Chapter VII: Part 7

(b) _Dialects of the Neapolitan Mainland._--The Calabrian (by which is
to be understood more particularly the vernacular group of the two
Further Calabrias) may be fairly considered as a continuation of the
Sicilian type, as is seen from the following examples:--_cori_,
cuore; _petra_; _fimmina_, femina; _vuce_, voce; _unure_, onore;
_figghiu_, figlio; _spadde_, spalle; _trizza_, treccia. Both Sicilian
and Calabrian is the reducing of _rl_ to _rr_ (Sicil. _parrari_, Cal.
_parrare_, parlare, &c.). The final vowel -_e_ is reduced to -_i_, but
is preserved in the more southern part, as is seen from the above
examples. Even the _h_ for _s_ = _fj_, as in _huri_ (Sicil. _suri_,
fiore), which is characteristic in Calabrian, has its forerunners in
the island (see _Arch._ ii. 456). And, in the same way, though the
dominant varieties of Calabria seem to cling to the _mb_ (it sometimes
happens that _mm_ takes the form of _mb_: _imbiscare_ = Sicil.
'_mmiscari_ 'immischiare', &c.) and _nd_, as opposed to the _mm_,
_nn_, of the whole of Southern Italy and Sicily, we must remember,
firstly, that certain other varieties have, e.g. _granne_, Ital.
grande, and _chiummu_, Ital. piombo; and secondly, that even in Sicily
(at Milazzo, Barcelona, and as far as Messina) districts are to be
found in which _nd_ is used. Along the coast of the extreme south of
Italy, when once we have passed the interruptions caused by the
Basilisco type (so called from the Basilicata), the Sicilian vocalism
again presents itself in the Otrantine, especially in the seaboard of
Capo di Leuca. In the Lecce variety of the Otrantine the vocalism
which has just been described as Sicilian also keeps its ground in the
main (cf. Morosi, _Arch._ iv.): _sira_, sera; _leitu_, oliveto;
_pilu_; _ura_, ora; _dulure_. Nay more, the Sicilian phenomenon of
_lj_ into _ghj_ (_figghiu_, figlio, &c.) is well marked in Terra d'
Otranto and also in Terra di Bari, and even extends through the
Capitanata and the Basilicata (cf. D' Ovidio, _Arch._ iv. 159-160). As
strongly marked in the Terra d'Otranto is the insular phenomenon of
_ll_ into _dd_ (_dr_), which is also very widely distributed through
the Neapolitan territories on the eastern side of the Apennines,
sending outshoots even to the Abruzzo. But in Terra d'Otranto we are
already in the midst of the diphthongs of _e_ and of _o_, both
non-positional and positional, the development or permanence of which
is determined by the quality of the unaccented final vowel,--as
generally happens in the dialects of the south. The diphthongs of _e_
and _o_, determined by final -_i_ and -_u_, are also characteristic of
central and northern Calabria (_viecchiu_ -_i_, vecchio -a, _vecchia_
-_e_, vecchia -e; _buonu_ -_i_, _bona_ -_e_, &c. &c.). Thus there
comes to be a treatment of the vowels, peculiar to the two peninsulas
of Calabria and Salent. The diphthongal product of the _o_ is here
_ue_. The following are examples from the Lecce variety of the
dialect: _core_, pl. _cueri_; _metu_, _mieti_, _mete_, mieto, mieti,
miete (Lat. metere); _sentu_, _sienti_, _sente_; _olu_, _ueli_, _ola_,
volo, voli, vola; _mordu_, _muerdi_, _morde_. The _ue_ recalls the
fundamental reduction which belongs to the Gallic (not to speak of the
Spanish) regions, and stretches through the north of the Terra di
Bari, where there are other diphthongs curiously suggestive of the
Gallic: e.g. at Bitonto alongside of _lueche_, luogo, _suenne_, sonno,
we have the _oi_ and the _ai_ from _i_ or _e_ of the previous phase
(_vecoine_, vicino), and the _au_ from _o_ of the previous phase
(_anaure_, onore), besides a diphthongal disturbance of the _a_. Here
also occurs the change of _a_ into an _e_ more or less pure (thus, at
Cisternino, _scunsulete_, sconsolata; at Canosa di Puglia, _arruete_,
arrivata; _n-ghepe_, "in capa," that is, in capo); to which may be
added the continual weakening or elision of the unaccented vowels not
only at the end but in the body of the word (thus, at Bitonto,
_vendett_, _spranz_). A similar type meets us as we cross into
Capitanata (Cerignola: _graite_ and _grei_-, creta (but also _peite_,
piede, &c.), _coute_, coda (but also _foure_, fuori, &c.); _voine_,
vino, and similarly _poile_, pelo (Neap. _pilo_), &c.; _fueke_, fuoco;
_caretate_, carita, _parla_, parlare, &c.); such forms being
apparently the outposts of the Abruzzan, which, however, is only
reached through the Molise--a district not very populous even now, and
still more thinly peopled in bygone days--whose prevailing forms of
speech in some measure interrupt the historical continuity of the
dialects of the Adriatic versant, presenting, as it were, an irruption
from the other side of the Apennines. In the head valley of the
Molise, at Agnone, the legitimate precursors of the Abruzzan
vernaculars reappear (_feafa_, fava, _stufeate_ and -_uote_, stufo,
annojato, _fea_, fare; _chiezza_, piazza, _chiegne_, piangere,
_cuene_, cane; _puole_, palo, _pruote_, prato, _cuone_, cane; _veire_
and _vaire_, vero, _moile_, melo, and similarly voive and veive, vivo;
_deune_, dono, _deuva_, doga; _minaure_, minore; _cuerpe_, corpo, but
_cuolle_). The following are pure Abruzzan examples. (1) From
Bucchianico (Abruzzo Citeriore): _veive_, vivo; _rraje_, re;
_allaure_, allora; _craune_, corona; _cirche_, cercare; _mele_, male;
_grenne_, grande; _quenne_; but _'nsultate_, insultata; _strade_,
strada (where again it is seen that the reduction of the _a_ depends
on the quality of the final unaccented vowel, and that it is not
produced exclusively by _i_, which would give rise to a further
reduction: _scillarite_, scellerati; _ampire_, impari). (2) From
Pratola Peligna (Abruzzo Ulteriore II.); _maje_, mia; _'naure_, onore;
_'njuriete_, inguriata; _desperete_, disperata ( alongside of
_venneca_, vendicare). It almost appears that a continuity with
Emilian[11] ought to be established across the Marches (where another
irruption of greater "Italianity" has taken place; a third of more
dubious origin has been indicated for Venice, C. 1); see _Arch._ ii.,
445. A negative characteristic for Abruzzan is the absence of the
change in the third syllable of the combinations _pl_, _bl_, _fl_
(into _kj_, _j-_, _s_) and the reason seems evident. Here the _pj_,
_bj_ and _fj_ themselves appear to be modern or of recent
reduction--the ancient formulae sometimes occurring intact (as in the
Bergamasc for Upper Italy), e.g. _planje_ and _pranje_ alongside of
_pianje_, piagnere, _branghe_ alongside of _bianghe_, bianco (Fr.
_blanc_), _flume_ and _frume_ alongside _fiume_, fiume. To the south
of the Abruzzi begins and in the Abruzzi grows prominent that contrast
in regard to the formulae _alt ald_ (resolved in the Neapolitan and
Sicilian into _aut_, &c., just as in the Piedmontese, &c.), by which
the types _aldare_, altare, and _calle_, caldo, are reached.[12] For
the rest, when the condition and connexions of the vowel system still
retained by so large a proportion of the dialects of the eastern
versant of the Neapolitan Apennines, and the difference which exists
in regard to the preservation of the unaccented vowels between the
Ligurian and the Gallo-Italic forms of speech on the other versant of
the northern Apennines, are considered, one cannot fail to see how
much justice there is in the longitudinal or Apenninian partition of
the Italian dialects indicated by Dante.--But, to continue, in the
Basilicata, which drains into the Gulf of Taranto, and may be said to
lie within the Apennines, not only is the elision of final unaccented
vowels a prevailing characteristic; there are also frequent elisions
of the unaccented vowels within the word. Thus at Matera: _sintenn la
femn chessa cos_, sentendo la femina questa cosa; _disprat_,
disperata; at Saponara di Grumento: _uomnn' scilrati_, uomini
scellerati; _mnetta_, vendetta.--But even if we return to the
Mediterranean versant and, leaving the Sicilian type of the Calabrias,
retrace our steps till we pass into the Neapolitan pure and simple, we
find that even in Naples the unaccented final vowels behave badly, the
labial turning to _e_ (_bielle_, bello) and even the _a_ (_bella_)
being greatly weakened. And here occurs a Palaeo-Italic instance which
is worth mention: while Latin was accustomed to drop the u of its
nominative only in presence of _r_ (_gener_ from *gener-u-s, _vir_
from *vir-u-s; cf. the Tuscan or Italian apocopated forms _vener_ =
venere, _venner_ = vennero, &c.), Oscan and Umbrian go much farther:
Oscan, hurz = *hort-u-s, Lat. hortus; Umbr. _pihaz_, piatus; _emps_,
emptus, &c. In Umbrian inscriptions we find _u_ alternating with the
_a_ of the nom. sing. fem. and plur. neut. In complete contrast with
the Sicilian vocalism is the Neapolitan _e_ for unaccented and
particularly final _i_ of the Latin and Neo-Latin or Italian phases
(e.g. _viene_, vieni; cf. _infra_), to say nothing further of the
regular diphthongization, within certain limits, of accented _e_ or
_o_ in position (_apierte_, aperto, fem. _aperta_; _muorte_, morto,
fem. _morta_, &c.).--In the quasi-morphological domain it is to be
noted how the Siculo-Calabrian _u_ for the ancient _o_ and _u_, and
the Siculo-Calabrian _i_ for the ancient _e_, _i_, are also still
found in the Neapolitan, and, in particular, that they alternate with
_o_ and _e_ in a manner that is determined by the difference of
termination. Thus _cosetore_, cucitore, pl. _coseture_ (i.e.
_coseturi_, the _-i_ passing into _e_ in keeping with the Neapolitan
characteristic already mentioned); _russe_, Ital. rosso, _-i_; _rossa_
_-e_, Ital. rossa -e; _noce_, _noce_, pl. _nuce_; _crede_, io credo;
_cride_ (*cridi), tu credi; _crede_, egli crede; _nigre_, but _negra_.

Passing now to a cursory mention of purely morphological phenomena, we
begin with that form which is referred to the Latin pluperfect (see A.
1, B. 2), but which here too performs the functions of the
conditional. Examples from the living dialects of (1) Calabria
Citeriore are _faceru_, farei (Castrovillari); _tu te la collerre_, tu
te l'acolleresti (Cosenza); _l'accettera_, l'accetterebbe (Grimaldi);
and from those of (2) the Abruzzi, _vuler'_, vorrei (Castelli);
_dere_, darei (Atessa); _candere_, canterei. For the dialects of the
Abruzzi, we can check our observations by examples from the oldest
chronicle of Aquila, as _non habera lassato_, non avrebbe lasciato
(str. 180) (cf. _negara_, Ital. negherei, in old MS. of the Marches).
There are some interesting remains (more or less corrupted both in
form and usage) of ancient consonantal terminations which have not yet
been sufficiently studied: _s' incaricaviti_, s' incaricava, -abat
(Basilicata, Senise); ebbiti, ebbe (ib.); _aviadi_, aveva (Calabria,
Grimaldi); _arrivaudi_, arrivo (ib.). The last example also gives the
_-au_ of the 3rd pers. sing. perf. of the first conjugation, which
still occurs in Sicily and between the horns of the Neapolitan
mainland. In the Abruzzi (and in the Ascolan district) the 3rd person
of the plural is in process of disappearing (the _-no_ having fallen
away and the preceding vowel being obscured), and its function is
assumed by the 3rd person singular; cf. C. 1.[13] The explanation of
the Neapolitan forms _songhe_, io sono, essi sono, _donghe_, io do,
stonghe, io sto, as also of the enclitic of the 2nd person plural
which exists, e.g. in the Sicil. _avissivu_, Neap. _avisteve_, aveste,
has been correctly given more than once. It may be remarked in
conclusion that this Neo-Latin region keeps company with the Rumanian
in maintaining in large use the -ora derived from the ancient neuter
plurals of the type _tempora_; Sicil. _jocura_, giuochi; Calabr.
_nidura_, Abruzz. _nidere_, nidi, Neap. _ortola_ (= -_ra_), orti,
Capitanata _acure_, aghi, Apulian _aceddere_ (Tarantine _aceddiri_),
uccelli, &c. It is in this region, and more particularly in Capua,
that we can trace the first appearance of what can definitely be
called Italian, as shown in a Latin legal document of the year 960
(_sao co kelle terre per kelle fini qui ki contene trenta anni le
possette parte Sancti Benedicti_, Ital. "so che quelle terre per quei
confini che qui contiene trent 'anni le possedette la parte di S.
Benedetto"), and belongs more precisely to Capua. The so-called _Carta
Rossanese_ (Calabria), written in a mixture of Latin and vulgar
tongue, belongs to the first decades of the 12th century; while a
document of Fondi (Campania) in the vulgar tongue goes back to the
last decades of the same century. Neapolitan documents do not become
abundant till the 14th century. The same is true of the Abruzzi and of
Apulia; in the case of the latter the date should perhaps be put even
later.

4. _Dialects of Umbria, the Marches and the Province of Rome._--The
phenomena characteristic of the Gallo-Italian dialects can be traced
in the northern Marches in the dialects not only of the provinces of
Pesaro and Urbino (_Arch. glott._ ii. 444), where we note also the
constant dropping of the final vowels, strong elisions of accented and
unaccented vowels, the suffix -_ariu_ becoming -_er_, &c., but also as
far as Ancona and beyond. As in Ancona, the double consonants are
reduced to single ones; there are strong elisions (_breta_, Ital.
berretta; _blin_, Ital. bellino; _figurte_, Ital. "figurati";
_vermne_, Ital. verme, "vermine," &c.); the -_k_- becomes _g_; the
_s_, _s_. At Jesi -_t_- and -_k_- become _d_ and _g_, and the _g_ is
also found at Fabriano, though here it is modified in the Southern
fashion (_spia_ = _spiga_, Ital. spica). Examples are also found of
the dropping of -_d_- primary between vowels: Pesaran _raica_, Ital.
radica; Fabr. _peo_; Ital. piede, which are noteworthy in that they
indicate an isolated Gallo-Italian phenomenon, which is further
traceable in Umbria (_peacchia_ = ped-, Ital. orma; _raica_ and
_raice_, Ital. radice; _trubio_, Ital. torbido; _fracio_, Ital.
fracido; at Rieti also the dropping of the -_d_- is normal: _veo_,
Ital. vedo; _fiatu_, Ital. fidato, &c.; and here too is found the
dropping of initial _d_ for syntactical reasons: _ente_, Ital. dente,
from _lu [d]ente)_. According to some scholars of the Marches, the _e_
for _a_ also extends as far as Ancona; and it is certainly continued
from the north, though it is precisely in the territory of the Marches
that Gallo-Italian and Abruzzan come into contact. The southern part
of the Marches (the basin of the Tronto), after all, is Abruzzan in
character. But the Abruzzan or Southern phenomena in general are
widely diffused throughout the whole of the region comprising the
Marches, Umbria, Latium and Aquila (for the territory of Aquila,
belonging as it does both geographically and politically to the
Abruzzi, is also attached linguistically to this group), which with
regard to certain phenomena includes also that part of Tuscany lying
to the south of the southern Ombrone. Further, the Tuscan dialect
strictly so called sends into the Marches a few of its
characteristics, and thus at Arcevia we have the pronunciation of
-_c_- between vowels as _s_ (_formesce_, Ital. forbici),[14] and
Ancona has no changes of tonic vowels determined by the final vowel.
Again, Umbria and the Sabine territory, and some parts of the Roman
territory, are connected with Tuscany by the phenomenon of -_ajo_ for
-_ariu_ (_molinajo_, Ital. mugnaio, &c.). But, to come to the Abruzzan
Southern phenomena, we should note that the Abruzzan _ll_ for _ld_
extends into the central region (Norcia: _callu_, caldo; Rome:
_ariscalla_, riscalda; the phenomenon, however, occurs also in
Corsica); and the assimilation of _nd_ into _nn_, and of _mb_ into
_mm_ stretches through Umbria, the Marches and Rome, and even crosses
from the Roman province into southern Tuscany (Rieti: _quanno_,
quando; Spoleto: _comannava_, comandava; Assisi: _piagnenno_,
piangendo; Sanseverino Marches: _piagnenne_, '_mmece_, invece
(imbece); Fabriano: _vennecasse_, vendicarsi; Osimo: _monno_, mondo;
Rome: _fronna_, fronda; _piommo_, piombo; Pitigliano (Tuscany):
_quanno_, _piagnenno_). It is curious to note, side by side with this
phenomenon, in the same districts, that of _nd_ for _nn_, which we
still find and which was more common in the past (_affando_, affanno,
&c., see _Zeitschrift fur roman. Philol._ xxii. 510). Even the
diphthongs of the _e_ and the _o_ in position are largely represented.
Examples are--at Norcia, _tiempi_, _uocchi_, _stuortu_; Assisi and
Fabriano: _tiempo_; Orvieto: _tiempo_, _tierra_, _le tuorte_, li
torti, and even _duonna_. The change of preconsonantal _l_ into _r_,
so frequent throughout this region, and particularly characteristic of
Rome, is a phenomenon common to the Aquilan dialect. Similar facts
might be adduced in abundance. And it is to be noted that the features
common to Umbro-Roman and the Neapolitan dialects must have been more
numerous in the past, as this was the region where the Tuscan current
met the southern, and by reason of its superior culture gradually
gained the ascendancy.[15] Typical for the whole district (except the
Marches) is the reduction to _t_ (and later to _j_) of _ll_ and of _l_
initial, when followed by _i_ or _u_ (Velletri, _tuna_, _tuce_; Sora,
_juna_, Ital. luna, _jima_, Ital. lima; melica. Ital. mollica, _bete_,
Ital. belli, bello, in vulgar Latin _bellu_; but _bella_, bella, &c.).
The phonological connexions between the Northern Umbrian, the Aretine,
and the Gallo-Italic type have already been indicated (B. 2). In what
relates to morphology, the -_orno_ of the 3rd pers. plur. of the
perfect of the first conjugation has been pointed out as an essential
peculiarity of the Umbro-Roman territory; but even this it shares with
the Aquila vernaculars, which, moreover, extend it to the other
conjugations (_amorno_, _timorono_, &c.), exactly like the -_o_ of the
3rd person singular. Further, this termination is found also in the
Tuscan dialects.

Throughout almost the whole district should be noted the distinction
between the masculine and neuter substantive, expressed by means of
the article, the distinction being that the neuter substantive has an
abstract and indeterminate signification; e.g. at S. Ginesio, in the
Marches, _lu pesce_, but _lo pesce_, of fish in general, as food, &c.;
at Sora _te wetre_, the sheet of glass, but _le wetre_, glass, the
material, original substance.[16] As to the inflection of verbs, there
is in the ancient texts of the region a notable prevalence of perfect
form in the formation of the imperfect conjunctive; _tolzesse_, Ital.
togliesse; _sostenesse_, Ital. sostenesse; _conubbessero_, Ital.
conoscessero, &c. In the northern Marches, we should note the
preposition sa, Ital. con (_sa lia_, Ital. con lei), going back to a
type similar to that of the Ital. "con-esso."

In a large part of Umbria an _m_ or _t_ is prefixed to the sign of the
dative: _t-a lu_, a lui; _m-al re_, al re;[17] which must be the
remains of the auxiliary prepositions _int(us)_, _a(m)pud_, cf. Prov.
_amb_, _am_ (cf. _Arch._ ii. 444-446). By means of the series of
Perugine texts this group of dialects may be traced back with
confidence to the 13th century; and to this region should also belong
a "Confession," half Latin half vernacular, dating from about the 11th
century, edited and annotated by Flechia (_Arch._ vii. 121 sqq.). The
"chronicle" of Monaldeschi has been already mentioned. The MSS. of the
Marches go back to the beginning of the 13th century and perhaps still
further back. For Roman (see Monaci, _Rendic. dell' Accad. dei
Lincei_, xvi. 103 sqq.) there is a short inscription of the 11th
century. To the 13th century belongs the _Liber historiarum Romanorum_
(Monaci, _Archivio della Societa rom. di storia patria_, xii.; and
also, _Rendic. dei Lincei_, i. 94 sqq.), and to the first half of the
same century the _Formole volgari_ of Raineri da Perugia (Monaci, ib.,
xiv. 268 sqq.). There are more abundant texts for all parts of this
district in the 14th century, to which also belongs the _Cronica
Aquilana_ of Buccio di Ranallo, republished by De Bartholomaeis (Rome,
1907).

D. _Tuscan, and the Literary Language of the Italians._

We have now only to deal with the Tuscan territory. It is bounded on the W. by the sea. To the north it terminates with the Apennines; for Romagna Toscana, the strip of country on the Adriatic versant which belongs to it administratively, is assigned to Emilia as regards dialect. In the north-west also the Emilian presses on the Tuscan, extending as it does down the Mediterranean slope of the Apennines in Lunigiana and Garfagnana. Intrusions which may be called Emilian have also been noted to the west of the Apennines in the district where the Arno and the Tiber take their rise (Aretine dialects); and it has been seen how thence to the sea the Umbrian and Roman dialects surround the Tuscan. Such are the narrow limits of the "promised land" of the language which has succeeded and was worthy to succeed Latin in the history of Italian culture and civilization,--the land which comprises Florence, Siena, Lucca and Pisa. The Tuscan type may be best described by the negative method. There do not exist in it, on the one hand, any of those phenomena by which the other dialectal types of Italy mainly differ from the Latin base (such as _u_ = _u_; frequent elision of unaccented vowels; _ba = gua_; _s_ = _fl_; _nn_ = _nd_, &c.), nor, on the other hand, is there any series of alterations of the Latin base peculiar to the Tuscan. This twofold negative description may further serve for the Tuscan or literary Italian as contrasted with all the other Neo-Latin languages; indeed, even where the Tuscan has a tendency to alterations common to other types of the family, it shows itself more sober and self-denying--as may be seen in the reduction of the _t_ between vowels into _d_ or of _c_ (_k_) between vowels into _g_, which in Italian affects only a small part of the lexical series, while in Provencal or Spanish it may be said to pervade the whole (e.g. Prov. and Span. _mudar_, Ital. _mutare_; Prov. _segur_, Span. _seguro_, Ital. _sicuro_). It may consequently be affirmed without any partiality that, in respect to historical nobility, the Italian not only holds the first rank among Neo-Latin languages, but almost constitutes an intermediate grade between the ancient or Latin and the modern or Romance. What has just been said about the Tuscan, as compared with the other dialectal types of Italy, does not, however, preclude the fact that in the various Tuscan veins, and especially in the plebeian forms of speech, there occur particular instances of phonetic decay; but these must of necessity be ignored in so brief a sketch as the present. We shall confine ourselves to noting--what has a wide territorial diffusion--the reduction of _c_ (_k_) between vowels to a mere breathing (e.g. _fuoho_, fuoco, but _porco_), or even its complete elision; the same phenomenon occurs also between word and word (e.g. _la hasa_, but _in casa_), thus illustrating anew that syntactic class of phonetic alterations, either qualitative or quantitative, conspicuous in this region, also, which has been already discussed for insular and southern Italy (B. 2; C. 2, 3), and could be exemplified for the Roman region as well (C. 4). As regards one or two individual phenomena, it must also be confessed that the Tuscan or literary Italian is not so well preserved as some other Neo-Latin tongues. Thus, French always keeps in the beginning of words the Latin formulae _cl_, _pl_, _fl_ (_clef_, _plaisir_, _fleur_, in contrast with the Italian _chiave_, _piacere_, _fiore_); but the Italian makes up for this by the greater vigour with which it is wont to resolve the same formula within the words, and by the greater symmetry thus produced between the two series (in opposition to the French _clef_, clave, we have, for example, the French _oeil_, oclo; whereas, in the Italian, _chiave_ and _occhio_ correspond to each other). The Italian as well as the Rumanian has lost the ancient sibilant at the end (-_s_ of the plurals, of the nominative singular, of the 2nd persons, &c.), which throughout the rest of the Romance area has been preserved more or less tenaciously; and consequently it stands lower than old Provencal and old French, as far as true declension or, more precisely, the functional distinction between the forms of the _casus rectus_ and the _casus obliquus_ is concerned. But even in this respect the superiority of French and Provencal has proved merely transitory, and in their modern condition all the Neo-Latin forms of speech are generally surpassed by Italian even as regards the pure grammatical consistency of the noun. In conjugation Tuscan has lost that tense which for the sake of brevity we shall continue to call the pluperfect indicative; though it still survives outside of Italy and in other dialectal types of Italy itself (C. 3b; cf. B. 2). It has also lost the _futurum exactum_, or perfect subjunctive, which is found in Spanish and Rumanian. But no one would on that account maintain that the Italian conjugation is less truly Latin than the Spanish, the Rumanian, or that of any other Neo-Latin language. It is, on the contrary, by far the most distinctively Latin as regards the tradition both of form and function, although many effects of the principle of analogy are to be observed, sometimes common to Italian with the other Neo-Latin languages and sometimes peculiar to itself.

Those who find it hard to believe in the ethnological explanation of linguistic varieties ought to be convinced by any example so clear as that which Italy presents in the difference between the Tuscan or purely Italian type on the one side and the Gallo-Italic on the other. The names in this instance correspond exactly to the facts of the case. For the Gallo-Italic on either side of the Alps is evidently nothing else than a modification--varying in degree, but always very great--of the vulgar Latin, due to the reaction of the language or rather the oral tendencies of the Celts who succumbed to the Roman civilization. In other words, the case is one of new ethnic individualities arising from the fusion of two national entities, one of which, numerically more or less weak, is so far victorious that its speech is adopted, while the other succeeds in adapting that speech to its own habits of utterance. Genuine Italian, on the other hand, is not the result of the combination or conflict of the vulgar Latin with other tongues, but is the pure development of this alone. In other words, the case is that of an ancient national fusion in which vulgar Latin itself originated. Here that is native which in the other case was intrusive. This greater purity of constitution gives the language a persistency which approaches permanent stability. There is no Old Italian to oppose to Modern Italian in the same sense as we have an Old French to oppose to a Modern French. It is true that in the old French writers, and even in the writers who used the dialects of Upper Italy, there was a tendency to bring back the popular forms to their ancient dignity; and it is true also that the Tuscan or literary Italian has suffered from the changes of centuries; but nevertheless it remains undoubted that in the former cases we have to deal with general transformations between old and new, while in the latter it is evident that the language of Dante continues to be the Italian of modern speech and literature. This character of invariability has thus been in direct proportion to the purity of its Latin origin, while, on the contrary, where popular Latin has been adopted by peoples of foreign speech, the elaboration which it has undergone along the lines of their oral tendencies becomes always the greater the farther we get away from the point at which the Latin reached them,--in proportion, that is, to the time and space through which it has been transmitted in these foreign mouths.[18]

As for the primitive seat of the literary language of Italy, not only must it be regarded as confined within the limits of that narrower Tuscany already described; strictly speaking, it must be identified with the city of Florence alone. Leaving out of account, therefore, a small number of words borrowed from other Italian dialects, as a certain number have naturally been borrowed from foreign tongues, it may be said that all that was not Tuscan was eliminated from the literary form of speech. If we go back to the time of Dante, we find, throughout almost all the dialects of the mainland with the exception of Tuscan, the change of vowels between singular and plural seen in _paese_, _paisi_; _quello_, _quilli_; _amore_, _amuri_ (see B. 1; C. 3 b); but the literary language knows nothing at all of such a phenomenon, because it was unknown to the Tuscan region. But in Tuscan itself there were differences between Florentine and non-Florentine; in Florentine, e.g. it was and is usual to say _unto_, _giunto_, _punto_, while the non-Florentine had it _onto_, _gionto_, _ponto_, (Lat. _unctu_, &c.); at Florence they say _piazza_, _mezzo_, while elsewhere (at Lucca, Pisa) they say or used to say, _piassa_, _messo_. Now, it is precisely the Florentine forms which alone have currency in the literary language.

In the ancient compositions in the vulgar tongue, especially in poetry, non-Tuscan authors on the one hand accommodated their own dialect to the analogy of that which they felt to be the purest representative of the language of ancient Roman culture, while the Tuscan authors in their turn did not refuse to adopt the forms which had received the rights of citizenship from the literary celebrities of other parts of Italy. It was this state of matters which gave rise in past times to the numerous disputes about the true fatherland and origin of the literary language of the Italians. But these have been deprived of all right to exist by the scientific investigation of the history of that language. If the older Italian poetry assumed or maintained forms alien to Tuscan speech, these forms were afterwards gradually eliminated, and the field was left to those which were purely Tuscan and indeed purely Florentine. And thus it remains absolutely true that, so far as phonetics, morphology, rudimental syntax, and in short the whole character and material of words and sentences are concerned, there is no literary language of Europe that is more thoroughly characterized by homogeneity and oneness, as if it had come forth in a single cast from the furnace, than the Italian.

But on the other hand it remains equally true that, so far as concerns a living confidence and uniformity in the use and style of the literary language--that is, of this Tuscan or Florentine material called to nourish the civilization and culture of all the Italians--the case is not a little altered, and the Italian nation appears to enjoy less fortunate conditions than other nations of Europe. Modern Italy had no glowing centre for the life of the whole nation into which and out of which the collective thought and language could be poured in ceaseless current for all and by all. Florence has not been Paris. Territorial contiguity and the little difference of the local dialect facilitated in the modern Rome the elevation of the language of conversation to a level with the literary language that came from Tuscany. A form of speech was thus produced which, though certainly destitute of the grace and the abundant flexibility of the Florentine, gives a good idea of what the dialect of a city becomes when it makes itself the language of a nation that is ripening its civilization in many and dissimilar centres. In such a case the dialect loses its slang and petty localisms, and at the same time also somewhat of its freshness; but it learns to express with more conscious sobriety and with more assured dignity the thought and the feeling of the various peoples which are fused in one national life. But what took place readily in Rome could not with equal ease happen in districts whose dialects were far removed from the Tuscan. In Piedmont, for example, or in Lombardy, the language of conversation did not correspond with the language of books, and the latter accordingly became artificial and laboured. Poetry was least affected by these unfortunate conditions; for poetry may work well with a multiform language, where the need and the stimulus of the author's individuality assert themselves more strongly. But prose suffered immensely, and the Italians had good cause to envy the spontaneity and confidence of foreign literatures--of the French more particularly. In this reasonable envy lay the justification and the strength of the Manzoni school, which aimed at that absolute naturalness of the literary language, that absolute identity between the language of conversation and that of books, which the bulk of the Italians could reach and maintain only by naturalizing themselves in the living speech of modern Florence. The revolt of Manzoni against artificiality and mannerism in language and style was worthy of his genius, and has been largely fruitful. But the historical difference between the case of France (with the colloquial language of Paris) and that of Italy (with the colloquial language of Florence) implies more than one difficulty of principle; in the latter case there is sought to be produced by deliberate effort of the _literati_ what in the former has been and remains the necessary and spontaneous product of the entire civilization. Manzoni's theories too easily lent themselves to deplorable exaggerations; men fell into a new artificiality, a manner of writing which might be called vulgar and almost slangy. The remedy for this must lie in the regulating power of the labour of the now regenerate Italian intellect,--a labour ever growing wider in its scope, more assiduous and more thoroughly united.

The most ancient document in the Tuscan dialect is a very short fragment of a jongleur's song (12th century; see Monaci, _Crestomazia_, 9-10). After that there is nothing till the 13th century. P. Santini has published the important and fairly numerous fragments of a book of notes of some Florentine bankers, of the year 1211. About the middle of the century, our attention is arrested by the _Memoriali_ of the Sienese Matasala di Spinello. To 1278 belongs the MS. in which is preserved the Pistojan version of the _Trattati morali_ of Albertano, which we owe to Sofredi del Grathia. The Riccardian _Tristano_, published and annotated by E. G. Parodi, seems to belong to the end of the 13th and beginning of the 14th centuries. For other 13th-century writings see Monaci, _op. cit._ 31-32, 40, and Parodi, _Giornale storico della letteratura italiana_, x. 178-179. For the question concerning language, see Ascoli, _Arch. glott._ i. v. et seq.; D' Ovidio, _Le Correzioni ai Promessi Sposi e la questione della lingua_, 4th ed. Naples, 1895.

_Literature._--K. L. Fernow in the third volume of his _Romische
Studien_ (Zurich, 1806-1808) gave a good survey of the dialects of
Italy. The dawn of rigorously scientific methods had not then
appeared; but Fernow's view is wide and genial. Similar praise is due
to Biondelli's work _Sui dialetti gallo-italici_ (Milan, 1853), which,
however, is still ignorant of Diez. August Fuchs, between Fernow and
Biondelli, had made himself so far acquainted with the new methods;
but his exploration (_Uber die sogenannten unregelmassigen Zeitworter
in den romanischen Sprachen, nebst Andeutungen uber die wichtigsten
romanischen Mundarten_, Berlin, 1840), though certainly of utility,
was not very successful. Nor can the rapid survey of the Italian
dialects given by Friedrich Diez be ranked among the happiest portions
of his great masterpiece. Among the followers of Diez who
distinguished themselves in this department the first outside of Italy
were certainly Mussafia, a cautious and clear continuator of the
master, and the singularly acute Hugo Schuchardt. Next came the
_Archivio glottologico italiano_ (Turin, 1873 and onwards. Up to 1897
there were published 16 vols.), the lead in which was taken by Ascoli
and G. Flechia (d. 1892), who, together with the Dalmatian Adolf
Mussafia (d. 1906), may be looked upon as the founders of the study of
Italian dialects, and who have applied to their writings a rigidly
methodical procedure and a historical and comparative standard, which
have borne the best fruit. For historical studies dealing specially
with the literary language, Nannucci, with his good judgment and
breadth of view, led the way; we need only mention here his _Analisi
critica dei verbi italiani_ (Florence, 1844). But the new method was
to show how much more it was to and did effect. When this movement on
the part of the scholars mentioned above became known, other
enthusiasts soon joined them, and the _Arch. glottologico_ developed
into a school, which began to produce many prominent works on language
[among the first in order of date and merit may be mentioned "Gli
Allotropi italiani," by U. A. Canello (1887), _Arch. glott._ iii.
285-419; and _Le Origini della lingua poetica italiana_, by N. Caix
(d. 1882), (Florence, 1880)], and studies on the dialects. We shall
here enumerate those of them which appear for one reason or another to
have been the most notable. But, so far as works of a more general
nature are concerned, we should first state that there have been other
theories as to the classification of the Italian dialects (see also
above the various notes on B. 1, 2 and C. 2) put forward by W.
Meyer-Lubke (_Einfuhrung in das Studium der romanischen
Sprachwissenschaft_, Heidelberg, 1901; pp. 21-22), and M. Bartoli
(_Altitalienische Chrestomathie, von P. Savj-Lopez und M. Bartoli_,
Strassburg, 1903, pp. 171 et seq. 193 et seq., and the table at the
end of the volume). W. Meyer-Lubke afterwards filled in details of the
system which he had sketched in Grober's _Grundriss der romanischen
Philologie_, i., 2nd ed. (1904), pp. 696 et seq. And from the same
author comes that masterly work, the _Italienische Grammatik_
(Leipzig, 1890), where the language and its dialects are set out in
one organic whole, just as they are placed together in the concise
chapter devoted to Italian in the above-mentioned _Grundriss_ (pp. 637
et seq.). We will now give the list, from which we omit, however, the
works quoted incidentally throughout the text: B. 1 a: Parodi, _Arch.
glott._ xiv. 1 sqq., xv. 1 sqq., xvi. 105 sqq. 333 sqq.; _Poesie in
dial. tabbiese del sec. XVII. illustrate da E. G. Parodi_ (Spezia,
1904); Schadel, _Die Mundart von Ormea_ (Halle, 1903); Parodi, _Studj
romanzi_, fascic. v.; b: Giacomino, _Arch. glott._ xv. 403 sqq.;
Toppino, ib. xvi. 517 sqq.; Flechia, ib. xiv. 111 sqq.; Nigra,
_Miscell. Ascoli_ (Turin, 1901), 247 sqq.; Renier, _Il Gelindo_
(Turin, 1896); Salvioni, _Rendiconti Istituto lombardo_, s. ii., vol.
xxxvii. 522, sqq.; c: Salvioni, _Fonetica del dialetto di Milano_
(Turin, 1884); _Studi di filol. romanza_, viii. 1 sqq.; _Arch. glott._
ix. 188 sqq. xiii. 355 sqq.; _Rendic. Ist. lomb._ s. ii., vol. xxxv.
905 sqq.; xxxix. 477 sqq.; 505 sqq. 569 sqq. 603 sqq., xl. 719 sqq.;
_Bollettino storico della Svizzera italiana_, xvii. and xviii.;
Michael, _Der Dialekt des Poschiavotals_ (Halle, 1905); v. Ettmayer,
_Bergamaskische Alpenmundarten_ (Leipzig, 1903); _Romanische
Forschungen_, xiii. 321 sqq.; d: Mussafia, _Darstellung der
romagnolischen Mundart_ (Vienna, 1871); Gaudenzi, _I Suoni ecc. della
citta di Bologna_ (Turin, 1889); Ungarelli, _Vocab. del dial. bologn.
con una introduzione di A. Trauzzi sulla fonetica e sulla morfologia
del dialetto_ (Bologna, 1901); Bertoni, _Il Dialetto di Modena_
(Turin, 1905); Pulle, "Schizzo dei dialetti del Frignano" in _L'
Apennino modenese_. 673 sqq. (Rocca S. Casciano, 1895); Piagnoli,
_Fonetica parmigiana_ (Turin, 1904); Restori, _Note fonetiche sui
parlari dell' alta valle di Macra_ (Leghorn, 1892); Gorra,
_Zeitschrift fur romanische Philologie_, xvi. 372 sqq.; xiv. 133 sqq.;
Nicoli, _Studi di filologia romanza_, viii. 197 sqq. B. 2: Hofmann,
_Die logudoresische und campidanesische Mundart_ (Marburg, 1885);
Wagner, _Lautlehre der sudsardischen Mundarten_ (Malle a. S., 1907);
Campus, _Fonetica del dialetto logudorese_ (Turin, 1901); Guarnerio,
_Arch. glott._ xiii. 125 sqq., xiv. 131 sqq., 385 sqq. C. 1: Rossi,
_Le Lettere di Messer Andrea Calmo_ (Turin, 1888); Wendriner, _Die
paduanische Mundart bei Ruzante_ (Breslau, 1889); _Le Rime di
Bartolomeo Cavassico notaio bellunese della prima meta del sec. xvi.
con illustraz. e note di v. Cian, e con illustrazioni linguistiche e
lessico a cura di C. Salvioni_ (2 vols., Bologna, 1893-1894); Gartner,
_Zeitschr. fur roman. Philol._ xvi. 183 sqq., 306 sqq.; Salvioni,
_Arch. glott._ xvi. 245 sqq.; Vidossich, _Studi sul dialetto
triestino_ (Triest, 1901); _Zeitschr. fur rom. Phil._ xxvii. 749 sqq.;
Ascoli, _Arch. glott._ xiv. 325 sqq.; Schneller, _Die romanischen
Volksmundarten in Sudtirol_, i. (Gera, 1870); von Slop, _Die
tridentinische Mundart_ (Klagenfurt, 1888); Ive, _I Dialetti
ladino-veneti dell' Istria_ (Strassburg, 1900). C. 2: Guarnerio,
_Arch. glott._ xiii. 125 sqq., xiv. 131 sqq., 385 sqq. C. 3 a:
Wentrup-Pitre, in Pitre, _Fiabe, novelle e racconti popolari
siciliani_, vol. i., pp. cxviii. sqq.; Schneegans, _Laute und
Lautentwickelung des sicil. Dialektes_ (Strassburg, 1888); De
Gregorio, _Saggio di fonetica siciliana_ (Palermo, 1890); Pirandello,
_Laute und Lautentwickelung der Mundart von Girgenti_ (Halle, 1891);
Cremona, _Fonetica del Caltagironese_ (Acireale, 1895); Santangelo,
Arch. glott. xvi. 479 sqq.; La Rosa, _Saggi di morfologia siciliana_,
i. _Sostantivi_ (Noto, 1901); Salvioni, _Rendic. Ist. lomb._ s. ii.,
vol. xl. 1046 sqq., 1106 sqq., 1145 sqq.; b: Scerbo, _Sul dialetto
calabro_ (Florence, 1886); Accattati's, _Vocabolario del dial.
calabrese_ (Castrovillari, 1895); Gentili, _Fonetica del dialetto
cosentino_ (Milan, 1897); Wentrup, _Beitrage zur Kenntniss der
neapolitanischen Mundart_ (Wittenberg, 1855); Subak, _Die Konjugation
im Neapolitanischen_ (Vienna, 1897); Morosi, _Arch. glott._ iv. 117
sqq.; De Noto, _Appunti di fonetica sul dial. di Taranto_ (Trani,
1897); Subak, _Das Zeitwort in der Mundart von Tarent_ (Brunn, 1897);
Panareo, _Fonetica del dial. di Maglie d' Otranto_ (Milan, 1903);
Nitti di Vito, _Il Dial. di Bari_, part 1, "Vocalismo moderno" (Milan,
1896); Abbatescianni, _Fonologia del dial. barese_ (Avellino, 1896);
Zingarelli, _Arch. glott._ xv. 83 sqq., 226 sqq.; Ziccardi, _Studi
glottologici_, iv. 171 sqq.; D' Ovidio, _Arch. glott._ iv. 145 sqq.,
403 sqq.; Finamore, _Vocabolario dell' uso abruzzese_ (2nd ed., Citta
di Castello, 1893); Rollin, _Mitteilung XIV. der Gesellschaft zur
Forderung deutscher Wissenschaft, Kunst und Literatur in Bohmen_
(Prague, 1901); De Lollis, _Arch. glott._ xii. 1 sqq., 187 sqq.;
_Miscell. Ascoli_, 275 sqq.; Savini, _La Grammatica e il lessico del
dial. teramano_ (Turin, 1881). C. 4: Merlo, _Zeitschr. f. roman.
Phil._, xxx. 11 sqq., 438 sqq., xxxi. 157 sqq.; E. Monaci (notes on
old Roman), _Rendic. dei Lincei_, Feb. 21st, 1892, p. 94 sqq.;
Rossi-Case, _Bollett. di stor. patria degli Abruzzi_, vi.; Crocioni,
_Miscell. Monaci_, pp. 429 sqq.; Ceci, _Arch. glott._ x. 167 sqq.;
Parodi, ib. xiii. 299 sqq.; Campanelli, _Fonetica del dial. reatino_
(Turin, 1896); Verga, _Sonetti e altre poesie di R. Torelli in dial.
perugino_ (Milan, 1895); Bianchi, _Il Dialetto e la etnografia di
Citta di Castello_ (Citta di Castello, 1888); Neumann-Spallart,
_Zeitschrift fur roman. Phil._ xxviii. 273 sqq., 450 sqq.; _Weitere
Beitrage zur Charakteristik des Dialektes der Marche_ (Halle a. S.,
1907); Crocioni, _Studi di fil. rom._, ix. 617 sqq.; _Studi romanzi_,
fasc. 3^0, 113 sqq., _Il Dial. di Arcevia_ (Rome, 1906); Lindsstrom,
_Studi romanzi_, fasc. 5^0, 237 sqq.; Crocioni, ib. 27 sqq. D.: Parodi,
_Romania_, xviii.; Schwenke, _De dialecto quae carminibus popularibus
tuscanicis a Tigrio editis continetur_ (Leipzig, 1872); Pieri, _Arch.
glott._ xii. 107 sqq., 141 sqq., 161 sqq.; _Miscell. Caix-Canello_,
305 sqq.; _Note sul dialetto aretino_ (Pisa, 1886); _Zeitschr. fur
rom. Philol._ xxviii. 161 sqq.; Salvioni, _Arch. glott._ xvi. 395
sqq.; Hirsch, _Zeitschrift f. rom. Philol._ ix. 513 sqq., x. 56 sqq.,
411 sqq. For researches on the etymology of all the Italian dialects,
but chiefly of those of Northern Italy, the _Beitrag zur Kunde der
norditalienischen Mundarten im XV. Jahrhundert_ of Ad. Mussafia
(Vienna, 1873) and the _Postille etimologiche_ of Giov. Flechia
(_Arch. glott._ ii., iii.) are of the greatest importance. Biondelli's
book is of no small service also for the numerous translations which
it contains of the Prodigal Son into Lombard, Piedmontese and Emilian
dialects. A dialogue translated into the vernaculars of all parts of
Italy will be found in Zuccagni Orlandini's _Raccolta di dialetti
italiani con illustrazioni etnologiche_ (Florence, 1864). And every
dialectal division is abundantly represented in a series of versions
of a short novel of Boccaccio, which Papanti has published under the
title _I Parlari italiani in Certaldo_, &c. (Leghorn, 1875).

[A very valuable and rich collection of dialectal essays on the most
ancient documents for all parts of Italy is to be found in the
_Crestomazia italiana dei primi secoli_ of E. Monaci (Citta di
Castello, 1889-1897); see also in the _Altitalienische Chrestomathie_
of P. Savj-Lopez and M. Bartoli (Strassburg, 1903).]
(G. I. A.; C. S.*)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The article by G. I. Ascoli in the 9th edition of the
_Encyclopaedia Britannica_, which has been recognized as a classic
account of the Italian language, was reproduced by him, with slight
modifications, in _Arch. glott._ viii. 98-128. The author proposed to
revise his article for the present edition of the _Encyclopaedia_,
but his death on the 21st of January 1907 prevented his carrying out
this work, and the task was undertaken by Professor C. Salvioni. In
the circumstances it was considered best to confine the revision to
bringing Ascoli's article up to date, while preserving its form and
main ideas, together with the addition of bibliographical notes, and
occasional corrections and substitutions, in order that the results
of more recent research might be embodied. The new matter is
principally in the form of notes or insertions within square
brackets.

[2] [In Corsica the present position of Italian as a language of
culture is as follows. Italian is only used for preaching in the
country churches. In all the other relations of public and civil life
(schools, law courts, meetings, newspapers, correspondence, &c.), its
place is taken by French. As the elementary schools no longer teach
Italian but French, an educated Corsican nowadays knows only his own
dialect for everyday use, and French for public occasions.]

[3] [It may be asked whether we ought not to include under this
section the Vegliote dialect (Veglioto), since under this form the
Dalmatian dialect (Dalmatico) is spoken in Italy. But it should be
remembered that in the present generation the Dalmatian dialect has
only been heard as a living language at Veglia.]

[4] As a matter of fact the "velar" at the end of a word, when
preceded by an accented vowel, is found also in Venetia and Istria.
This fact, together with others (v. _Kritischer Jahresbericht uber
die Fortschritte der roman. Philol._ vii. part i. 130), suggests that
we ought to assume an earlier group in which Venetian and
Gallo-Italian formed part of one and the same group. In this
connexion too should be noted the atonic pronoun _ghe_ (Ital. _ci_-a
lui, a lei, a loro), which is found in Venetian, Lombard,
North-Emilian and Ligurian.

[5] [The latest authorities for the Sardinian dialects are W.
Meyer-Lubke and M. Bartoli, in the passages quoted by Guarnerio in
his "Il sardo e il corso in una nuova classificazione delle lingue
romanze" (_Arch. glott._ xvi. 491-516). These scholars entirely
dissociate Sardinian from the Italian system, considering it as
forming in itself a Romance language, independent of the others; a
view in which they are correct. The chief discriminating criterion is
supplied by the treatment of the Latin -_s_, which is preserved in
Sardinian, the Latin accusative form prevailing in the declension of
the plural, as opposed to the nominative, which prevails in the
Italian system. In this respect the Gallo-Italian dialects adhere to
the latter system, rejecting the -_s_ and retaining the nominative
form. On the other hand, these facts form an important link between
Sardinian and the Western Romance dialects, such as the Iberian,
Gallic and Ladin; it is not, however, to be identified with any of
them, but is distinguished from them by many strongly-marked
characteristics peculiar to itself, chief among which is the
treatment of the Latin accented vowels, for which see Ascoli in the
text. As to the internal classification of the Sardinian dialects,
Guarnerio assumes four types, the Campidanese, Logudorese, Gallurese
and Sassarese. The separate individuality of the last of these is
indicated chiefly by the treatment of the accented vowels (_dezi_,
Ital. dieci; _tela_, Ital. tela; _pelu_, Ital. pelo; _nobu_, Ital.
nuovo; _fiori_, Ital. fiore; _nozi_, Ital. noce, as compared, e.g.
with Gallurese _deci_, _tela_, _pilu_, _nou_, _fiori_, _nuci_). Both
Gallura and Sassari, however, reject the -_s_, and adopt the
nominative form in the plural, thus proving that they are not
entirely distinct from the Italian system.]

[6] On this point see the chapter, "La terra ferma veneta considerata
in ispecie ne' suoi rapporti con la sezione centrale della zona
ladina," in _Arch._ i. 406-447.

[7] [There are also examples of Istrian variants, such as _lanna_,
Ital. lana; _kadenna_, Ital. catena.]

[8] [There have been of late years many different opinions concerning
the classification of Corsican. Meyer-Lubke dissociates it from
Italian, and connects it with Sardinian, making of the languages of
the two islands a unit independent of the Romance system. But even he
(in Grober's _Grundriss_, 2nd ed., vol. i. p. 698) recognized that
there were a number of characteristics, among them the participle in
-_utu_ and the article _illu_, closely connecting Sassari and Corsica
with the mainland. The matter has since then been put in its true
light by Guarnerio (_Arch. glott._ xvi. 510 et seq.), who points out
that there are two varieties of language in Corsica, the
_Ultramontane_ or southern, and the _Cismontane_, by far the most
widely spread, in the rest of the island. The former is, it is true,
connected with Sardinian, but with that variety, precisely, which, as
we have already seen, ought to be separated from the general
Sardinian type. Here we might legitimately assume a North-Sardinian
and South-Corsican type, having practically the same relation to
Italian as have the Gallo-Italian dialects. As to the Cismontane, it
has the Tuscan accented vowel-system, does not alter _ll_ or _rn_,
turns _lj_ into _i_ (Ital. _gli_), and shares with Tuscan the
peculiar pronunciation of _c_ between vowels, while, together with
many of the Tuscan and central dialects, it reduces _rr_ to a single
consonant. For these reasons, Guarnerio is right in placing the
Cismontane, as Ascoli does for all the Corsican dialects, on the same
plane as Umbrian, &c.]

[9] The Ultramontane variety has, however, _tela_, _pilu_, _iddu_,
_boci_, _gula_, _furu_, corresponding exactly to the Gallurese
_tela_, _pilu_, Ital. _pelo_, _iddu_; Ital. "ello," Lat. _illu_;
_boci_, Ital. voce; _gula_, Ital. gole.

[10] [Traces are not lacking on the mainland of _ng_ becoming _nc_,
not only in Calabria, where at Cosenza are found, e.g. _chiancere_,
Ital. piangere, _manciare_, but also in Sannio and Apulia: _chiance_,
_monce_, Ital. mungere, in the province of Avellino, _punci_, Ital.
(tu) pungi, at Brindisi. In Sicily, on the other hand, can be traced
examples of _nc_ _nk_ _nt_ _mp_ becoming _ng_ _ng_ _nd_ _mb_.]

[11] It should, however, be noticed that there seem to be examples of
the e from a in the southern dialects on the Tyrrhenian side; texts
of Serrara d'Ischia give: _mancete_, mangiata, _maretete_, maritata,
_manneto_, mandato; also _tenno_ = Neap. _tanno_, allora. As to the
diphthongs, we should not omit to mention that some of them are
obviously of comparatively recent formation. Thus, examples from
Cerignola, such as _levoite_, oliveto, come from _*olivitu_ (cf.
Lecc. _leitu_, &c.), that is to say, they are posterior to the
phenomenon of vowel change by which the formula _e-u_ became _i-u_.
And, still in the same dialect, in an example like _grejte_, creta,
the _ej_ seems perhaps to be recent, for the reason that another _e_,
derived from an original _e_ (Lat. _e_), is treated in the same way
(_pejte_, piede, &c.). As to examples from Agnone like _puole_, palo,
there still exists a plural _pjele_ which points to the phase
_*palo_.

[12] We should here mention that _callu_ is also found in the
_Vocabolario Siciliano_, and further occurs in Capitanata.

[13] This is derived in reality from the Latin termination _-unt_,
which is reduced phonetically to _-u_, a phenomenon not confined to
the Abruzzi; cf. _facciu_, Ital. fanno, Lat. _faciunt_, at Norcia;
_crisciu_, Ital. crescono, Lat. _crescunt_, &c., at Rieti. And
examples are also to be found in ancient Tuscan.

[14] [This resolution of -_c_- by _s_, or by a sound very near to
_s_, is, however, a Roman phenomenon, found in some parts of Apulia
(Molfettese _lausce_, luce, &c.), and also heard in parts of Sicily.]

[15] There is therefore nothing surprising in the fact that, for
example, the chronicle of Monaldeschi of Orvieto (14th century)
should indicate a form of speech of which Muratori remarks: "Romanis
tunc familiaris, nimirum quae in nonnullis accedabat ad Neapolitanam
seu vocibus seu pronuntiatione." The _alt_ into _ait_, &c. (_aitro_,
_moito_), which occur in the well-known _Vita di Cola di Rienzo_,
examples of which can also be found in some corners of the Marches,
and of which there are also a few traces in Latium, also shows
Abruzzan affinity. The phenomenon occurs also, however, in Emilian
and Tuscan.

[16] A distinction between the masculine and the neuter article can
also be noticed at Naples and elsewhere in the southern region, where
it sometimes occurs that the initial consonant of the substantive is
differently determined according as the substantive itself is
conceived as masculine or neuter; thus at Naples, neut. _lo bero_,
masc. _lo vero_, "il vero," &c.; at Cerignola (Capitanata), _u
mmegghie_, "il meglio," side by side with _u moise_ "il mese." The
difference is evidently to be explained by the fact that the neuter
article originally ended in a consonant (-_d_ or -_c_?; see Merlo,
_Zeitschrift fur roman. Philol._ xxx. 449), which was then
assimilated to the initial letter of the substantive, while the
masculine article ended in a vowel.

[17] This second prefix is common to the opposite valley of the
Metauro, and appears farther south in the form of _me_,--Camerino:
_me lu pettu_, nel petto, _me lu Seppurgru_, al Sepolcro.

[18] A complete analogy is afforded by the history of the Aryan or
Sanskrit language in India, which in space and time shows always more
and more strongly the reaction of the oral tendencies of the
aboriginal races on whom it has been imposed. Thus the Pali presents
the ancient Aryan organism in a condition analogous to that of the
oldest French, and the Prakrit of the Dramas, on the other hand, in a
condition like that of modern French.