View More View Less
  • 1 Departamento de Estudos Clássicos, Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
  • 2 MTA Research Institute for Linguistics, Budapest, Hungary
Open access

Summary:

This paper focuses on the uses and forms of the relative pronouns as evidenced from the Latin epigraphy in Lusitania. Inscriptions are considered from the 1st to the 8th century AD, with special attention being paid to the future developments in the Portuguese language. To this purpose, other in- scriptions or documents of a different nature dated to later chronologies are also considered as a point of comparison.

Summary:

This paper focuses on the uses and forms of the relative pronouns as evidenced from the Latin epigraphy in Lusitania. Inscriptions are considered from the 1st to the 8th century AD, with special attention being paid to the future developments in the Portuguese language. To this purpose, other in- scriptions or documents of a different nature dated to later chronologies are also considered as a point of comparison.

INTRODUCTION

Relative pronouns underwent complex changes during the shift from Latin into the Romance languages, which affected phonetics, morphology and syntax. A contras- tive analysis of the evidence from antiquity to modern times allows us to track down the progressive development of these forms and to compare previous phases with the current state of Romance languages. In our case, we will focus on the relationship between the Vulgar Latin of the province Lusitania and the modern Portuguese language.

RELATIVE PRONOUNS IN PORTUGUESE: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

In Portuguese, relative clauses are usually introduced by the so-called ‘Q-mor- phemes’.1 Just like in other Romance languages, relative pronouns can be divided be- tween invariable and variable forms (Table 1).2 In the first group we find que, whose origin is clearly Vulgar Latin qui – when the pronoun acts as subject – or Vulgar Latin que(m)/quid – when it stands for the direct object of a sentence.3 Also invariable is the form quem, which preserves the original Latin spelling of the masculine accusative; this is always preceded by a preposition (e.g. com quem) and is able to replace que when the antecedent is a human or animate referent. The last element of the group of invariable pronouns is onde, from Latin unde, that has a locative function and can also appear within prepositional syntagmata (e.g. de onde). On the other hand, the group of variable pronouns includes forms derived from Latin qualiso qual, a qual, os quais, as quais, which can act in the phrase either as subject or as direct object –4 as well as from Latin cuius - cujo, cuja, cujos, cujas, which preserve the original meaning of belonging or possession. Other components of this group are quanto, quantos and quantas, from Latin quantus.5

VariableInvariable
Masculinefeminine
singularpluralsingularplural
o qualos quaisa qualas quaisque
cujocujoscujacujasquem
quantoquantos---quantasonde

Table 1.

Relative pronouns in Portuguese (from CUNHA-CINTRA [n. 5] 342)

It is noteworthy that some of the above-quoted forms are identical with the interrogative pronouns – for instance, que, qual, quanto or onde. This observation can be related with the ‘overlapping system’ of interrogative and relative pronouns which developed in Vulgar and Late Latin, in consequence of phonetic and morphological changes, such as the deletion of final consonants. These processes led to a morpho- logical affinity between separated forms – for instance, between the relative pronoun qui and interrogative-indefinite pronoun quis, both of which converged into Portu- guese que.6

The bonds connecting relative pronouns (Table 2) to their antecedents7 became weakened already in Vulgar Latin. According to Herman, ‘the masculine nominative form qui (“who”) and the masculine accusative quem came to be generally available forms that could be used after any antecedent, particularly if they were used to refer to people (…)’; on the other hand, the neutral form quodwas often extended to both masculine and feminine antecedents, ‘particularly when the nouns are used to refer abstractions or to objects’.8

SingularPlural
Mase.Fern.NeuterMase.Fein.Neuter
Nom.quī (quei)Quaequodquī (quei)quaequae
AcequemQuamquodquosquasquae
Gen.cuius’ (quoius)quorumquarumquorum
Dat.cuī (quoi)quibus (quis)
Abi.quōQuāquōquibus (quis)

Table 2.

Relative pronouns in Classical Latin (POLETTO - SANFELICI [n. 2] 802)

Early testimonies of Portuguese are unfortunately scarce,9 but they show a clear influence of Latin orthography in the spelling of some words. Inscriptions from the 12th and the 13th century were mostly written in Latin (Table 3), reflecting the new status acquired by epigraphy in the Middle Age. Indeed, inscriptions dated to this period are primarily related with the political and cultural elites. In such texts, relative pronouns usually appear in their extended form (without abbreviations) and are clearly deployed according to the norm of Classical Latin. They seem to be completely detached from the changes they had experienced in Vulgar and Late Latin, and come to be even more distant from the Romance system. In such cultivated contexts, Latin was used as an artificial means of expression – often in the frame of poetic compositions –, as a means of favouring linguistic correctness.

Nr.Date / PlaceText
L11155 / Santa Cruz, CoimbraHOC : IACET : IN PULCRO : RODERICUS : NEMPE : SEPULCRO . / QUI : DOMINO : CELI : SERVIVIT : CORDE : FIDELI : / NAMQUE : LOCO : XPISTO: TEMPLUM : CONSTRUXIT : IN ISTO / QUOD : BENE : DITAVIT : SACRIS : DONISQUE : BEAVIT / CLAUSTRI : STRUCTURAS : FUNDAVIT : NON : RUITURAS : / ATQUE : DOMOS : CUNCTAS : PER : CIRCUITUM : BENE : IUNCTAS: / SED : VIGILI :CURA :MISERIS :DANS :HIC :SUA :IURA :/ TEMPORE : SUB : SCRIPTO : MIGRAVIT : PRESBITER : ISTO : / XVIII : KaLendas : SEPTEMBRIS : ERA : M : C : LXXXXIII : /
L21173 / Igreja de St.a Maria de Ge- raz do Lima, Via- na do CasteloEra ⋮ Ma ⋮ CCa ⋮ XIa ⋮ III° ⋮ K(a)L(endas) [maii] / DEDICATA ⋮ FUIT EC(c)L(esi)A [ista] / Q(ua)M FECIT ⋮ DEDI[care] / MARTINUS ⋮ P(res)B(i)T(e)R […]
L31173-1181 / Capela de S. João, Montemor-o- Velho, CoimbraHOC : IACET : IN TUMULO / Q(u)I : E(st) : IN MEDIO : PORTE :/ PETRUS : ALFONSI : Q(u)I : OBIIT / VII° : K(a)L[endas :] SeTemBRIS : IN : / ERA : M : CC : X : I […]
L41175 / Capela de S. Pedro de Fins, Sta. Maria dos Olivais, Tomar, SantarémVII [sic] ⋮ NONAS⋮ MA/GII⋮ OBIIT⋮ GARSIA /⋮ VERMUDI⋮ CUI⋮ SI/T⋮ BAETA⋮ REQUIES⋮ / E(ra) ⋮ M⋮ CC⋮ XIII⋮ +⋮
L51181 / Igreja pa- roquial de S. Lou- renço do Bairro, Anadia, AveiroSUB⋮ HONORE⋮ SANCTI⋮ LAU/RENCII: PELAGIOLUS⋮ P(res)B(ite)R: HANC⋮ EDIFICAVIT⋮ / ECCLesIAM⋮ QUAM: CERO⋮ PerFECTAM⋮ VerMUDUS⋮ / CONIMBRIANE⋮ ECCLESIE: RELIGIOSUS⋮ DE/DICAVIT⋮ EPISCOPus⋮ VIIIo⋮ KaLendas⋮ N(ovem)B(e)R⋮ Era⋮ Ma⋮ CC X: VIIII
L61239 / Sé Velha de Coimbra, Sé Nova, CoimbraII ⋮ K(alenda)S ⋮ A(u)GUSTI ⋮ OB/IIT ⋮ SUERIUS ⋮ PE/TRI ⋮ MILES ⋮ CUIUS ⋮ /ANIMA ⋮ REQ(u)IES/CAT ⋮ IM [Sic] PACE ⋮ / ⋮ E(ra) ⋮ M ⋮ CC ⋮ [lxxvii]
L71285 / St. Maria de Celas, St.° António dos Olivais, CoimbraLAUDE ⋮ NIMIS ⋮ DIGNA ⋮ SPECIOSA ⋮ PUDICA ⋮ BENIGNA ⋮ / PROVIDA ⋮ DISCRETA ⋮ FACUNDA ⋮ MODESTA ⋮ QUIETA ⋮ / MORIBUS ⋮ ORNATA :DE ⋮ CLARO ⋮ SANGUINE ⋮ NATA ⋮ / FAMA ⋮ DOTATA ⋮ VIRTUTIBUS ⋮ ASSOCIATA ⋮ / HARUM ⋮ PRELATA ⋮
Nr.Date / PlaceText
CELLARUM ⋮ PRETITULATA ⋮ / LUX ⋮ PRELATARUM ⋮ CLARUM ⋮ SPECuLuM ⋮ MONACHARUM ⋮ / VULTUS ⋮ HONESTATI ⋮ FLOS ⋮ PURUS ⋮ VIRGINITATIS ⋮ / XPI ⋮ SERVORUM ⋮ MONIALIS ⋮ AMICA ⋮ MINORUM ⋮ / EST ⋮ ELVIRA ⋮ LUPI ⋮ QUAM ⋮ CERNIS ⋮ SUBDITA ⋮ RUPI ⋮ / CONSTAT i⋮IBI ⋮ CLAUDI ⋮ SIC ⋮ OMNIA ⋮ CONSONA ⋮ LAUDI ⋮ / LAUDES ⋮ ASCRIBI ⋮ QUECUNQUE ⋮ VALENT ⋮ MONIALI ⋮ / VENDICAT ⋮ ISTA ⋮ SIBI ⋮ MERITO ⋮ TITULOQUE ⋮ REALI ⋮ / POST ⋮ M ⋮ C ⋮ PARITER ⋮ TER ⋮ PONAS ⋮ X ⋮ BIS ⋮ ET ⋮ I ⋮ TER ⋮ / ILLIUS ⋮ ERA ⋮ NOTA ⋮TALI ⋮ FIAT ⋮ TIBI ⋮ NOTA ⋮
L81299 / Igreja de Sta. Maria da Al- cáçova, Monte- mor-o-Velho, CoimbraMARTINUS ⋮ GONTINA ⋮ IACENT ⋮ SIMUL ⋮ HIC ⋮ VIR ⋮ ET UXOR ⋮ / CUM ⋮ KARIS ⋮ NATIS ⋮ DICTIS ⋮ IUSTAQUE ⋮ MARIA ⋮ / QUOS ⋮ HIC ⋮ CONIUNXIT ⋮ FERNANDUS ⋮ NATUS ⋮ EORUM ⋮ / ⋮ ELBORA ⋮ QUEM ⋮ TENUIT [Sic] ⋮ PATREM ⋮ PRO ⋮ Q(u)IS ⋮ DATUR ⋮ ALMA ⋮ / ⋮ HOSTIA ⋮ COTIDIE ⋮ IUSTE ⋮ FELICIS ⋮ IN ARA ⋮ / ⋮ CERNENTES ⋮ LAPIDEM ⋮ DICANT ⋮ DEUS ⋮ HIIS ⋮ MISERERE ⋮ / ⋮ NOSCENTES ⋮ VERE ⋮ QUOD ⋮ VENIENT ⋮ AD IDEM ⋮ / VI ⋮ KaLendaS ⋮ IUNII ⋮ OBIIT ⋮ MARIA ⋮ MAR TINI ⋮ a SOROR ⋮ FERNANDI ⋮ M(artini) ⋮ Era ⋮ Ma ⋮ CCCa ⋮ IIIIa/ VI ⋮ IDus ⋮ MARCII ⋮ OBIIT ⋮ MARTINus ⋮ PeLAGII ⋮ PATER ⋮ FERNAnDI ⋮ M(artini) ⋮ Era ⋮ Ma ⋮ CCCa ⋮ VIIIa ⋮ / VIII ⋮ KaLendaS ⋮ NOVe(m)BRis ⋮ Obiit ⋮ IusTA ⋮ MARTINI ⋮ SORORum ⋮ FERNANDI ⋮MAR(tini) ⋮ Era ⋮ Ma ⋮ CCCa ⋮ NONA ⋮ / XVII ⋮ KaLendaS ⋮ IULII ⋮ OBIIT ⋮ GONTINA a⋮ PETRI⋮ MATER ⋮ FER(nandi) ⋮ MARTINI ⋮ Era ⋮ Ma ⋮ CCCa ⋮ XIXa ⋮ / HORUm ⋮ OSSA ⋮ TRAN(s)LATA ⋮ FUERUNT ⋮ VIIo ⋮ IDUS i SEPTENBRIS ⋮ ERA ⋮ILLESIMA ⋮ TRESCENTESIMA [Sic] í XXXVII ⋮ QUORUM ⋮ AnlmE ⋮ REQUIESCANT ⋮ In ⋮ PACE ⋮ AME(n)
P1[1294-1298] /Castelo do Alan- droal, Alandroal, ÉvoraQUANDO⋮ QUISERES⋮ FAZE/R⋮ ALGUA ⋮ COUSA⋮ CATA ⋮O QUE / TE ⋮ EN ⋮ DEPOIS ⋮ VERA ⋮ E QUEN ⋮ DE T/I ⋮ FIAR ⋮ NO NO ⋮ ENGANES ⋮ LEALDADE / VENCE ⋮ TODALAS ⋮ COUSAS

Table 3.

Relative pronouns in medieval inscriptions from Portugal (12th-13th century)10

In contrast, the principal tendencies of the romance system emerge in full force with the notarial deeds composed in Portugal during the same epoch. In those examples which are dated to the 13th century, for instance, the form que appears in place of qui, thus anticipating the development into Portuguese que [ke].11 Genitive forms such as cuius, cuia and cuium are also recorded within these documents, where they are used as both relative and possessive pronouns; and, besides these, we can also find quanto and qual. 12

However, extravagant uses of the relative pronouns are attested in even earlier documents from Portugal, for example in the Liber Fidei, written in Braga in the 11th century.13 This text contains several morphosyntactic variants, such as singular quale and plural quales or the merging of que ∼ qui in the masculine nominative.

INSCRIPTIONAL EVIDENCE FROM THE PROVINCE LUSITANIA

In the province of Lusitania, whose territory corresponded to a great extent with central and southern Portugal, the modern region of Extremadura and parts of Castile and León and Castile-La Mancha, in Spain, deviant spellings of the relative pronouns tend to be more frequent in inscriptions produced in the Early Period (1st–3rd century AD), while they noticeably decrease in the Late Period (4th–8th century AD). In general terms, relative pronouns are not frequently attested on ancient inscriptions, due to the concise and standardized character of epigraphical texts. In most cases, they are inserted within funerary formulas such as qui / quae uixit annis… or cum quo / cum qua uixit annis., where they are deployed in the singular forms. 14 An ex- ception to this general trend is represented by the so-called Visigoth Slates, which are documents of a mainly administrative content, dated from the 6th to the 8th century AD, and concentrated in the Spanish sector of our province corresponding to the modern towns of Salamanca, Ávila and Cáceres. Indeed, such documents, whose texts tend to be more elaborated from the syntactical point of view, provide the majority of data referred to the system of the relative pronouns in Late Lusitania re- corded in the Computerized Historical Linguistic Database of Latin Inscriptions of the Imperial Age (LLDB), which will be used in this chapter as a main source of in- formation.15

The Visigoth Slates display, for instance, a clear tendency towards the elimination of the labial trait from the labio-velar phoneme /kw/, as is proven by the frequent spelling COD/COT for quod,16 as well as by other forms, such as COR for quorum (PizV 92, 1 = LLDB-48264) or CAS for quas (PizV 103, II, 2 = LLDB-59916).17 It might be observed that this phenomenon – which is to be found, for instance, in Dalmatia and Dacia already in the Early Period –18 seems not to have affected the system of relative pronouns for Early Lusitania.19

Another evident characteristic of the Visigoth Slates regarding the treatment of the relative pronouns is the devoicing of final -d, as according to the frequent spelling of quod as QVOT (or COT).20 In the Early Period, such a confusion is well-attested in other provinces, such as Dacia, Dalmatia, Africa Proconsularis and Baetica.21

We cannot exclude that such a misspelling reflects a general confusion between the relative pronoun quod and the interrogative-indefinite pronoun quot. However, as for the Early Period, it seems more plausible that devoiced spellings of this type were influenced by the phonological context (sandhi) – such in the phrase VOT(VM) QVOT FECIT (IRCPacen 571 = LLDB-16420, AD 1-300) –22 or that they were intended as archaizing forms - such as in the expression QVOT POTVIT PIETAS, as is recorded in a verse inscription (ERAEmerita 140 = LLDB-60398, AD 151-200), i.e. in a text with literary connotations.23 In the Late Period, the oscillation between -t and -d might reflect the instability of the final consonants, as has been correctly pointed out by Velázquez Soriano. 24 Indeed, in the province of Lusitania – but also in the Baetica – the loss of final -d is effectively attested with reference to the relative pronouns already in the Early Period.25

However, it is also possible that, in those cases where -d is absent, we are dealing with a phenomenon not of a phonological but of a syntactical nature, that is, the confusion between the ablative (quo) and the nominative-accusative (quod). Examples of case merging in the domain of the relative pronouns are in fact attested in both Early and Late Lusitania. As for the Late Period, they mainly focus – once again – on the Visigoth Slates, 26 while outside of this specific context we can mention the sentence EDIFICIV(M) S(AN)C(T)OR(VM) N(OMI)NE CEPTVM IVSTI ET PASTORIS MARTIRVM Q(V)OR(VM) CONSTAT ESSE SACRATVM for aedificium sanctorum nomine coeptum Iusti et Pastoris martyrum quibus constat esse sacratum (CIPTP 161 = LLDB-31779, AD 628), which shows the interchange between the dative and genitive case, which is a typical phenomenon of Late Latin.27

In general terms, the Visigoth Slates demonstrate a sort of ‘fixed use’ of the neuter pronoun quod, 28 which can alternatively replace a feminine form, such as in [N]OTITIA D VER[VELLAS?]29 COT ISPENSAS SVNT for notitia ueruellarum quae expensae sunt (PizV 97, I, 2 = LLDB-59415), or which can even refer to a plural name, such as in NOTITIA DE CEVARIA QVOT DEVES for notitia cibariorum quae debes (PizV 52, I, 3 = LLDB-48073).30 Conversely, the overlap of the masculine as the ‘universal gender’ in the domain of the relative pronouns is scarcely attested in Lusitania. On a private letter dated to the 3rd century AD that was rudely scratched on a shingle clay in Emerita Augusta (Mérida), we read the sentence PVELLAM QVI IAM FETO TOLLERAT for puellam quae iam fetum tulerat (Mallon p. 550 = LLDB- 45890), where the nominative masculine pronoun qui is used to refer back to the feminine noun puella. In later times, on a paleo-Christian verse epitaph from Portugal, we find the constructions ILLA (…) QVEM for illa (…) quae and ME MISERAM QVI for me miseram quae (CIPTP 3 = LLDB-29903 and 29915). In other provinces, this phenomenon is instead more widely reported, both in the Early Period - particu- larly in Africa Proconsularis and Dalmatia - and in the Late Period - especially in Gallia Narbonensis, Venetia et Histria and Dalmatia.31

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, epigraphic materials from different periods allow us to reconstruct the evolutionary process that led to the progressive disintegration of the Classical Latin system of the relative pronouns. The first hints of such an evolution are visible in the documents of the province of Lusitania and date to the Roman age and Late Antiq- uity. The subsequent adoption of Latin as a cultivated language and the elitist use of inscriptions in medieval times led to a sort of ‘re-normalization’ of the epigraphic language, including the system of the relative pronouns. Nevertheless, complemen- tary documents of a different nature, such as non-epigraphic texts from the Middle Ages, provide us with a wider panorama over the phenomena of linguistic change. By the 11th century AD, the system of relative pronouns of the Portuguese language had already taken its basic shape.

*

This paper was prepared in the frame of the Marie Sklodowska-Curie project titled ‘VaLiD - Value to Linguistic Differences: Misspelled Inscriptions from Ancient Spain’ (H2020-MSCA-IF-2017- 793808), which is associated to the ‘Lendület (‘Momentum’) Research Group for Computational Latin Dialectology’ (Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) and to the project NKFIH (National Research, Development and Innovation Office) No. K 124170 titled ‘Computer- ized Historical Linguistic Database of Latin Inscriptions of the Imperial Age’.

1

‘Constituintes relativos ou morfemas-Q’. Cf. BRITO, A. M. B. - DUARTE, I.: Orações relativas e construções aparentadas. In MATEUS, M. H. M. ET AL. (eds): Gramática da Língua Portuguesa. Lisboa 2003, 653-694, here 661.

2

Cf. POLETTO, C. - SANFELICI, E.: Relative Clauses. In DUFFER, A. – STARK, E. (eds): Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax. Berlin - New York 2017, 804-838.

3

Cf. COHEN, M. A.: Syntactic Change in Portuguese: Relative Clauses and the Position of the Adjective in the Noun Phrase. Campinas 1990, 122.

4

O qual replaces que in restrictive prepositional relatives – indirect object – and in all appositive relatives. Cf. RINKE, E. – ASSMANN, E.: The Syntax of Relative Clauses in European Portuguese. Extend- ing the Determiner Hypothesis of Relativizers to Relative que. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 16.4 (2017) 1-26, here 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.172.

5

Cf. CUNHA, C. – CINTRA, L.: Nova Gramática do Português Contemporâneo. Lisboa 2000, 342.

6

Cf. COHEN (n. 3) 121. See also POMPEI, A.: Relative clauses. In: BALDI, PH. - CUZZOLIN, P. (eds): New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Vol. III. Berlin - New York 2011, 427-547.

7

On this topic, cf. PEREZ FERNANDEZ, J. M.: El pronombre relativo: su complejidad formal y funcional. In RODRÍGUEZ ADRADOS, F. (ed.): IX Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos (Madrid, 27 al 30 de septiembre de 1995) III. Madrid 1998, 217–222.

8

Cf. HERMAN, J.: Vulgar Latin. Transl. by R. Wright. The Pennsylvania State University Press 2000, 66.

9

The earliest documents written in the so-called ‘galego-português’ language are dated to the 12th century: Excerto do pacto de Gomes Pais e Ramiro Pais (IAN/TT, Mitra de Braga, maço 1, n. 26/A) date: between 1173 and 1175; cf. SOUTO CABO, J. A.: Documentos Galego-portugueses dos séculos XII e XIII. Coruña 2008 - and Notĩcia de Fiadores (IAN/TT,CR, Mosteiro de S. Cristovâo do Rio Tinto, maço 2, n. 10) date: 1175; cf. MARTINS, A. M.: Ainda “os mais antigos textos escritos em portugués”. Documentos de 1175 a 1252. In I. HUB FARIA (ed.): Lindley Cintra. Homenagem ao Homem, ao Mestre e ao Cidadão. Lisboa 1999, 491-534.

10

Cf. BARROCA, M. J.: Epigrafía Medieval Portuguesa (862–1422). Corpus Epigráfico Medieval Português. Tomo I, vol. II. Lisboa 2000, 261–265 (L1), 384–387 (L2), 387–389 (L3), 404–407 (L4), 442–445 (L5), 778–780 (L6), 1046–1050 (L7), 1150–1156 (L8), 1118–1121 (P1).

11

Cf. MAIA, C. A.: História do Galego-Português. Estudo linguístico da Galiza e do Noroeste de Portugal desde o século XIII ao século XVI. Lisboa 1997, 693.

12

Cf. MAIA (n. 11) 694–697.

13

Cf. EMILIANO, A. H. DE A.: Latim e Romance na segunda metade do século XI. Análise scripto- linguística de documentos notariais do Liber Fidei de Braga de 1050 a 1110. Lisboa 2003, 264–265.

14

In the province of Lusitania, relative pronouns appear in less than 1% of the inscriptions (ca. 70 relative pronouns among ca. 7.500 total inscriptions according to EDCS in December 2018 – http://db.edcs.eu).

15

http://lldb.elte.hu. The data discussed in this paper reflect the state of work at 02/12/2018. We have not considered archaising spellings such as QVOIVS for cuius (cf. e.g. LLDB-71342, 71334 and 71332) or QVEI for qui (cf. e.g. LLDB-80917 and 80929). We have also omitted phenomena which might be explained as technical mistakes or which reflect orthographic habits, such as the use of E for ae, that mainly concerns the pronoun quae, often written as QVE (cf. e.g. LLDB-74822 and 74379). In doing so, we have rejected the possibility that QVE could be a misspelling of the masculine form qui due to the merge of i and e, or, alternatively, that it might correspond to the accusative quem, with loss of final -m. We have also excluded data labelled as fortasse recte and have only used dated inscriptions. Abbreviations of the epigraphic publications quoted can be consulted at LLDB’s webpage.

16

Cf. e.g. PizV 4, I, 10 = LLDB-46844 (COD FIAT for quod fiat) or PizV 97, II, 2 = LLDB- 59430 (COT ISPENSVM EST for quod expensum est).

17

Cf. VELÁZQUEZ SORIANO, I.: Las pizarras visigodas. (Entre el latín y su disgregación. La lengua hablada en Hispania, siglos VI-VIII). Burgos 2004, 532.

18

Cf. LLDB-5363, 14293, 33168, 34871, 34769 (Early Dalmatia) and LLDB-5723, 9145 (Early Dacia).

19

Nevertheless, in this phonological context such reduction is attested already in the times of Cicero, who refers to a play on words, coquequoque, transmitted by Quintilian (Quint. inst. 6. 3), cf. VÄÄNÄNEN, V.: Introducción al Latín vulgar. Madrid 2003, 99–100 and ZAMBONI A.: Contributo allo studio del latino epigrafico della Regio X Augustea (Venetia et Histria). Fonetica (vocali in iato e consonantismo). In Atti dell’Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti. Classe di Scienze morali, Lettere ed Arti 126. Venezia 1967–1968, 87–88. In Early Lusitania the reduction of the labio-velar phoneme /kw/ is attested only before vowels such as a or i, as is proved by spellings such as QADRATI for Quadrati (CIRPSalamanca 136 = LLDB-32616, AD 191–210), TRANQILLO for Tranquillo (ERBeira 14 = LLDB- 36775, AD 1-50) or QINTO for Quinto (CILCaceres 3, 1091 = LLDB-45776, AD 101–200).

20

Cf. e.g. PizV 40, I, 7 = LLDB-82005 (ADERATO ET [DEFE]NITO PRETIV COT INTER NOB[I]S BONE PACIS CONVE[NIT] for adaerato et definito pretio quod inter nos bonae pacis conuenit) or PizV 8, I, 5 = LLDB-46898 ([DA]TO ET DEFENITO PRETIO QVOT INTE[R NOS] for dato et definito pretio quod inter nos).

21

Cf. LLDB-4166, 5745, 7568, 9146, 9791, 9875, 9878, 9886, 9887 (Early Dacia); LLDB-266, 14294, 34870 (Early Dalmatia); LLDB-43658, 50624, 51126, 54273, 65286, 82231 (Early Africa Pro- consularis) and LLDB-22112, 25096, 26080, 74374 (Early Baetica).

22

See also, in Gallia Narbonensis: QVOT TV NOBIS DEBVISTI FACERE (CIL XII 729 = LLDB- 74066, 51-300 AD); or, in Dacia: M[ONVMENTO] QVOT FRATRES M[EI] (IDR 2, 62 = LLDB-4166, AD 171–250).

23

Moreover, it should be underlined that the spelling QVOT for quod often appears within formulas with a legal value, see e.g., in Baetica: EX FVNER(ATICIO) QVOT SVPERF(VIT) (CILA 2, 2, 455 = LLDB-22112, AD 101–200) or, in Dacia: QVOT I(NFRA) S(CRIPTVM) EST (IDR 1, 31/2 = LLDB-9791, AD 167).

24

Cf. VELÁZQUEZ SORIANO (n. 17) 502.

25

Cf. LLDB-60217, 79892 (Early Lusitania); LLDB-26036 (Early Baetica). In Early Baetica, we also found a case of addition of a final -d to the relative pronoun quo: QVO{D} BENEFICIO PRINCIPIS NOSTR2I6 FRVI CONTIGIT (CIL II2/5, 900, I, 11 = LLDB-74382, AD 19).

26

As for Late Lusitania, data obtained from the Visigoth Slates are marked by a double asterisk (**): LLDB-16400, 41852, 60217, 79892 (Early Lusitania); LLDB-31779, 47062**, 59921**, 84279** (Late Lusitania). For this phenomenon in other provinces, cf. LLDB-22918, 24912, 25149, 25455, 25548, 74371, 74382 (Early Baetica); LLDB-51143, 52609, 52654, 60722 (Early Africa Proconsularis); LLDB-1662, 77673 (Early Gallia Narbonensis); LLDB-4124, 7645, 73855, 81902 (Late Gallia Narbonensis); LLDB-12389, 12484, 13102, 63908 (Late Venetia et Histria); LLDB-28910 (Early Dalmatia); LLDB-18212 (Late Dalmatia) and LLDB-9573 (Early Dacia). Both in early and late documents, a peculiar problem is represented by the interchange between the forms QVI and CVI, which might correspond to the merger of the nominative and the dative case of the relative pronoun but might also be considered as a mere orthographic issue. On this topic, cf. MORALEJO, J. L.: Qui, cui y la interpretación fonológica de las labiovelares latinas. Excerpta philologica. Revista de filología griega y latina de la Universidad de Cádiz 1.2 (1991) 521–528. See also HERNÁNDEZ PÉREZ, R.: Qui exsitum parentes dederunt: una formulación en prosa del tópico de la immatura (praepostera) mors en una inscripción romana del Ager Tarraconensis (Renau, Tarragona). Habis 47 (2016) 190–191.

27

Cf. BASSOLS DE CLIMENT, M.: Sintaxis latina. Madrid 1992, 61.

28

Cf. VELÁZQUEZ SORIANO (n. 17) 288 ad v. 12 (“posible uso fijo de quod”). See also DÍAZ Y DÍAZ, M. C.: El latín de la Península Ibérica. Rasgos lingüísticos. In Enciclopedia Lingüística Hispánica. Madrid 1960, 153–197, here 177. Several times in the Visigoth Slates, it seems difficult to recognize the value of quod and its linguistic referent, especially because of the fragmentary state of the text, cf. e.g. PizV 4, 93, 97, I, 5 and II, 6.

29

For the use of the accusative case in this construction (that should be de + ablative, replacing a regular genitive) as according with the situation attested in other Slates, cf. VELÁZQUEZ SORIANO (n. 17) 350.

30

As for the confusion between singular and plural, one might point to the convergence of the singular and the plural forms of the masculine, qui, and that of the singular and the plural forms of the feminine, and also of the plural of the gender neutral, quae, which is attested in some juridical texts from Baetica, cf. e.g. EOS (…) QVIPRAESSENT (…) AtQvE …) DEDISSET (CILA 2, 3, 927, III 24–25 = LLDB-22741), AB EO QVI(…) MVNICIPES (…) ERIT (CILA 2, 4, 1201, XIII, 11 = LLDB-25108) or EA SACRA QvAE IN EA COLON ALIOvE QvO LOCO COLON2ORvM NOMINE FIAT for ea sacra quae in ea colonia alioue quo loco colonorum nomine fiant (CIL II2/5, 1022, XX 22 = LLDB-74370).

31

Cf. LLDB-45042, 53782, 53954, 54721, 54814, 54821, 82016 (Early Africa Proconsularis); LLDB-999, 79271 (Early Gallia Narbonensis); LLDB-1644, 4253, 4256, 4273, 4389, 4400, 4402, 4712, 5460, 6449, 6995, 7009, 7747, 7752, 10113, 10121, 10124, 10263, 12769, 13097, 13707, 13709, 13776, 26307, 26352, 73758, 73850, 73856, 73916, 74732, 74733, 74737, 74745, 75272, 75406, 75412, 77712, 77793, 77987, 78025, 78766, 78794, 79279 (Late Gallia Narbonensis); LLDB-12531, 12993, 23875 (Early Venetia et Histria); LLDB-11922, 11938, 11945, 12182, 12221, 12269, 12296, 12304, 12328, 12483, 12504, 12565, 12576, 12969, 12971, 13106, 20924, 23439, 62854, 62933 (Late Venetia et Histria); LLDB-5864, 14351, 29452, 30504, 30603 (Early Dalmatia); LLDB-9404, 10914, 14138, 14157, 14278, 18418, 18701, 18694 (Late Dalmatia). In the Venetia et Histria, such a phenomenon is already attested in an inscription dated to the years AD 9-43 (CIL V 4923 = LLDB-23875: CANGINAI QVEM for Canginae quam).

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
May 2020 0 0 0
Jun 2020 0 0 0
Jul 2020 0 0 0
Aug 2020 0 0 0
Sep 2020 0 8 9
Oct 2020 0 43 28
Nov 2020 0 0 0