222
in Venetian dialect 141–2 Baehrens, W.A. 59n
see also regression of A-prosthesis Bagemihl, B. 17n
abandonment of schwa in French 125–6 Balkan-Romance 61, 175
Abruzzo and Molise 153 and A-prosthesis 158
acoustic similarity of [s] and [i] 63–5 and I-prosthesis 76–9
actualization 19 initial rhotic 162
of I-prosthesis 65–7 Banniard, M. 32
of A-prosthesis 169–71 Barsegapè, P. (poet) 142
of U-prosthesis 202–24 Barèges dialect 159
282 Index
Basque 178–80 proclitics vs lexical forms 221–2

Bastogne dialect 130 and U-prosthesis 195
Bec, P. 151n, 156, 170, 185–7 vowel quality 16
Belcalzer, V. 144 causation
Bembo, P. 92 of A-prosthesis 171–80
Bergün dialect 210, 223n of I-prosthesis 67–73
Bezzola, R. and Tönjachen, R. 183 in language change 19
Bible translations 136, 157 lexical alignment 27
and U-prosthesis 204, 229–30 morpholexical factors 27
Bifrun, J. 136, 157, 204, 225, 229 morphophonological factors 25–6
Blasco Ferrer, E. 222 phonological factors 20–5
bleeding SPIV 200, 201 sociolinguistic factors 28–33
Blevins, J. 21–2 of U-prosthesis 228
Blevins, J. and Garrett, A. 218 Celerina dialect 236
Boccaccio 85, 92 and SPIV 197–8, 201, 203
Boeci 131 and U-prosthesis 194, 230
Bolognese 144 Cesena, complex onsets 203–4
and SPIV 203, 205–6 Cevio variety and SPIV 197
and U-prosthesis 194 Chanson de Sainte Foi d’Agen 131
Bolognesi, R. 189–90 charters 115, 158
Bonvesin (da la Riva) 93n, 143 Chiampel, D. 231
borrowing scale 179–80 Christian inscriptions 60
boundary markers, prosthetic vowels as 26 Christian Spain 102
Brantôme 119 chronology of U-prosthesis 204–8
Brescia 143 Cisalpine Gaul 137
Broselow, E. 51n classification of prosthesis 40
Brun, A. 134 clitic phrases 25
Busachi dialect, vowel copying 164 Clivio, G.P. 34, 214n, 221, 225, 231
Clivio, G.P. and Danesi, M. 139
Cabré, T. 12 Cochet, E. 226
Cairo Montenotte dialect Coco, F. 194
(Piedmontese) 140 coins, inscriptions in 113
Calabrian, A-prosthesis 152–3 complex onsets
Caltanissetta, A-prosthesis 152 in Latin 45–6
Campidanese 39 and SPIV 203
maintenance of A-prosthesis 189–90 and U-prosthesis 209, 225
vowel copying 164 Consonantal Strength 22n
vowel quality 168 consonants
see also Sardinian Classical Latin 41–2
Cancioneiros 108 complexity 23
Capidan, T. 191–2 contact approach to A-prosthesis 178–80
Carnin and U-prosthesis vowel Corneille, T. 126n
quality 227 Coromines, J. 187
Carolingian reforms 113–14 Correa Rodrı́guez 179n
Castilian, I-prosthesis 104–6 Corsican 99
Catalan 12, 97, 102, 107 and I-prosthesis 95
and A-prosthesis 150n, 187–8 vowel quality 165–7
Index 283
Coulmas, F. 31 developments 229–31

Coupier, J. 135 and falling sonority 215
Cremonese 143 vowel quality 225
environments for I-prosthesis
Dacia 61–2 epenthesis 1, 71–2
Daco-Romanian vs I-prosthesis 126–7
and A-prosthesis 193 vs prosthesis 51
and I-prosthesis 77 vowel quality 166
initial rhotic 162 in Walloon 129–30
Dalbera, J.-P. 133 Erasmus, D. 123
Dalmatian, I-prosthesis 77–8 Estienne, H. 119, 120n, 134
D’Ambra, R. 153 etymological initial r-
Dante, A. 84–5 and A-prosthesis 155, 159–63
De Mauro, T. 94 and vowel insertion 148–9
De Sathana cum Virgine (Bonvesin) 143 etymological prefixal vowels 73
deletion of [n] as explanation of evidence 34–5
I-prosthesis 70 excrescent vowels 17n
Desgranges, J.-C.-L.-P. 122 extant inscriptions 60
dictionaries
as evidence of A-prosthesis 153 Falcone, G. 152
Engadinish-German 183 falling sonority onsets and
Dinguirard, J.-C. 156 U-prosthesis 214–16
diphthongization of word-initial Farserotic 191n
vowels 5–6 Fassan, regression of A-prosthesis 184
direct indicators of vowel prosthesis 3–7 feeding SPIV 200–1
Divine Comedy (Dante) 84–5 Fleischhacker, H. 51
Dolomitish, regression of A-prosthesis 184 Florentine writers 85
Donzac dialect 134 Flutre, L.-F. 210–11, 218
Dordogne 135 Fonni dialect, vowel copying 164
d’Orléans, C. 116 Fouché, P. 125, 188n, 200n
Dressler, W. 56, 67 Fougeron, C. 171, 171n
Dubois, J. 118–19 Francard, M. 130
Ducibella, J.W. 152 François, D. 226
Dutch, Middle, loanwords 115 Frankish, loanwords 115
French 4, 9, 25
Elba, I-prosthesis 95 abandonment of I-prosthesis 123–6
Elizondo, E. 179n alternations 13
Elwert, W.T. 184 influence on Gascon 187
Emilian-Romagnolo 142, 144–5, 214n initial rhotic 160–1
and SPIV 199, 202–3 loanwords in 115, 125
and U-prosthesis 209, 231 from Italian 119–20
Engadinish 136, 206 Old 39
and A-prosthesis 169, 183–4 published grammar 118–19
and SPIV 200 resemblance to Sardinian 100n
and U-prosthesis SPIV 200–1
284 Index
French (cont.) Gorra, E. 145

standardization 30n, 120 Gouskova, M. 17
effect on langue d’oc 134 Government Phonology (GP) 24, 177–8
word-initial syllables and grammatical factors in vowel prosthesis 39
U-prosthesis 217 grammatical vowel addition 4
frequency of [s] and [i] 63 Greek 67
Friulian 136 geminated rhotic 175
and A-prosthesis 157–8, 184–5 influence on Latin syllabification 48
loanwords 43, 72
Gaeng, P. 60 Gregory of Tours 113
Galician dialect 102, 108, 109–10 Grisch, M. 196
vowel deletion 111 Grisons 136
Gallo-Romance Grizzando Morandi variety 145
and I-prosthesis 112–35 Grizzanese
northern varieties 133 falling sonority and U-prosthesis 215–16
and U-prosthesis 196, 204, 210–12, 228 proclitics vs lexical forms 220–1
development 232
vowel quality 225–6 Hall, R.A. 173
and word-initial syllables 217 Hall, T.A. 44n
Gallurese dialect 99 Hall and Cravens, T.D. 172
see also Sardinian Hall and Weinrich, H. 173
Gartner, T. 183–4 Hammond, R.M. 176
Gascon dialect 121, 146, 156–7, 234 Harris, J.W. 11
and A-prosthesis 147–51 Herman, J. 47n
actualization 170–1 heterosyllabic onsets 50–1
implementation 169 hierarchy, phonological 20
regression of 185–7 Hindi, sibilants and stop segments 51
and I-prosthesis 66 Hindret, J. 120–1n
initial rhotic 160, 163 Holmes, U.T. 200
SPIV 198 Homelies de Organyà 107
vowel quality 168 Huguet, E. 119–20n
word-initial morphemes 4 hypercorrection 56–8, 101, 113
Gavel, H. 179n
geminate consonants 42 I-prosthesis
geminate rhotic 172, 175, 177–8 actualization 65–7
gemination and Balkan-Romance 76–9
and ign- forms 181 causation 67–73
in southern Italian 190 environments 54–5
geography and I-prosthesis 74–5 and Gallo-Romance 112–35
Germanic and Ibero-Romance 100–12
influences 129, 136–7 and La Spezia-Rimini line 74–5
and SPIV 207–8 and langue d’oc 130–5
Giammarco, A-prosthesis 153 and langue d’oı̈l 114–23
Giannelli, L. 95 and northern Italo-Romance 137–45
Giese, W. 191n, 192 origins 56–60
Index 285
overview 36–7 La Noue, O. 161

and Rheto-Romance 135–7 La Scala, F.J. 34
and Sardinian 96–100 La Spezia-Rimini line and I-prosthesis
and southern Italian 79–80 74–5
spread during Roman times 60–2 Ladefoged, P. and Maddieson, I. 176
and Tuscan 80–96 Ladin area 136
vowel quality 62–5 Langobards (Lombards) 81
Iberian 178–9 language contact 28–9, 187
Ibero-Romance langue d’oc (Occitan) and
and A-prosthesis 155 I-prosthesis 130–5
and I-prosthesis 100–12 langue d’oı̈l
initial rhotic 160 and I-prosthesis 114–23
and SPIV 199 initial rhotic 161
ign- forms and A-prosthesis 180–2 and U-prosthesis 228
indirect indicators of vowel Languedocian 135
prosthesis 7–8 Latin 25, 235
initial rhotic Classical, syllable structure in 41–9
and A-prosthesis 159–63, 191 to French, change in formal
articulation problems 176–7 settings 116–17
strengthening 171–5 geminate rhotic 172
internal prosthesis 54–5 influences on 67
interplay between word edges 25–6 loanwords in 115
intervocalic -n- in Gascon 156 rising-sonority onsets 213
Italian 5, 9, 10–11 syllabicity of [s] 68–9
and A-prosthesis 157, 169 syllables 49–52, 70
dialects, falling sonority and variation 29
U-prosthesis 215–16 written 31–3
loanwords in French 119–20 Latinisms, Castilian 105–6
northern and U-prosthesis 205 Lausberg, H. 67
sandhi 26 Leben, W. 202n
southern 79–80, 190–1 legal charters 138
Italo-Romance lenition and SPIV 206
and A-prosthesis 151–4 Leopardi, verse of 93
initial rhotic 161–2 letters
northern and I-prosthesis 137–45 Bolognese 205
rhotic strengthening 175 Tuscan 87–91
and U-prosthesis 195, 225 lexical alignment in language change 27
lexical forms vs proclitics 220–2
Jungemann, F.H. 163n, 176 Libre de Evast e Blanquerna (Llull) 107,
221–2
Keating, P. et al. 171 Libro di Sidrac 80
Kenstowicz, M. 16–17 Ligurian 133
Kiss, S. 44n linearization of syllabic consonants 6–7
Kramer, J. 184 literary language, Tuscan 84
Kurolywicz, J. 48n, 50 Llull, R. 107, 221–2
286 Index
loanwords 10–11, 115 Migliorini, B. 93

in French 119–20, 125 Mihăilă, G. 158
in Gascon from French 163, 186 Millardet, G. 175
from Greek 43, 72 minimal saliency 16–17, 63
in Italian 94 and U-prosthesis 224
in Italo-Romance 154 Moll, F.B. 150n
in pre-Roman languages 179 Monferrato dialect, U-prosthesis 209
Lodge, R.A. 30n, 87n, 121 moraic thory, geminates in 177
Logudorese 96–7, 99 Morelli, F. 50–1
see also Sardinian Morosi, G. 133n
Lombard, A. 138 morphemes, word-initial 4
Lombards (Langobards) 81 morpholexical factors in language
Lombardy 142–4 change 27
Lopocaro, M. 100n, 153, 153n, 214n morphological basis to A-prosthesis 157
Lorraine 126, 128 morphological boundaries,
Lowenstamm, J. 24n reinterpretation 4–5
Lucchese dialects morphophonological factors in language
evidence of Tuscan I-prosthesis 81 change 25–6
vowel quality 165–6, 167–8 Mozarabic 102–3
Luchaire, A. 187 Mushacke, W. 132
Machado, J.P. 155n [n] deletion as explanation of

Mainoldi, P. 194 I-prosthesis 70
Malagoli dialect 194, 199, 231 Nandriş, O. 78
and U-prosthesis 209 Nauton, P. 133
Malkiel, Y. 57n Navarrese, A-prosthesis 155
Maneca, C. 34 Nebrija, A. 106
Mantua 143 neologisms 10–12
Manzoni, A. 93 Neapolitan, A-prosthesis 153
Marchello-Nizia, C. 39n newly appearing vowels 16–18
Marotta, G. 44n, 70 Nieri, I. 94, 157, 167–8
Marseille 134 Nigra, C. 209, 213n
Martinet, A. 174n Nisard, C. 122
Mateus, M.H. and d’Andrade, E. 12–13 Norse, loanwords 115
maximal formal identity 72 Noske, R. 44n
McKenzie, K. 85 Notre-Dame-de-Sanhilac dialect 135
McMahon, A. 10n Novellarese dialect
medial vowels 9 and SPIV 197
medieval period 76 and U-prosthesis 194, 209
Merovingian period 113 Nuorese 99
Mesnil-Martinsart dialect 220
and U-prosthesis 210–11 obligatory contour principle (OCP) 202
Messina dialect 5–6 Occitan (langue d’oc) and
metathesis 1, 71n I-prosthesis 130–5
Meyer-Lübke, W. 34, 150n Old French 39
Index 287
Omeltchenko, S.W. 60–1 Piedmontese 139–41

on-glides 5 and U-prosthesis 209
A-prosthesis as 177 developments 231
Onset Theorem 23–4n falling sonority 216
onsets sonority levels 213–14
heterosyllabic 50–1 vowel quality 225
word-initial Pieri, S. 165
change 49–50 Pirandello, L. 152
complexity 23–5 Pisa, I-prosthesis in 95
Latin 42–5 Pittau, M. 99
and U-prosthesis 212–20 Pliny the Elder 57n
word-medial, Latin 45 poetry see verse
Optimality Theory (OT) 23–4, 35 Politzer, R.L. 33
Osprandus (Tuscan scribe) 83 Pontremoli dialect, U-prosthesis 209, 217
Oxford Psalter 115 Portomarin 108
Portuguese 12–13, 109, 112
pagan inscriptions 60 and A-prosthesis 155n
palatal nasal in word-initial position and standard 110
A-prosthesis 180–2 and U-prosthesis 195
palatalization and SPIV 206–7 pre-consonantal <s>, phonetic
Palsgrave, J. 118 realization 118
Papahagi, T. 146n, 192 prefixal vowels 73
papyri 137–8 prefixation 27
paragoge 1 vs A-prosthesis 148
Pariente, A. 44 prosthesis in word-medial position 11
Parisian and U-prosthesis vowel quality 226 prepositional phrases, lexicalized 40
Peer, O. 183, 230 pre-Roman linguistic influence 67, 178–80
Pei, M.A. 114 prestigious varieties 30
Peletier, J. 126 principle of minimal saliency see minimal
Pensado, C. 173 saliency
Petrarch 85, 92 Prinz, O. 60, 62–3, 66–7, 79, 137
phonetic approach to A-prosthesis 175–7 private letters
phonetic realization of pre-consonantal Bolognese 205
<s> 118 Tuscan 87–91
phonological approach to probabilistic approach to describing causes
A-prosthesis 177–8 of change 19
phonological bond between [s] and proclitic forms
voiceless plosive 72 Tuscan 86–7
phonological factors in language and U-prosthesis 220–4
change 20–5 prosodic domains of U-prosthesis 208–12
phrase medial vowels 9 prosthesis
Piacenza 145 common properties 234–7
Picard varieties and U-prosthesis 226–7, 229 definition 1–2
Piccitto, G. 153 vs epenthesis 51
Pidal, M. 155n Provençal 135
288 Index
Psalter Commentary 127 Ronjat, J. 132n

Puglia, A-prosthesis 152 Rose, Y. and Demuth, K. 64n, 166
Pulon Matt 205 Rosetti, A. 162, 191n, 192–3
Pult, G. 231 Rossellonès, U-prosthesis 222
rural vs urban development of
quality of vowels see vowel quality U-prosthesis 231
Russell-Gebbett, P. 102
rafforzamento fonosintattico (RF) 172–3
Ranrupt dialect 129 [s] and voiceless plosive, phonological
reductive processes 1 bond 72
regional differences in northern Italy 138–9 s impure 53–5, 67–8
regression of A-prosthesis 182–8 s lı́quida 68
see also abandonment of I-prosthesis s-palatalization and SPIV 206–7
Reighard, J. 161 Sainte-Jamme variety and U-prosthesis
Renaissance period 106 vowel quality 225
restructuring of syllabic consonants 6–7 San Nicola di Trullas 97
restructuring of syllable as explanation San Pietro di Silki 96–7
of I-prosthesis 71 sandhi 26
resyllabification 48 Sanga, G. 92n
as explanation of I-prosthesis 69 Sardinian 146
RF (rafforzamento fonosintattico) 172–3 and A-prosthesis 151, 169
Rheto-Romance 93n and I-prosthesis 96–100
and A-prosthesis 150, 157 vowel copying 164–5
regression of 183–5 Sarrieu, B. 66
and I-prosthesis 135–7 Sassarese 99–100
initial rhotic 163 see also Sardinian
and U-prosthesis 195–6, 204, 210 Schädel, B. 187
and proclitics 223 Schiaparelli, L. 81
rhoticity 218–19 Schlösser, R. 192
rhotics Schneegans, H. 151–2
and A-prosthesis 159–63, 191 Schönthaler, W. 187
articulation problems 176–7 Schortz, M. 123
strengthening 171–5 Schuchardt, H. 33, 62–3, 67
Richter, E. 63 schwa
Rickard, P. 117n deletion 125–6, 211
rising-sonority onsets and in newly appearing prosthesis 17–18
U-prosthesis 213 strengthening 129–30
Rohlfs, G. 95, 153–4, 174n, and U-prosthesis 224
179n, 180, 218 scribes, Tuscan 82–3
Roiné 139–40 segmental phonology and language
Romania continua 29–30 change 20
and A-prosthesis 150 Séguy, J. 134
Romanian 6 Sennori dialect 100
evidence of I-prosthesis 78 Sent variety and U-prosthesis
and U-prosthesis 195, 222–3 developments 231
Index 289
Sermone 142 Surmeiran proclitics and

Sermoni subalpine 139 U-prosthesis 223
Şiadbei, T. 33 Surselvan variety 5, 199
sibilants and stop segments 50–1 syllabic change, Latin 49–52
Sicilian, A-prosthesis 151–2 syllabic rhotics 218–19
signatures 137–8 syllabicity of [s] 68–9
Slavic influence on Balkan-Romance 79 syllabification
sociolinguistic factors in language and U-prosthesis 228
change 28–33 of word boundaries 47–9
Solé, M.-J. 176 syllable simplification 70
sonorant-initial onsets and syllable structure 20–3
U-prosthesis 217–20 Classical Latin 41–9
sonority hierarchy 21–2 as explanation of I-prosthesis 71
sonority levels in onsets and synchronicity of prosthesis 8–14
U-prosthesis 212–16 syncope 1
Sonority Sequencing Generalization (SSG) syncope of pre-tonic initial vowels
see SSG see SPIV
sources of data 34–5
Spanish 27 Tabourot, É. 124–5n
alternation 11–12 Tardif, J. 114
Latin American, trill production 176 Tekavčić, P. 49n, 70
speech communities, variation in 19 Telmon, T. 34, 213n, 225
spelling pronunciation 31 Temes 108
SPIV (syncope of pre-tonic initial tensing 68
vowels) 196–202 Terentianus, C. 57
vs A-prosthesis 149 Thesaur del hospital de Saint Sperit 132
dating 205–8 Thomason, S.G. 179–80
surrounding consonants 202–4 Thomason, S.G. and Kaufman, T. 179–80
Spoerri, T. 194 Thurot, C. 31n
spoken language and I-prosthesis 144 Tjäder, J.-O. 137
sporadic changes 14–15 Toulouse 134
SSG (Sonority Sequencing Touraine dialects and U-prosthesis vowel
Generalization) 21–2, 50, 235–6 quality 226–7
St Isidore 59 Travo 145
staged view of I-prosthesis 65–6 Trento 144
Standard French, effect on langue d’oc 134 trill, phonetic problems 176
strengthening of initial rhotic 159–63, Turinese, proclitics vs lexical forms 220–1
171–5 Tuscan 138
stress 2, 5 and I-prosthesis 80–96
structuralist view initial rhotic 162
of A-prosthesis 176 medieval, ign-forms 180–2
of rhotic strengthening 171–5 vowel quality 165, 167
substratum languages 28
suffricates 50 U-prosthesis
superstratum languages 28–9 causation 228
290 Index
U-prosthesis (cont.) vowel deletion see abandonment of

chronology 204–8 I-prosthesis; abandonment of
developments 229–32 schwa in French
geography 195–6 vowel quality 15–18
overview 38 and A-prosthesis 164–8
and proclitic forms 220–4 factors determining 17–18
prosodic domains 208–12 in Ibero-Romance 107
structural preconditions 196–204 in Piedmontese 139–40
and vowel quality 224–7 and SPIV 198–201
and word-initial onset 212–20 and U-prosthesis 224–7
unstressed vowels subsystem 15
Upper-Engadinish, falling sonority and Wagner, M.L. 98–9
U-prosthesis 215 Walberg, E. 183, 194, 198, 230
urban vs rural development of Walloon dialects 112, 126–30
U-prosthesis 231 and U-prosthesis vowel quality 227
uvularization of rhotic 161 weakening
of prosthetic vowels 111
Valsesia dialect (Piedmontese) 141 to schwa 129–30
and SPIV 197, 202 Weinreich, U. 136n
and U-prosthesis 194 Wheeler, M. 12, 150n
see also Piedmontese Wiese, R. 50
Vanelli, L. 34, 221, 229 word boundaries
variable frequency of I-prosthesis in Tuscan interplay between 25–6
letters 90 syllabification 47–9
Venetian texts 141–2 word-final consonants in
Vennemann, T. 22n, 48n Rheto-Romance 135–6
Vermandois variety and U-prosthesis word-initial morphemes 4
development 232 word-initial onsets
vernacular prose, Tuscan 85 change 49–50
vernacular usage of Ibero-Romance 104 complexity 23–5
Verner, K. 14n Latin 42–5
verse 108 and U-prosthesis 212–20
in langue d’oc 131 word-initial palatal nasal and
late medieval 116 A-prosthesis 180–2
Lombardy 143 word-initial syllables and
Villacidro dialect 99 U-prosthesis 217–20
Villette variety, SPIV 197 word-medial onsets, Latin 45
Villon, F. 116 written language 31–3
Vimeu dialect and U-prosthesis 211 Wüest, J. 156
Visigothic Spain 101 Wunderli, P. 132n
Viverone dialect (Piedmontese) 140–1
and SPIV 197 Zamboni, A. et al. 185
and U-prosthesis 209, 216 Zirin, R.A. 48n
vowel copying 164–5 Zufferey, F. 132n

Vowel Prosthesis in Romance: A Diachronic Study - Rodney Sampson

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Vowel Prosthesis in Romance: A Diachronic Study - Rodney Sampson

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

VOW E L P RO S T H E S I S I N RO M A N C E

4.2 Medieval and modern developments 73

1 Areas showing systematic vowel prosthesis in Romance 239

AIS Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz

ALJA Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Jura et des Alpes du Nord

Prosthesis, also known as ‘prothesis’,1 is one of several types of diachronic phono-

FIGURE 1.1. Types of additive or reductive process

Prosthesis is thus the phonological process whereby a new segment is inserted

1.2 Incidence of vowel prosthesis in Romance

Vowel prosthesis is widely represented across Romance. As we shall see, a number

1.3 Identiﬁcation of vowel prosthesis in a diachronic perspective

Indicators of different types exist which allow us to determine whether vowel

The obvious direct indicator of vowel prosthesis is the presence of an overt,

case.7 In view of the non-phonological causation of this development, it is clearly

is transformed into a sequence of nuclear vowel þ non-syllabic consonant

1.4 Prosthesis as a synchronic process

solely when there is a preceding consonant-ﬁnal grammatical monosyllable, e.g.

1.5 Prosthesis as a regular or sporadic diachronic process

One of the great discoveries of nineteenth-century historical linguistics was the

2004). Furthermore, the apparent sporadicity of a change will in some cases

1.6 Prosthesis and vowel quality

In the investigation of vowel prosthesis in Romance, an obvious question to raise

(i) perceptual factors,

unmarked (more preferred) marked (less preferred)

1.7 Causation of vowel prosthesis

Linguists have frequently expressed scepticism about the possibility of discover-

A number of different phonological factors have played a part in vowel prosthesis.

1.7.1.2 Prosodic or suprasegmental

onset nucleus coda

FIGURE 1.4. Basic internal structure of the syllable

principle which is founded on the relative degree of loudness or sonority inherent

FIGURE 1.5. The sonority scale

phonological change will often tend to promote developments which generalize

1.7.1.3 Word-initial onsets

different categories of prosthesis in Romance has been directly bound up with

1.7.3 LEXICAL ALIGNMENT

The formal alignment of semantically closely related words is by no means

1.7.5.1 Interference from substrata and superstrata

former Empire. These languages too were destined to be displaced by Latin-

1.7.5.2 Interaction between contemporary varieties within Latin-Romance

assessment of the impact of regional and social variation on early developments

1.7.5.3 Written usage, spoken usage, and Latin

nuancing since written language is not merely a secondary means of representing

1.8 Previous studies

The historical development of vowel prosthesis in Romance has not so far

discussed in Meyer-Lübke (1929) and Maneca (1965), while there is a valuable

1.9 Sources of data

Categories of Prosthesis in the

A-prosthesis is a development which is also well represented in the history of

U-prosthesis involves the introduction of a prosthetic vowel whose quality is

considerable, or even near-total, regularity in words containing the relevant

2.5 Problems of classiﬁcation

The Latin Background

3.1 The syllable in Classical Latin

The bracketed consonants are major positional variants of independent phonemes

word-internal positions as just a further example of the familiar tendency in

FIGURE 3.1. Syllable structure in Classical Latin

word-medial morpheme boundaries e.g. in RES|PLEN|DET ‘it gleams back’.15 It

3.2 Syllabic change in pre-Classical Latin

*tlātos > LĀTUS ‘carried’, *dlongos > LONGUS

To conclude, there is little evidence of Latin undergoing vowel prosthesis

4.1 Rise of I-prosthesis: early developments

As has been noted, I-prosthesis operated on words beginning with s impura

ABISTULERUNT (Prov. Cáceres, Spain)1

tlātos > LĀTUS ‘carried’, dlongos > LONGUS