Chapter III: Morphology (1)

88. The most important morphological developments are common to all, or nearly all, the Romance languages. They may therefore be ascribed, in their early stages, to Vulgar Latin, although direct evidence of their beginnings is scanty.

1. DECLENSION.

NOUNS.

89. (1) During the late Vulgar Latin and early Romance period neuter nouns gradually became masculine; this change was doubtless due in part to phonetic developments which obliterated distinctive endings: _dōnum_ ＞ dọn, m.; _nōmen_ ＞ nọm, m. _Mare_, however, became almost always feminine in Gaul: la mar. Some neuter plurals in _-a_, used mainly in a collective sense, were preserved and eventually became feminine singulars: _fŏlium_ _fŏlia_ ＞ fǫlha, f. sg.; _lĭgnum_ _lĭgna_ ＞ lẹnha, f. sg.; so luǫgua, pọma, prada, beside lǫc, pọm, prat (and, by analogy, grasa, beside gras ＜ _gradus_); similarly _labia_ ＞ lavias, f. pl.

(2) Masculine and feminine nouns usually kept their original gender. Abstract nouns in _-or_, however, regularly became feminine in Gaul, other abstract nouns being mostly feminine in Latin: _honōrem_ ＞ onọr, f.; _sapōrem_ ＞ sabọr, f. With the exception of _manus_, which generally retained its gender, feminine nouns of the second and fourth declensions, unless they passed into the first declension (_pĭrus_ ＞ pẹra), became masculine, to conform to the usual _-us_ type: _fraxĭnus_ ＞ fraisnes, m.; _pīnus_ ＞ pins, m. Attracted by such words as these, _arbor_ became masculine. There were some other less important shifts.

1. _Juventus_, passing into the second declension, became
masculine (_ioven_); but we find also _ioventut_, f. _Laus_
became masculine in Provençal; _fin_, on the other hand, is
always feminine. _Mĕrŭla_ ＞ _merle_, m. _Correitz_, _linh_,
both m., occur beside _correia_ ＜ _corrĭgia_, _linha_ ＜
_līnea_. Other similar changes might be noted. Pr. _dia_ (also
_di_), like Latin _dīes_, is usually masculine.

90. Some nouns passed from the fourth to the second declension in the classic Latin period (_dŏmus_, _fīcus_); the rest doubtless followed in Vulgar Latin (_frūctus_,[82] _gradus_, _manus_). Fifth declension nouns in _-ies_ went over, for the most part, to the first declension:[83] _dīes_ ＞ dia, _facies_ ＞ fassa, _glacies_ ＞ glassa, _rabies_ ＞ rabia; but we find also di, fatz, glatz (ratge is probably French), following the third declension type. Fifth declension nouns which did not shift to the first came to be declined after the model of the third (_fides_, _res_, _spes_). The five declensions were therefore reduced to three, presumably in Vulgar Latin times. Among these there were some exchanges: polvera, vergena; cf. § 89, (1), (2), 1.

91. The use of cases became more and more restricted in Vulgar Latin, prepositional constructions taking the place of pure case distinction. At the beginning of the Romance period, nouns probably had, in unstudied speech, only two cases in constant use: a nominative and an accusative or accusative-ablative. These two cases were generally retained in Provençal, for the second and third declensions, until the literary period: we may call them _nominative_ and _objective_.

(1) The locative, which had almost vanished in classic Latin, lingered in Vulgar Latin only in names of places. It has left no sure traces in Provençal.

(2) The vocative, in classic Latin, was like the nominative for most words; in Vulgar Latin it probably disappeared, except in Church phrases, such as _mī dŏmĭne_. In Provençal we find the nominative regularly used in address (chanzọs, companh, emperaire, ioglars, Papiols), although the objective occasionally occurs in its stead (barọns pl., ioglar malastrüc, trachọr).

(3) The genitive, in the popular language, was little by little replaced by other constructions--commonly by the ablative with _de_ or by the dative; the beginnings of this substitution may be observed as early as Plautus. Among Provençal nouns--aside from such learned forms as ancianọr, christianọr, companhọr, paianọr, parentọr--we find remnants of the genitive only in a few compound words, as diiǫus ＜ _dīe Jŏvis_, and in the standing phrase ẹs mestięr ＜ _est ministĕrii_.

(4) The dative, which in most words had the same ending as the ablative, came to be replaced, in the greater part of the Empire, by the accusative with _ad_; this construction, too, goes back as far as Plautus. Provençal nouns retain no traces of the dative.

(5) The ablative, after the fall of final m (§ 55, M) and the loss of quantitive distinctions in unstressed syllables (§ 21), differed little or not at all from the accusative in the singular of nearly all nouns: _causăm_ _causā_, _dōnŭm_ _dōnō_, _patrĕm_ _patrĕ_, _frūctŭm_ _frūctū_, _dīĕm_ _dīē_. Furthermore, some prepositions (especially _in_) were used both with the accusative and with the ablative. It was inevitable, then, that the two cases should be confounded in the singular, and we have evidence of such confusion as early as the first century of our era; this led gradually to a substitution of the accusative for the ablative in the plural, the accusative plural being somewhat commoner and frequently simpler than the ablative. We may, therefore, take the accusative as the basis of the Provençal objective, remembering, however, that this accusative has been more or less blended with the ablative.

(6) The two-case declension remained theoretically in use in Provençal literature through the 14th century; but in texts later than the 12th, cases are often confused. From the spoken language the declension disappeared, in the west (as in Catalan), before the literary period; in the centre and east, probably in the 12th century; in the north, in the 13th. The case preserved was usually the objective, but sometimes the nominative. Some nouns in _-aire_ _-adọr_ kept both forms, with a differentiation of meaning.

92. In the discussion of declensions some phonetic peculiarities must not be overlooked:--

(1) In the nom. pl. of the 2d declension, a stressed ẹ, followed in the next syllable by final -ị, would regularly give ị (cf. § 27, 1); but the ẹ is preserved by the analogy of the nom. and obj. sg. and the obj. pl.: _capĭllī_ ＞ cabẹl, _mĭssī_ ＞ mẹs, _quētī_ ＞ quẹt, _sērī_ ＞ sẹr. We do, however, find cabil, and (perhaps by analogy) auzil ＜ _aucĕllī_.

(2) In the nom. pl. of the 2d declension, a c or g before the final -ị would regularly be palatalized (cf. § 55, C, G); but it is preserved from palatalization by the analogy of the other three forms: _amīcī_ ＞ amic, _lŏngī_ ＞ lonc.

(3) For the development of a t between a palatal or an n and a final s, see § 82, S: _annos_ ＞ anz, _fīlios_ ＞ filz.

(4) For the simplification of final scs, sts to cs, ts, see § 78, 2: ✱_bŭscus?_ ＞ bǫcs, _trīstes_ ＞ tritz.

(5) For the history of _-arius_ and _-tōrius_, see § 23, 1 and § 73, Ry, 1.

93. (1) Nouns whose objective singular ended in s were invariable in the earlier part of the literary period; _bracchium_ ＞ bratz, _cŏrpus_ ＞ cǫrs, _imperatrīcem_ ＞ emperairitz, _fascem_ ＞ fais, _latus_ ＞ latz, _lūcem_ ＞ lütz, _mĭssum_ ＞ mẹs, _nasum_ ＞ nas, _ŏpus_ ＞ ǫps, _ŭrsum_ ＞ ọrs, _pĭscem_ ＞ pẹis, _pĕctus_ ＞ pęitz, _prĕtium_ ＞ prętz, _tĕmpus_ ＞ tems, _vĕrsum_ ＞ vęrs, _vīsum_ ＞ vis, _vōcem_ ＞ vọtz. Later, however, a plural (originally obj. pl.) was made for such words by adding -es, generally at a time when final ts had been reduced to s (§ 64): brasses, cǫrses, mẹsses, pẹisses, vęrses; examples occur as early as the end of the 12th century.

(2) Other invariable nouns are midons, sidons, and often laus and rẹs; the last two sometimes have an objective lau, rẹ. Midons comes from the Church Latin _mī dŏmĭne_, which was popularized by the substitution of the Provençal don for _dŏmĭne_ and the addition of the nom. -s; the term was transferred from religious to feudal, and thence to amatory use, and came to mean ‘my lady.’ _Mi domina_ was common in Church Latin. Sidons is formed on the model of midons.

(3) For nouns in tš, see § 63, (1): ✱_disdūctum_ ＞ desdüg, _frūctum_ ＞ früch, _gaudium_ ＞ gaug, _nŏctem_ ＞ nuech. Such words were very often written in the plural with _-gz_, which was pronounced either ts or tš. The pronunciation ts is attested by such rhymes as _malfagz_: _alumenatz_.

94. Infinitives used substantively conformed to the 2d declension type: lauzars lauzar (like fǫcs fǫc), rire-s rire (like fabre-s fabre): see § 96. The same thing is true of masculine post-verbal nouns: (getar) gętz gęt, (guidar) guitz guit, (lansar) lans (invariable).

FIRST DECLENSION.

95. This declension came to include a part of the fifth and also some neuter plurals of the second and third. With the exception of dia (nearly always masculine) and of a few learned words, it contained only feminine nouns. As the nominative, accusative, and ablative singular early became identical, leaving only one form in the singular, the plural forms were reduced to one, the accusative crowding out the nominative; this substitution, which must have been begun before the Provençal period, was doubtless helped by the identity of nominative and accusative plural in feminine nouns of the third declension. _Causa_ will serve as a model:--

_causa_ ＞ causa
_causam_ ＞ causa
_causæ_ ✱_causas_ ＞ causas
_causas_ ＞ causas

1. _Dia_ sometimes has a nom. sg. _dias_, following the example
of other masculine nouns.

2. Many feminine proper names, in Gaul and elsewhere, developed
a Low Latin declension _-a_ _-āne(m)_ or _-a_ _-ēne(m)_, as
_Anna_ _Annāne_. Provençal has few traces of this inflection.
The word _putana_ ＜?_pūtĭda_ + _ānem_ + _a_ may be a remnant
of it. Cf. Meyer-Lübke, _Gram._, II, p. 27; E. Philipon, _Les
accusatifs en_ -on _et en_ -ain, _Rom._, XXXI, 201.

SECOND DECLENSION.

96. This declension came to include the fourth. With the exception of mas, ‘hand’ (generally feminine), it contained only masculine nouns. The different types may be illustrated by _fŏcus_, _dōnum_, _faber_:--

_fŏcus_ ＞ fǫcs _dōnum_ ✱_dōnus_ ＞ dọns _faber_ ＞ faure fabre fabres

_fŏcum_ ＞ fǫc _dōnum_ ＞ dọn _fabrum_ ＞ fabre

_fŏcī_ ＞ fǫc _dōna_ ✱_dōnī_ ＞ dọn _fabrī_ ＞ fabre

_fŏcos_ ＞ fǫcs _dōna_ ✱_dōnos_ ＞ dọns _fabros_ ＞ fabres

For the c of _fŏcī_, see § 92, (2). For ✱_dŏnus_, etc., see § 89 (1). Nom. fabre is due to the analogy of the other three cases; the s of fabres is borrowed from the prevailing fǫcs type.

1. Neuters which long preserved their gender often have no
_-s_ in the nom. sg.: _segle_ or _segles_. Nouns in _-age_
from _-aticum_ commonly have no _-s_: _corage_, _damnage_,
_message_, _senhorage_; but forms with _-s_ occur also. Learned
nouns in _-i_ from _-ium_ regularly have no _-s_: _breviari_,
_emperi_, _iuzizi_, _testimoni_. Post-verbal nouns, on the
other hand, usually take the nom. -s: _albires_, _blasme-s_,
_consires_, _desires_ (cf. § 94). By the analogy of the
_fabre-s_, _segle-s_, _blasme-s_ types, many masculines in _-e_
sometimes drop the _-s_: _clergue-s_, _diable-s_, _morgue-s_,
_oncle-s_, _poble-s_. _Maestre_, _prestre_ regularly have no
_-s_.

2. Most proper names are declined like common nouns: _Arnautz_
_Arnaut_, _Boecis_ _Boeci_, _Enrics_ _Enric_, _Lozoics_
_Lozoic_, _Peire-s_ _Peire_. Many proper names, however,
developed in Gaul and elsewhere, from the 9th century on, a Low
Latin declension _-us_ _-ōne(m)_, as _Petrus_ _Petrōnis_ (cf.
§ 95, 2): hence _Carle-s_ _Carló_, _Peire-s_ _Peiró_, etc.; so
_Bergonhs_ _Bergonhó_, etc.

3. _Mas_, being usually feminine, has a nom. pl. _mas_.

4. For _pagadi_, _salvi_, _soli_, etc., and _beill_, _peccah_,
_efanh_, etc., see § 51, 1.

THIRD DECLENSION.

97. This declension absorbed a part of the fifth: cf. § 90.

98. Nouns whose stem was different in the nominative and the accusative singular, reconstructed the nominative to correspond to the accusative, the new form being similar to the original genitive: _papĭlio_ _papiliōnem_ ＞ _papiliōnis_ _papiliōnem_, _pēs_ _pĕdem_ ＞ _pĕdis_ _pĕdem_. The change began in the Vulgar Latin period. Exceptions to the rule are names of persons, unless they ended in _-ans_ or _-ens_: _nĕpos_ _nepōtem_ ＞ nęps nebọt; but _amans_ _amantem_ ＞ ✱_amantis_ _amantem_ ＞ amáns amán.

1. _Carnis_ for _caro_ is used by classic writers. _Grūis_ for
_grūs_ occurs in the _Appendix Probi_ III, belonging perhaps
to the 3d century. _Papiliōnis_, _pĕdis_, _travis_ = _trabs_,
and some others are found in the 8th century _Glossary of
Reichenau_.

99. Masculine nouns of the third declension, early in the Provençal period, made their nominative plural conform to the second declension type, thus distinguishing it from the objective plural: _pater_ _patrem_ _patres_ _patres_ ＞ paire paire paire paires (cf. Old French and Italian). Feminines, on the other hand, kept the nominative plural in -s: _mater_ _matrem_ _matres_ _matres_ ＞ maire maire maires maires.

100. A few neuter nouns, becoming masculine in Vulgar Latin, developed distinctively masculine forms in the singular: _gĕnus_ _gĕnus_ ＞ ✱_gĕneris_ ✱_gĕnĕrem_ ＞ genres genre; so _fŭlgur_ (＞ _fŭlger_) ＞ ✱_fŭlgĕrem_ ＞ fọuzer. Most neuters, however, kept in the singular their original stem: _sēmen_ ＞ sẹm, _tĕmpus_ ＞ tems. But those in _-men_ regularly, and those in _-r_ sometimes, took an -s in the nominative singular: _flūmen_ _flūmen_ ＞ flüms flüm, _marmor_ _marmor_ ＞ marme-s marme; cǫr, in the literary language, usually has no nominative -s. In the plural most neuters brought their forms into harmony with the masculine type, but those in _-us_ kept the -s throughout: (_caput_ >) _capus_ ✱_capum_ _capĭta_ _capĭta_ ＞ caps cap cap caps, _cŏr_ _cŏr_ _cŏrda_ _cŏrda_ ＞ cǫr cǫr cǫr cǫrs, _nōmen_ _nōmen_ _nōmĭna_ _nōmĭna_ ＞ nọms nọm nọm nọms; but _cŏrpus_ _cŏrpus_ _cŏrpŏra_ _cŏrpŏra_ ＞ cǫrs cǫrs cǫrs cǫrs. _Mare_, becoming feminine, was declined thus: mars mar mars mars.

1. _Gĕnus_ also became _ges_, which was used as an adverb.

101. The third declension comprises three principal types: (1) nouns which in Latin had no difference of stem or of accent between the nominative and the accusative singular; (2) those which had a difference of stem but not of accent; (3) those which had a difference of accent.

(1) Nouns with no difference of stem or of accent:--

MASCULINE

_canis_ ＞ cas _pater_ ＞ paire-s _sōl_ ＞ sọ-s
_canem_ ＞ ca _patrem_ ＞ paire _sōlem_ ＞ sọ
_canes_ ＞ ca _patres_ ＞ paire _sōles_ ＞ sọl
_canes_ ＞ cas _patres_ ＞ paires _sōles_ ＞ sọls

FEMININE

_fīnis_[84] ＞ fis _mater_ ＞ maire _fĭdes_ ＞ fẹs
_fīnem_ ＞ fi _matrem_ ＞ maire _fĭdem_ ＞ fẹ
_fīnes_ ＞ fis _matres_ ＞ maires _fĭdes_ ＞ fẹs
_fīnes_ ＞ fis _matres_ ＞ maires _fĭdes_ ＞ fẹs

1. Masculine nouns of this type which etymologically had no -s
in the nom. sg., often took one, even in the earliest times.

2. _Laus_ and _res_ were often invariable, but were sometimes
declined like _sols_ and _fes_.

(2) Nouns with a difference of stem but not of accent:--

MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER

_pōns_ ✱_pŏntis_ ＞ ponz _pars_ ✱_partis_ ＞ partz _lūmen_ ＞ lüm-s
_pŏntem_ ＞ pon _partem_ ＞ part _lūmen_ ＞ lüm
_pŏntes_ ＞ pon _partes_ ＞ partz _lūmĭna_ ＞ lüm
_pŏntes_ ＞ ponz _partes_ ＞ partz _lūmĭna_ ＞ lüms

NAMES OF PERSONS

_cŏmes_ ＞ coms _hŏmo_ ＞ om
_cŏmĭtem_ ＞ comte _hŏmĭnem_ ＞ ome omne[85]
_cŏmĭtes_ ＞ comte _hŏmĭnes_ ＞ ome omne
_cŏmĭtes_ ＞ comtes _hŏmĭnes_ ＞ omes omnes

1. For other neuter types, see § 100.

2. _Om_ later developed an inflection _oms_ _om_ _om_ _oms_.

3. _Lex_, _rex_ became _leis_ _lei_ _leis_ _leis_, _reis_ _rei_
_rei_ _reis_.

(3) Nouns with a difference of accent:--

MASCULINE FEMININE

_sĕrmo_ ✱_sermōnis_ ＞ sermọs _ratio_ ✱_ratiōnis_ ＞ razǫs
_sermōnem_ ＞ sermọ _ratiōnem_ ＞ razọ
_sermōnes_ ＞ sermọ _ratiōnes_ ＞ razọs
_sermōnes_ ＞ sermọs _ratiōnes_ ＞ razọs

NAMES OF PERSONS IN -ANS, -ENS

_amans_ ✱_amantis_ ＞ amáns _parens_ ✱_parĕntis_ ＞ paréns
_amantem_ ＞ amán _parĕntem_ ＞ parén
_amantes_ ＞ amán (f. amáns) _parĕntes_ ＞ parén
(f. paréns)
_amantes_ ＞ amáns _parĕntes_ ＞ paréns

NAMES OF PERSONS NOT IN -ANS, -ENS

_amātor_ ＞ amaire _sĕnior_ ＞ sęnher _mŭlier_ ＞ mọler
_amatōrem_ ＞ amadọr _seniōrem_ ＞ senhọr _muliĕ́rem_[86]＞ molhęr
_amatōres_ ＞ amadọr _seniōres_ ＞ senhọr _muliĕ́res_ ＞ molhęrs
_amatōres_ ＞ amadọrs _seniōres_ ＞ senhọrs _muliĕ́res_ ＞ molhęrs

_servītor_ ＞ servire _baro_ ＞ bar _sŏror_ ＞ sǫrre sǫr[87]
_servitōrem_ ＞ servidọr _barōnem_ ＞ barọ _sorōrem_ ＞ sorọr
_servitōres_ ＞ servidọr _barōnes_ ＞ barọ _sorōres_ ＞ sorọrs
_servitōres_ ＞ servidọrs _barōnes_ ＞ barọs _sorōres_ ＞ sorọrs

1. After the same pattern as _senher_, we have pastor
_pastōrem_ ＞ _pastre_ _pastór_, etc.; after the _bar_ pattern,
✱_companio_ (_Einf._, § 43) ✱_companiōnem_ ＞ _companh_
_companhó_, ✱_fĭllo_ (Körting) ✱_fillōnem_? ＞ _fel_ _feló_,
_glŭtto_ (= _glūto_) _gluttōnem_ ＞ _glot_ _glotó_, _latro_
_latrōnem_ ＞ _laire_ _lairó_, _lĕo_ (treated like the name of a
person) _leōnem_ ＞ _leu_ _leó_, etc. On the model of _amaire_,
_servire_, we find _trobaire_ _trobadór_, etc., _iauzire_
_iauzidór_, etc.; and, for the second and third conjugations,
_teneire_ _tenedór_, etc., _beveire_ _bevedór_, etc. The
inflection of such words became much confused, and some of them
eventually developed double declensions: _bars_ _bar_ _bar_
_bars_, _barós_ _baró_ _baró_ _barós_; _emperaires_ _emperaire_
_emperaire_ _emperaires_, _emperadórs_ _emperadór_ _emperadór_
_emperadórs_. Some proper names follow the _bar_ model: _Bret_
_Bretó_, _Folc-s_ (_Folques_) _Folcó_ (later _Folcós_ _Folcó_),
_Gasc_ _Gascó_, _Uc_ _Ugó_, (later _Ucs_ _Uc_); cf. § 96, 2.

ADJECTIVES.

102. What has been said concerning the inflection of nouns applies also to adjectives: see §§ 91-101. For pronominal adjectives see §§ 114 ff.

1. The operation of phonetic laws sometimes results in a
difference in stem between the m. and the f.: _bos_ _bona_,
_larcs_ _larga_, _nutz_ _nuda_, _preon_ _preonda_; _mut_
_muda_, _prezat_ _prezada_. For _pauc_ _pauca_, _rauc_ _rauca_,
see § 65, C, 1. For _-arius_ _-aria_, _-tōrius_ _-tōria_, see §
23, 1; § 73, Ry, 1.

2. Adjectives in -s or -š are undeclinable in the m.
sg.: _glorios_, _perfieg_. Those in -s originally had no
inflectional ending in the m. pl., but later they sometimes
added -es: _divers_ _diverses_, _frances_ _franceses_. For the
pl. of those in š, see § 93, (3).

103. We must recognize two classes of adjectives: (1) those which in Latin distinguish the feminine from the masculine; (2) those which do not.

1. Adjectives like _acer_, which, though inflected after the 3d
declension type, could distinguish the m. from the f. in the
nom. sg., fell into one or the other--usually the first--of
the following classes (_agre_ _agra_, _alegre_ _alegra_;
_terrestre_ _terrestre_).

(1) Masculine and feminine different:--

MASCULINE FEMININE
_bĕllus_ ＞ bęls _bĕlla_ ＞ bęlla
_bĕllum_ ＞ bęl _bĕllam_ ＞ bęla
_bĕlli_ ＞ bęl _bĕllæ_ ✱_beĕllas_ ＞ bęlas
_bĕllos_ ＞ bęls _bĕllas_ ＞ bęlas

_pauper_ ＞ paubre-s _paupĕra_ ＞ paubra
_paupĕrum_ ＞ paubre _paupĕram_ ＞ paubra
_paupĕi_ ＞ paubre _paupĕræas_ ＞ paubras
_paupĕros_ ＞ paubres _paupĕras_ ＞ paubras

(2) Masculine and feminine alike:--

MASCULINE FEMININE
_gentīlis_ ＞ gentils _gentīlis_ ＞ gentils
_gentīlem_ ＞ gentil _gentīlem_ ＞ gentil
_gentīles_ ＞ gentil _gentīles_ ＞ gentils
_gentīles_ ＞ gentils _gentīles_ ＞ gentils

1. Some adjectives of the second class were attracted into the
first either in Vulgar Latin or in Provençal; this happened
to all adjectives in _-és_, _-able_, _-ible_, and also to
_comun_, _dous_, _fol_, _freble_, _graile_, _len_, _mol_,
_noble_, _paubre_ (early), _rude_, _trist_: _cortes_ _cortesa_,
_durable_ _durabla_; _comuna_, _doussa_, etc. Some kept both
inflections: _dolens_, _dolens_ or _dolenta_; _grans_, _grans_
or _granda_, etc.

104. In impersonal constructions we frequently find a nominative singular without -s, which is apparently a survival of the Latin neuter: _m’es bel_ (_greu_, _parven_, _semblan_, etc.) _que_.… But the form with -s sometimes occurs in the same constructions: _m’es greus que_.…

1. For _es mestier_, see § 91, (3).

105. Most adverbs of manner were formed by adding -men (-ment, -mens, or -menz) to the feminine singular of the adjective: belamen. These adverbs were originally ablative phrases: _serēna mĕnte_, etc. In Provençal the specific meaning of the -men was forgotten, but the two parts might still be separated by an intervening word: ẹpsa… ment. When two adverbs in -men were used together, the ending was generally affixed to only one, oftener the first. Bona and mala could be used as adverbs without the suffix.

1. For the adverbial ending -s, see § 82, S, 3.

COMPARISON.

106. Adjectives and adverbs regularly formed their comparative by prefixing plüs to the positive, and their superlative by prefixing the definite article to the comparative: cara, plüs cara, la plüs cara. This method of comparison goes back to Vulgar Latin times.

1. ‘Than’ is expressed by _que_ and _de_.

107. Some adjectives preserved their old comparative in _-ior_. These comparatives had an inflection similar to that of sęnher: cf. § 101, (3) and § 101, (3), 1.

POSITIVE COMPARATIVE

_altus_: aut ---- aussọr
✱_bellātus_ = _bĕllus_: ---- bellaire bellázer-s bellazọr
_gĕnĭtus_: gen génser-s gensọr
✱_grĕvis_ = _gravis_: gręu gręuger ----
_grŏssus_: grǫs gruęysser ----
_laið_: lai láiger ----
_largus_: larc ---- largọr
_lĕvis_: lęu lęuger ----
_lŏngus_: lonc ---- lonhọr
(_grandis_): (gran) máier maiọr
(_bŏnus_): (bon) męlher melhọr
(_paucus_): (pauc) mẹnre-s menọr
_nūgālis_: ---- ---- nüalhọr
(_malus_): (mal) pęier peiọr
(_mŭltus_): (mọlt) ---- plüsọr[88]
_sŏrdĭdus_: sorde sordẹier sordeiọr

108. The following neuter comparatives were used as adverbs: gensẹis gensẹs gensẹtz (＜ génser influenced by longẹis, sordẹis); longẹis longẹitz ＜?✱longĭtius (＜ longĭter + lŏngius); mais ＜ _magis_; męlhs ＜ _mĕlius_; mẹns ＜ _mĭnus_; pęitz ＜ _pĕjus_; sordẹis ＜ _sordĭdius_; viatz ＜ _vivacius_. Mais, męlhs, mẹns, pęitz were used also as neuter pronouns. Viatz lost its comparative sense.

109. A few adjectives, most or all of them learned, preserved the old superlative form with an intensive sense: altisme, carisme, pęsme, prǫsme, santisme.

NUMERALS.

110. The cardinal numerals are:--

ün
dọs
trẹs
quatre
cinc
sęis
sęt
uęg
nǫu
dętz
ọnze
dọtze
trẹtze
quatọrze
quinze
sętze, sędze
dętz e sęt
dętz e uęg
dętz e nǫu
vint, vin
vint e ün
vint e dọs
trẹnta
quaranta
cinquanta
sessanta
setanta
quatre vint
nonanta
cent, cen
dozent
tresent
quatre cen
cinc cens (de)
mil
dọs milia
trẹs melia
quatre mila
cinc millięrs (de)
cent miria

111. The first two numbers were inflected as follows:--

ü(n)s üna düi dọi dọas dọs
ü(n) üna dọs (düi) dọas dọs

Düi dọi are from Vulgar Latin _dŭī_ = _dŭo_; dọs is from _dŭos_, dọas from _dŭas_. Trẹs has a form trẹi (originally nom. m.), patterned after düi, and a form trẹis, which seems to be a cross between trẹs and trẹi. For the dialect forms of ọnze--sętze, see § 76, (1), Ndc´, and § 80, Dc´. Cen, multiplied by another number, took a plural form when used substantively; when used adjectively, it generally did not, but we find dozentas with a feminine noun. Mil had four plurals, milia miria melia mila; millięrs is a noun.

1. As an example of a longer compound numeral, we have _cen e
quatre vint e ueg_.

2. From _ambo_ we have the obj. forms, m. and f., _ams_,
_ambas_. _Ambo_ combined with _dŭī_ (_dŭos_ _dŭas_), and
perhaps influenced by Pr. _ab_ (§ 65, P, 2), had this
inflection:

_amdui_ _andui_ _abdui_ _ambedui_ _amdoas_
_amdos_ _andos_ _abdos_ _ambedos_ _amdoas_

112. The ordinal numerals had separate forms for the two genders; the masculine forms followed the second declension type, the feminine forms, the first declension. After 5th, they were made by adding to the cardinal numeral the originally distributive ending _-ēnus_ _-ēna_.

primięr, primięra
segọn(t), segọnda
tęrz, tęrza
quart, quarta
quint, quinta
seizẹ(n), seizẹna
setẹ(n), setẹna
ochẹ(n), ochẹna
novẹ(n), novẹna
dezẹ(n), dezẹna
onzẹ(n), onzẹna
dozẹ(n), dozẹna
vintẹ(n), vintẹna
centẹ(n), centẹna
milẹ(n), milẹna

113. Beside primięr we find premięr prümier promięr (§ 44, 1, 3), and also prim and primeiran; for the developments of the ending -ięr, see § 23, 1 and § 73, Ry, 1. Tęrz, tęrza regularly became tęrs, tęrsa (§ 73, Rty). Such forms as secọnda, tęrcia, sęxta, octava, nọna, dęcima are learned.

1. As an example of a compound ordinal numeral, we have
_vintena tersa_.

PRONOUNS.

114. Under this head will be treated not only pronouns and pronominal adjectives, but also articles.

115. In popular Latin the personal, possessive, and demonstrative pronouns and adjectives had two sets of forms, according as they were accented or unaccented (§ 19). _Ille_, when stressed and used pronominally, became a disjunctive personal pronoun of the third person; when unstressed and used pronominally, it furnished the conjunctive forms of the third person; when unstressed and used adjectively, it developed into a definite article. _Ipse_ had similar uses. These differentiations must have begun in Vulgar Latin times.

116. The declension of _ĭlle_ was considerably altered in Vulgar Latin. The neuter _ĭllud_ disappeared, being replaced by _ĭlium_. Through the influence of _quī_ _cūjus_ _cūī_, ✱_ĭllī_ _illūjus_[89] _illūī_[89] came to be used beside _ĭlle_ _illīus_ _ĭllī_. The feminine had, beside _illīus_ _ĭllī_, a genitive and dative _ĭllæ_; through the analogy of _illūjus_ _illūī_, _ĭllæ_ was expanded into _illæjus_[89] _illæi_.[89] _Illīus_ then went out of use. In the plural, _illōrum_ (which in some regions, by the analogy of _illūjus_ _illūī_, had a form ✱_illūrum_) crowded out _illārum_; this _illōrum_ came to be used also as a dative.

_Ipse_ and _ĭste_ followed in the main the same course as _ĭlle_.

ARTICLES.

117. The indefinite article comes from _ūnus_, which seems to have been occasionally so used even in classic Latin:--

ü(n)s üna
ü(n) üna

118. (1) The definite article comes from unaccented _ĭlle_, which, being used as a proclitic, regularly lost its first syllable (§ 19). _Ille_ (✱_ĭllī_), _ĭllum_, _ĭllī_, _ĭllos_, _ĭlla_, _ĭllas_ became respectively le (li), lo, li or lhi,[90] los, la, las. Le, lo, li, lhi, la frequently elided their vowel before another vowel (l’an, l’arma), becoming l or lh. Furthermore, le, lo, li, lhi, los, in the intertonic position after a vowel (vé lo páire), regularly lost their vowel (vẹl páire)[91]; and, by analogy, la and las were sometimes reduced to l and ls. We have, then, beside the full forms, the proclitics l, lh, and the enclitics l, lh, ls. Inasmuch as l might be vocalized before a dental,[92] the enclitics l and ls sometimes became u and us (a͡u portęr, e͡uz dias antix).

(2) The particles e and que, with the enclitic l, formed combinations ẹl and quẹl. Quẹl, being understood as _qu’el_, gave rise to a form ẹl.

(3) In the f. nom. sg. there is a form li or lhi, which is hard to explain. The most likely theory is that when the masculine _quī_ took the place of the feminine _quæ_ (see § 133), the masculine ✱_ĭllī_ came to be used beside _ĭlla_,[93] for the feminine. The Provençal feminine li (lhi) which resulted was strongly supported by the analogy of a feminine possessive mi, beside ma (see § 127).[94]

(4) The regular forms are, therefore, the following:--

MASCULINE FEMININE
Sg. {_nom._: lẹ li l ẹl la li lhi l lh
{_obj._: lọ l u ẹl la l

Pl. {_nom._: li lhi l lh las
{_obj._: lọs ls us las ls

In many texts the objective forms lo, los, ls are used in the nominative.

1. The m. obj. sg. _le_, obj. pl. _les_, which occur in a few
texts, are doubtless French. So is the enclitic form _s_ for
_ls_ or _us_: _de s_, _entre s_, _e s_.

2. The enclitic forms combine as follows with the prepositions
_a_, _con_, _de_, _en_, _entre_, _iosta_, _per_, _sus_, and
with the conjunctions _e_, _ni_, _o_, _que_, _si_: _al_ _au_
_als_ _aus_, _col_, _del_ _deu_ _dels_ _deus_ (_des_), _enl_
_el_ _els_ _eus_, _entrels_, _iostal_, _pel_ _pels_, _sul_
_suls_; _eil_ (= _e lhi_) _el_ (= _e lo_), _nils_, _oill_ (=
_o lhi_), _quel_, _sil_. They combine freely with other words:
_eral_ (= _era le_), _fals_ (= _fa los_), etc.

119. In some southwestern and some southeastern dialects we find forms sọ, sọs, sa, sas, coming from _ĭpse_.

PERSONAL PRONOUNS.[95]

120. In Vulgar Latin _ĕgo_ lost its g (§ 55, G). The dative, _mĭhi_, was preserved only in its contracted form, _mī_. After the pattern of _mī_, ✱_tī_ and ✱_sī_ were created for the other persons.

121. Provençal has no nominative forms that are regularly unaccented. In the conjunctive forms of the third person (not reflexive), the direct object is distinguished from the indirect; elsewhere there is no such distinction.

CONJUNCTIVE FORMS.

122. Latin _mē_ ＞ mẹ, _mī_ ＞ mi, _nōs_ ＞ nọs; _tē_ ＞ tẹ, ✱_tī_ ＞ ti, _vōs_ ＞ vọs; _sē_ ＞ sẹ, ✱_sī_ ＞ si. Me mi, te ti, se si, used as proclitics before a vowel, or as enclitics after a vowel, were reduced to m, t, s: m’ama, t’apela, s’es; o͡m, be͡t, cosi͡s. Nọs and vọs, used as enclitics after a vowel, became respectively ns and us; que͡ns, no͡us; _sī vōs_ ＞ sius, later sieus (§ 32). The forms (all objective) for the first and second persons and for the third person reflexive are, then:--

FIRST PERSON SECOND PERSON THIRD PERSON (REFLEXIVE)
_Sg._: mẹ mi m tẹ ti t sẹ si s
_Pl._: nọs ns vọs us sẹ si s

The pronouns of the first and second persons could, of course,
be used reflexively.

123. The conjunctive forms of the third person (not reflexive) come in the main from the proclitic _ĭlle_: _ĭllī_, _ĭllum_, _illōrum_ (✱_illūrum_), _ĭllos_, _ĭlla_, _ĭllas_ became respectively li or lhi, lo, lọr (lür), lọs, la, las. When used proclitically or enclitically, under the conditions described in § 118, (1), li (lhi), lo, los were reduced to l (lh), l, ls; and l was sometimes vocalized. O ＜ _hŏc_ was employed also, meaning ‘it.’ The adverb _ĭnde_ became ẹnt ẹn n (and, through the analogy of me m, te t, se s, also ne), which was often used as a pronoun with the sense ‘of it’, ‘of them’, sometimes ‘of him’, ‘of her’; nọs ẹn ＞ nọn, vọs ẹn ＞ vọn. The adverb _hīc_ became i, meaning ‘here’ or ‘there,’ which served also as a dative pronoun, ‘to it,’ ‘to them’; it was then always an enclitic, forming a diphthong with a preceding vowel; it regularly took the place of li in the constructions lọi = lo li, lai = la li. The forms are:--

MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER

Sg. { _gen._: ẹnt ẹn n nẹ ẹnt ẹn n nẹ ẹnt ẹn n nẹ
{ _dat._: li lhi l lh i li lhi l lh i i
{ _acc._: lọ l u la lọ l ǫ

Pl. { _gen._: ẹnt ẹn n nẹ ẹnt ẹn n nẹ
{ _dat._: lọr lür lọr lür
{ _acc._: lọs ls las

1. _Les_ for _los_ is doubtless French. _Los_, _ls_ were
occasionally used for m. _lor_; _lors_, which occurs rarely for
_lor_, looks like a cross between _lor_ and _los_.

2. The following combinations illustrate the use of the
enclitic forms: _aura i_, _be i_, _e l_, _laissa n_, _no i_,
_qui ll_, _si ls_.

DISJUNCTIVE FORMS.

124. Vulgar Latin ✱_ĕo_ or ✱_ĕu_ ＞ ęu ięu (§ 30), which before an enclitic became ę ię (ę͡l, ię͡n). The other forms explain themselves. The nominative tü, from the beginning of the 13th century, was sometimes used for tẹ after prepositions; this use may have been suggested by the existence of lü = ‘him’; § 125, (1). Nọs + ẹn ＞ nọn, vọs + ẹn ＞ vọn.

FIRST PERSON SECOND PERSON THIRD PERSON
(REFLEXIVE)
Sg. { _nom._: ęu ięu ę- ię- tü
{ _obj._: mẹ mi tẹ (ti?) tü sẹ si

Pl. { _nom._: nọs vọs
{ _obj._: nọs vọs sẹ si

1. We find, besides, the French or borderland forms _ie_ _iou_
_iu_ _yo_ for _eu_ (_gi_ and _iey_ have been noted also), _mei_
_tei_ _sei_ for _me_ _te_ _se_.

125. The disjunctive pronouns of the third person (not reflexive) come from accented _ĭlle_, with the exception of ǫ from _hŏc_. _Illūi_, _illōrum_, _illæjus_, _illæi_ lost their first syllable, perhaps through elision after a vowel; _illūjus_ disappeared. _Ille_, ✱_ĭllī_ gave ẹl ẹlh, il ilh; ẹl sometimes vocalized its l. _Illūī_ became lüi, in some dialects reduced to lü. _Illum_ became ẹl ẹlh. _Illōrum_ (✱_illūrum_) gave lọr (lür). _Illos_ became ẹls (often ẹus) ẹlhs. _Illa_, _ĭllam_ both gave ẹla ẹlha. _Illæjus_ became lęis lięis (in some dialects reduced to lięs).[96] _Illæi_ gave lęi (dialectically lę) lięi. _Illas_ became ẹlas ẹlhas.

(2) In the feminine singular nominative there is, beside ẹla ẹlha, a form ilh il. This is probably to be explained, like the feminine article lhi li, as coming from the masculine nominative ✱ĭllī introduced into the feminine, and supported by the feminine possessive mi: see § 118, (3).

(3) Some dialects preserve the final -i of ẹli (m. pl. nom.) and ilhi ili (f. sg. nom.): see § 51, 1.

(4) Occasionally the conjunctive li (f. sg. obj.) and lo (neuter sg. nom.) were used as disjunctive forms. And sometimes the masculine lüi lü was used for the feminine.

(5) The forms are, therefore, the following:--

MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER
Sg. { _nom._: ẹl ẹu ẹlh il ilh ẹla ẹlha ilh il ilhi ili ẹl lọ
{ _obj._: lüi lü ẹl ẹlh lęis lięis lięs lęi lięi ǫ
lę ẹla li lüi lü

Pl. { _nom._: il ilh ẹl ẹlh ẹli ẹlas ẹlhas
{ _obj._: lọr lür ẹls ẹus ẹlhs lọr lür ẹlas ẹlhas

In many texts the objective forms ẹls ẹlhs, lęis lęi are used in the nominative. We then find occasionally a new objective, ẹlses.

POSSESSIVES.

126. Beside _mĕus_ _mĕa_, _tŭus_ _tŭa_, _sŭas_ _sŭa_, there existed in popular Latin the shorter forms ✱_mĕs_? ✱_ma_, ✱_tŭs_ ✱_ta_, _sŭs_ _sa_. Of the two forms _vĕster_ and _vŏster_, only the latter was used. To supply the lack of a third person possessive denoting a plural possessor, _illōrum_ came to be employed as a possessive.

SINGULAR POSSESSIVE.

127. (1) The primarily atonic possessives come from the shorter Latin forms. The original masculine singular forms of the first person were displaced by mọs mọ, made on the analogy of tọs tọ, sọs sọ, which come regularly from ✱_tŭs_ ✱_tŭm_, _sŭs_, _sŭm_; so in the objective plural we find mọs, corresponding to tọs ＜ ✱_tōs_, sọs ＜ _sōs_. _Mĕī_, _tŭī_, _sŭī_ gave męi, tọi tüi, sọi süi (§ 34), which, however, were often replaced by the objective forms. ✱_Ma_ ✱_mam_ ✱_mas_, ✱_ta_ ✱_tam_ ✱_tas_, _sa_ _sam_ _sas_ became ma mas, ta tas, sa sas; ma, ta, sa often elided their a before a vowel. The formation of _midons_ has been explained in § 91, (2); § 93, (2); § 118, (3): from it came a feminine singular possessive mi, and, by analogy, ti and si.

(2) The forms are:--

FIRST PERSON SECOND PERSON THIRD PERSON

Sg. { _nom._: mọs ma mi tọs ta ti sọs sa si
{ _obj._: mọ mọn ma mi tọ tọn ta ti sọ sọn sa si

Pl. { _nom._: me̯i mọs mas tọi tüi tọs tas sọi süi sọs sas
{ _obj._: mọs mas tọs tas sọs sas

They are generally used only adjectively, and without the definite article. In some early texts, however, tọs and sọs, preceded by the article, are used substantively.

128. (1) The primarily tonic possessives come from the longer Latin forms. _Mĕus_ _mĕum_ _mĕi_ _mĕos_ ＞ męus męu męi męus, which regularly became mięus etc. (§ 30); an analogical form mięu is found beside mięi. In the feminine of the first person we have, instead of ✱męa, mięua and mia: the first of these two forms is evidently made up from the masculine; the second may be due partly to the analogy of mi, partly to a proclitic use of the word (§ 44, 4).[97] In the second and third persons the masculine forms are mainly, and the feminine forms partially, replaced by analogical formations based on the possessive of the first person; _tŭi_, _sŭi_, _tŭa_, _sŭa_, however, give regularly tọi tüi, sọi süi, tọa tua, sọa sua (§ 8).

(2) The forms follow, those of the third person (which correspond exactly to those of the second) being omitted:--

FIRST PERSON SECOND PERSON

Sg. {_nom._: męus mięus mia mięua tęus tięus tọa tua tięua tia
{_obj._: męu mięu mia mięua tęu tięu tọa tua tięua tia

Pl. {_nom._: męi mięi mięu mias mięuas tọi tüi tęi tọas tuas tięuas
tięi tięu tias
{_obj._: męus mięus mias mięuas tęus tięus tọas tuas tięuas
tias

They may be used adjectively or substantively, with or without the definite article.

1. We occasionally find a neuter sg. nom. form without final
_-s_: _lo mieu_.

PLURAL POSSESSOR.

129. _Nŏster_, _vŏster_ developed regularly after the _pauper_ model: § 103, (1). The masculine singular nominative often took an -s: cf. § 96; § 101, (1). Some southeastern dialects preserved the -i of nǫstri: cf. § 51, 1. Beside vǫstra we occasionally meet vǫstri, due to the analogy of feminine mi, ti, si.

FIRST PERSON SECOND PERSON THIRD PERSON

Sg. {_nom._: nǫstre-s nǫstra vǫstre-s vǫstra vǫstri lọr lür lọr lür
{_obj._: nǫstre nǫstra vǫstre vǫstra vǫstri lọr lür lọr lür

Pl. {_nom._: nǫstre nǫstri nǫstras vǫstre vǫstras lọr lür lọr lür
{_obj._: nǫstres nǫstras vǫstres vǫstras lọr lür lọr lür

These forms are used adjectively or substantively, with or without the definite article.

1. In later times _lor_ came to be inflected like a one-gender
adjective: § 103, (2).

DEMONSTRATIVES.

130. Latin _īdem_ went out of use. Latin _ĭs_ was preserved only in the phrase _ĭd ĭpsum_ (_ad ĭd ĭpsum_ ＞ adęs), and in the combination _ĕccum_, in which it ceased to be recognized, so that _ĕccu’_ was regarded as a synonym of _ĕcce_.

131. (1) The demonstrative particles _ĕcce_ and _ĕccu’_ were often prefixed to pronouns in Vulgar Latin. Being thus proclitically used, they frequently lost their first syllable (§ 19); sometimes, however, under the influence of _ac_ (as in _ac sīc_ ＞ aissi), they preserved it, assuming the vowel of _ac_: _ecce ĭlla_ ＞ aicẹla, _eccu’ ĭsta_ ＞ aquẹsta; cf. § 43, (2).

(2) The suffix _-met_ was used in Vulgar Latin as an intensive prefix. Its change of place was probably due to such phrases as _sēmet ĭpsum_, understood as _sē metĭpsum_. The _-t_, before a vowel, regularly gives -d- (_met-ĭpsum_ ＞ mẹdes); but we find, besides, -z- (＜ Lat. _d_), introduced perhaps through the analogy of _ĭd_ in _ĭd ĭpsum_ (✱_medĭpsum_ ＞ mezẹis); and also -t- (＜ Lat. _tt_), which may be the result of a combination of _met-_ and _ĭd-_ (_met-ĭd-ĭpsum_ ＞ ✱_metdĭpsu_ ＞ metẹis).

132. The pronouns preserved, either in their simple form or combined with a prefix, are the following:--

(1) Of _hīc_ only the neuter, _hŏc_, was kept _Hŏc_ ＞ ǫ; _ecce hŏc_ ＞ aiçǫ aissǫ, and çǫ so; _eccu’ hŏc_ ＞ aquŏ acŏ. All of these are invariable.

(2) _Ipse_ appears as ẹps ẹpsa, ẹus ẹussa, ẹis ẹissa (with a m. pl. ẹisses and a neuter ẹis); the last forms are the commonest; for the development of the _ps_, see § 79 and § 80, Ps. _Met-ĭpse_ gives (medips) medẹs, (metẹish) metẹis, and, more commonly, mezẹis (f. mezẹissa, neuter mezẹis); see § 131, (2). ✱_Met-ĭpsĭmus_ becomes medẹsme-s, mesẹsme-s, meẹsme-s (§ 65, D), with feminine forms in -a. Unaccented _ĭpsum_ is probably one source of the neuter sǫ: cf. § 132, (1). For the article (so, sa), see § 119.

(3) _Ille_, uncombined, developed into an article (§ 118) and a personal pronoun (§§ 123, 125), but went out of use as a demonstrative. Combined with _ecce_ and _eccu’_ it gave: aicẹl aissẹl, cẹl, sẹl; aquẹl. Echẹl (pronounced ekẹl?) seems to come from _eccu’ ĭlle_ with its original initial vowel preserved. _Ipse ĭlle_ perhaps gave rise also to a sẹl, which ultimately coincided with the form coming from _ecce ĭlle_. There is a neuter aicelo, perhaps aicẹl + ǫ. Cẹl will illustrate the inflection of all these words; the forms are to be explained like those of the disjunctive personal pronoun (§ 125):--

MASCULINE FEMININE

Sg. {_nom._: cẹl cẹu cẹlh cẹls[98] cẹla celha cil cilh cilha[99]
cellüi
{_obj._: cẹl cẹu cẹlh cellüi cẹla cẹlha celęi celęis
celięis cilh

Pl. {_nom._: cil cilh cẹlh cẹls[100] cẹlas cẹlhas
{_obj._: cẹls cẹlhs[101] cẹlas cẹlhas

(4) _Iste_ gave ẹst, ẹstz, ẹsta, ẹstas. _Ecce ĭste_ became aicẹst (not common) and cẹst sẹst; _eccu’ ĭste_ became aquẹst echẹst, and chẹst. Aquẹst will illustrate the inflection; the forms are to be explained like those of cẹl:--

MASCULINE FEMININE

Sg. {_nom._: aquẹst aquẹsta aquist aquisti
{_obj._: aquẹst aquẹsta

Pl. {_nom._: aquist aquisti aquẹstas
{_obj._: aquẹstz aquẹtz aquẹstas

INTERROGATIVES AND RELATIVES.

133. The interrogative and relative pronouns were confused and combined in Vulgar Latin, _quī_ taking the place of _quĭs_, and _quĭd_ gradually encroaching on _quŏd_. Furthermore, the masculine forms were used instead of the feminine, which disappeared. We have in Provençal no evidence of the survival of any other cases than the nominative, dative, and accusative singular and the nominative plural:--

MASCULINE AND FEMININE NEUTER

Sg. {_nom._: _quī_ ＞ qui _quĭd_ ＞ que, (_before vowel_) quez
{_dat._: _cūī_ ＞ cüi _cūī_ ＞ cüi
{_acc._: _quĕm_ ＞ que _quĭd_ ＞ que, (_before vowel_) quez

Pl. _nom._: _quī_ ＞ qui _quæ_ ＞ que

The distinction between que ＜ _quĕm_, que quez ＜ _quĭd_, and que ＜ _quæ_ could not be maintained; we have, then, simply three forms: a nom. sg. or pl. qui, a nom.-acc. sg. or pl. quẹ (quẹz), a dat. sg. or pl. cüi (sometimes written _qui_).

134. We have also _qualis_, which came to be inflected like fezẹls: see § 103, (2); the feminine singular, however, often dropped its -s, and sometimes took the ending -a (cal, cala). _Quīnam_ apparently became quina, which, understood as a feminine form, developed a masculine, quin. There seems to have been also a ✱_quīniam_ (cf. _quŏniam_?), which gave quinh, quinha. Cf. D. Behrens in the _Zeitschrift für französische Sprache_, XVII, ii, 67-8, footnote. The phrase _de ŭnde_ became dọnt, dọn, which was often used with the meaning ‘of which’, ‘of whom’.

135. (1) In Provençal the interrogative pronouns are: qui, ‘who’ or ‘whom’; que quez, ‘what’; cüi, ‘to whom’ or ‘whom’, ‘to what’ or ‘what’ (obj.); cals (either alone or preceded by the definite article, inflected as in § 134), ‘which’; quin quinh, quina quinha, ‘which’. Cals is used also as an adjective.

(2) The relative pronouns are: qui, ‘one who’, indefinite (used also, in early texts and in southwestern Languedoc, as the regular relative pronoun for persons); que quez, ‘who’ or ‘whom’, ‘which’; cüi, ‘whom’, ‘which’ (generally used as indirect object of a verb, or after a preposition); lo cals (inflected as in § 134), ‘who’ (‘whom’), ‘which’; don dont, ‘of which’, ‘of whom’.

INDEFINITE PRONOUNS AND ADJECTIVES.

136. The following words call for special mention:--

(1) Alcüs ＜ ✱_alĭqu’ ūnus_ = _alĭquī ūnus_, ‘someone’. Inflection: alcüs, alcü(n); alcüna.

(2) Alquant ＜ _aliquantum_, _aliquanti_, ‘somewhat’, ‘some’; diminutive, alquantet.

(3) Alques alque ＜ _alĭquĭd_, used as an invariable neuter pronoun or adverb, ‘something’, ‘somewhat’. The -s form, which originally developed before a vowel, was preferred because of the analogy of other neuter pronouns and adverbs. The preservation of the e is due to association with quez que. Alque was sometimes used as an adjective.

(4) Als al au, used as an invariable neuter pronoun, ‘something else’. Al (au) may have been detached from alques, understood as al ques. Meyer-Lübke, however, takes it, as well as Old French el, from ✱_alum_ = _aliud_: _Gram._, II, p. 649. Als owes its -s to the analogy of other neuter pronouns, such as alques, ẹis, mais, męlhs, mẹns, pęis, etc.

(5) Altre autre ＜ _alter_, ‘other’, pronoun and adjective. A dative ✱_altrūī_, following _illūī_, goes back to Vulgar Latin. The Provençal forms autrüs, autrü show the influence of alcüs and negüs; autri belongs to the southeastern dialects (cf. aquẹli, ẹli, nǫstri, tüti, etc.). Inflection:--

MASCULINE FEMININE

Sg. {_nom._: autre autres autrüs autra
{_obj._: autre autrüi autrü autra

Pl. {_nom._: autre autri autras
{_obj._: autres autras

(6) Altretals autretals ＜ _alter talis_; by dissimilation, atretals: by substitution of ai- (first syllable of aissi ＜ _ac sīc_) for atre-, aitals; by fusion of aitals and atretals, aitretals; through analogy of atressi, atrestals. Cf. § 74, 2. Inflection like that of cals (§ 134).

(7) Altretan atretan aitan atrestan etc. ＜ _alter_ + _tantum_: see altretals.

(8) Cada un ＜ κατά + _ūnum_,‘every one’. The Greek preposition κατά was introduced into the Latin territory, probably by Greek merchants, in stating prices: καθ᾽ἕνα = _cata ūnum_, κατά τρεῐς = _cata trēs_; hence cada ün, cada trẹi. Inflection: cada üs, cada ü(n); cada üna.

(9) Calacom qualacom qualaquom, ‘something’, ‘a little’, seems to be a Provençal compound of cal and acǫ (§ 132), the last syllable of which was perhaps understood as cọm cọ ＜ _quōmŏ_(_do_). Cf. quezacom below. There is a diminutive calacomet, which helped to maintain the m of calacom.

(10) Cals que quals que, cal que qual que, ‘whoever’, is a Provençal compound.

(11) Cant quant can quan ＜ _quantum quanti_, ‘how much’, ‘how many’. Cant, inflected like bęl (§ 103), is used also as an adjective and as a masculine and feminine pronoun.

(12) Cascüs chascüs, ‘everyone’, ‘every’, appears to be a fusion of cada üs and ✱cescüs ＜ ✱_cisqu’ ūnus_ = _quĭsque ūnus_ = _ūnus quĭsque_. Inflection: cascüs, cascü(n); cascüna.

(13) Ent en n ne ＜ _ĭnde_,‘some’: cf. § 123.

(14) Maint mant man manh ＜ Celtic ✱_mantî_, ‘many’, ‘many a’, ‘many a one’. Obj. pl. in -s, f. sg. in -a, f. pl. in -as.

(15) Molt mout mot mul mon ＜ _mŭltum_, ‘much’. For mọt, mul, mọn, see § 74, (2) and § 74, 1. Mọlt, inflected like bęl (§ 103), is used also as an adjective and as a masculine and feminine pronoun.

(16) Negüs ＜ _nĕc ūnus_, ‘no one’. Inflection: negüs, negü(n); negüna. Beside negün we find degün, apparently through dissimilation.

(17) Nüls ＜ _nūllus_, ‘no’, ‘none’. Inflection: nüls, nül, nül, nülh, nüls; nüla, nülas. From nülh ＜ _nūllī_ comes a set of forms with lh: see § 67, (2). Hence, by metathesis suggested by the analogy of negün, lhün. A fusion of nülh and lhün results in lünh, whence a set of forms with nh.

(18) Om ＜ _hŏmo_, ‘one’.

(19) Pauc ＜ _paucum_, _pauci_, ‘little’, ‘few’. There is also a regular adjective, paucs, ‘small’.

(20) Que que, ‘whatever’, is a Provençal compound.

(21) Quecs ＜ _quĭsquis_ (§ 78, 2), ‘everyone’. From quẹcs were formed an objective quẹc and a feminine quẹga (cf. amics amic amiga).

(22) Quesacom (diminutive quesacomet), ‘something’, ‘a little’, is formed like calacọm above, the first element in this case being either quẹs ＜ _quĭd_ or quẹ s = quẹ es.

(23) Qui que, ‘whoever’, is a Provençal compound.

(24) Res re, ‘anything’, ‘something’.

(25) Tals ＜ _talis_, ‘such’, inflected like cals (§ 134).

(26) Tamanh ＜ _tam magnum_, ‘so great’; f. tamanha.

(27) Tant tan ta ＜ _tantum_, _tanti_, ‘so much’, ‘so many’. Tant, inflected like bęl (§ 103), is used also as an adjective and as a masculine and feminine pronoun.

(28) Totz ＜ _tōttus_ = _tōtus_ (_Gram._, I, § 547), ‘all’, had a regular inflection: tọtz, tọt, tọt, tọtz; tọta, tọtas. In the masculine nominative plural, however, we find oftener the forms tüch tüich tüit tüt tüti, which point to a Latin ✱_tūctī_ (cf. Italian _tutti_); for this no satisfactory explanation has been discovered (see Nigra, _Rom._, XXXI, 525). Hence we occasionally have in the singular tütz, tüt, and in the objective plural tügz tütz; the last form occurs also as a nominative plural. Tọt is frequently used as a neuter pronoun and as an adverb.

(29) Üs, ‘some’; from _ūnus_, used as an indefinite adjective or pronoun, we have the plural forms; ü(n), ü(n)s; ünas.

2. CONJUGATION.

THE FOUR CONJUGATIONS.

137. (1) In Vulgar Latin there were some shifts, the verbs of the second and third conjugations being particularly unstable: _cadĕre_, _capĕre_, _sapĕre_, for instance, often passed into the second, while _mŏvēre_, _rīdēre_ frequently followed the third, and _mŏri_, _sĕqui_ usually went into the fourth. _Pŏsse_, _vĕlle_, with the new infinitives ✱_potēre_, ✱_volēre_, were made to conform with more or less regularity to the second conjugation type. Beside _do_, _dant_, _sto_, _stant_, there came into use the forms ✱_dao_, ✱_daunt_, ✱_stao_, ✱_staunt_. Beside _facĕre_ there doubtless existed a verb ✱_fare_,[102] strongly influenced by _dare_ and _stare_; the first suggestion of shortening probably came from the monosyllabic imperative singular _fac_ (or _fa_[103]), which must have led to a plural ✱_fate_ beside _facĭte_. _Habēre_ and _vadĕre_[103] also came under the influence of _dare_ and _stare_; the former adopted, beside _habeo_, _habes_, _habet_, _habent_, the forms ✱_ho_, ✱_has_, ✱_hat_, ✱_hant_ or ✱_haunt_. _Vadĕre_ generally lost its past tenses, which were replaced by _īre_ and, in southern Gaul, by _annare_.[104]

(2) In Provençal the first conjugation was well preserved, and the fourth lost but little. The second and the third lost many verbs (especially learned words) to the fourth: delir, emplir, envazir, espandir, fugir, iauzir, merir, regir, relinquir, reluzir, vertir;[105] cọzer cozir ＜ _consuĕre_,[106] devire devezir ＜ _divīdĕre_, dire dir ＜ _dīcĕre_, lęire legir (also lire lir) ＜ _lĕgĕre_, quęrre querir ＜ _quærĕre_, sęgre seguir ＜ _sĕqui_, tenẹr tenir[107] ＜ _tenēre_. Moreover, the second and third conjugations, which in Provençal differed practically only in the infinitive, were much confused: cabẹr, cazẹr, mǫrdre, rire, sabẹr; cọrre accorrẹr, mentavẹr mentaure ＜ _mente habēre_, movẹr mǫure, quęrre querẹr, redẹbre rezemẹr ＜ _redĭmĕre_. Uc Faidit, a 13th century grammarian, enumerates about 500 verbs in -ar, about 100 in -er and -re, and a little over 100 in -ir.

138. The inchoative ending _-scĕre_ lost its original sense. The _-īsc-_ type, for verbs of the fourth conjugation, was very widely extended, the _-isc-_ becoming a part of the regular present stem of the fourth conjugation, and disappearing from the infinitive: _finīre_, ✱_finīsco_ ＞ finir, finisc. An obscure substitute for the Latin _-ēsc-_ type produced an ending -eissir -ezir -zir (_dis-pigrēscĕre_ = despereissir, _evanēscĕre_ = envanezir[108]), which was used in forming some new verbs: enfolezir[109] ＜ fǫl, envelhezir ＜ vęlh, envelzir ＜ vil, esclarzir ＜ clar, escürzir ＜ escür oscür, espaorzir ＜ paọr.[110] The _-āsc-_ and _-ōsc-_ types appear in old verbs: _irāscĕre_ ＞ iráisser, _co(g)nōscĕre_ ＞ conọisser.[111]

139. New verbs were formed, in late Vulgar Latin and in Provençal, only in the first and fourth conjugations. The commonest suffixes were _-āre_, _-iāre_, _-icāre_, _-idiāre_ (＜ -ίζειν: § 57, Z), _-īre_: ✱_oblītāre_ ＞ oblidar, ✱_altiāre_ ＞ aussar, ✱_carricāre_ ＞ cargar, ✱_werridiāre_ ＞ guerreiar, ✱_abbellīre_ ＞ abelir. Germanic verbs generally went into the first conjugation, except those in _-jan_, most of which entered the fourth: _roubôn_ ＞ raubar (also raubir), _wîtan_ ＞ guidar; _furbjan_ ＞ forbir.

FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN INFLECTION.

140. The Latin perfect passive took the sense of a present; _amātus est_, for instance, under the influence of such phrases as _carus est_, came to mean ‘he _is_ loved’. This led to the establishment of an entire passive inflection made up of the perfect participle and the parts of the verb _ĕsse_; and the old passive forms were gradually abandoned, leaving no trace (save the perfect participle and possibly the gerundive) in the Romance languages. So the passive is constructed in Provençal as in French: ẹs amatz, ęra amatz, fọ amatz, será amatz, etc.; the participle regularly agrees with the subject in gender and number. Latin deponent verbs became active: _mŏri_ ＞ morir, _sĕqui_ ＞ seguir.

141. (1) Such phrases as _ĭd habeo factum_ shifted their meaning from ‘I have it done’, etc., to ‘I have done it’, etc. The Latin perfect came to be restricted to its aorist sense, and the perfect was expressed by compounds of _habēre_ with the perfect participle. In the Romance languages all compound tenses were eventually formed in this way: ai cantat, avia cantat, aurai cantat, etc. In Provençal the auxiliary is sometimes ęsser, instead of avẹr, if the main verb is reflexive, passive, or neuter; ęsser is particularly common with neuter verbs of motion: sọi vengütz.[112] A participle used with avẹr may agree in gender and number with the direct object, if there is one: ai cantat _or_ cantada la cansọ.

(2) The Latin perfect indicative continued to be used as an aorist, and is the source of the preterit in Provençal, as in the other Romance languages: _vīdī_ ＞ vi, ‘I saw’. The pluperfect indicative survived in some regions; in Provençal it is used with the sense of a conditional: _fŭĕrat_ ＞ fọra,‘he would be’. The future perfect indicative and the perfect subjunctive did not remain in Provençal: _amavĕro_ = aurai amat, _amavĕrim_ = aia amat. The pluperfect subjunctive assumed the functions of the imperfect, which disappeared from nearly every part of the Romance territory: _audīssem_ (for _audīrem_) ＞ auzis. The perfect infinitive left no trace: _audīsse_ = avẹr auzit.

142. The Latin future, which was not uniform in the four conjugations, and, in the third and fourth, was liable to confusion with the present subjunctive, was gradually replaced by various periphrastic constructions: instead of _faciam_ people said _factūrus sum_, _dēbeo facĕre_, _vŏlo facĕre_, _habeo_ (_ad_) _facĕre_, etc. The construction that prevailed in the greater part of the Empire was _facĕre habeo_, a combination of the infinitive with the present indicative of _habēre_. The verb _ĕsse_ was the only one that ultimately retained the old future beside the new: Pr. ęr, ęrs, ęr, beside serái serás será; in the plural, only serẹm, serẹtz, serán. The new composite future was occasionally used by Tertullian, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine, and became common in Italy by the 6th century.[113]

(2) As an imperfect of the future, there was evolved a combination of the infinitive and the imperfect or perfect indicative. To correspond to _dīcit quod venīre habet_, was constructed _dīxit quŏd venīre habēbat_ (or _habuit_); to match _sī pŏssum, venīre habeo_, was made _sī potuĭssem, venīre habēbam_ (or _habuī_). In Gaul, as in most of the Empire, only the imperfect of _habēre_ was used for this purpose. Traces of such a construction are found as early as the 3d century. This form is generally called the _conditional_, and it existed in Provençal side by side with the conditional described in § 141, (2): sería, serías, sería, etc., beside fọra, fọras, fọra, etc. The Romance languages developed also a perfect conditional: auría agüt = ‘I should have had’.