Download as a PDF

1
VOWEL ALTERNATION IN THE SPANISH -IR VERBS
Hugh E. Wilkinson
1. Introduction. All students of Spanish have no doubt been
bothered at some time or other by the problem of learning where
to change an e into an ie or an i in verbs of the -ir conjugation.
This vowel alternation is one of the striking features of this
conjugation, and takes two forms: the alternation between e and
ie or i, and similarly between o and ue or u, in the stem vowel
(taking the root without the thematic vowel to be the stem) in the
rhizotonic forms of the present indicative and subjunctive and
the imperative, and the substitution of i for e and u for o in the
arrhizotonic forms of the subjunctive and before a secondary yod.
Another thing that stands out, too, is that in the majority of cases
e alternates only with i, not with ie in the present, whereas this
kind of alternation is never found in the other conjugations; and
in the older language there was also mainly an alternation
between o and u, which was later eliminated by the extension of
u-forms throughout. Moreover, amongst the e/i verbs are many
from the Latin -ĒRE and -ĔRE conjugations, which, for one reason
or another, have found their way into this conjugation, so that it
seems to have become a repository for all verbs of this type. (A
certain number are learned borrowings which have been adapted
to this type; equally, certain other learned words have been
adapted to the e/ie/i type, while a few do not alternate at all.) The
1
2
result is that, in Modern Spanish, as far as the popularly derived
verbs are concerned, the -er conjugation contains only verbs
with stem vowel e/e < Latin Ē, Ĭ, such as vender, e/ie < Latin Ĕ,
such as perder, o/o < Latin Ō,
Ŏ,
Ŭ
such as romper, or o/ue < Latin
such as morder, while the -ir conjugation has e/ie/i, as sentir,
e/i, as pedir, i/i, as vivir, o/ue/u, as dormir, u/u for older o/u, as
subir, and u/u, old and modern, as conducir, with e/e, o/o hardly
found, and then only in learned borrowings. It is also noteworthy
that, with the exception of hervir and the anomalous erguir,
earlier erzer, -er verbs with the alternation e/ie did not migrate to
the -ir conjugation, while even these two verbs have produced
i-forms, irgo and popular hirvo. (In Old Spanish rendir/-er also
fluctuated between rindo and riendo. The learned compounds of
cerner, verter, such as concernir, convertir, follow the e/ie
pattern of the simple verbs.) In the case of the back vowels, there
are several verbs from the -ERE conjugations which had stem
vowel
Ŏ
in Latin, such as nucir, cumplir, tullir, tundir, cuntir,
muñir, and dialectal espurrir, escurrir and cullir, and the reasons
behind these changes are as various as in the case of the front
vowels.
2. What verbs are involved. In seeking the origin of these
alternations, we should obviously look only at the verbs
popularly or semi-popularly derived from Proto-Romance (PR),
and not at learned borrowings. And in so doing, we need to look
2
3
at the same time at the developments in the neighbouring
languages, Portuguese, Catalan and Provençal, as well as the
other Spanish dialects. When we do so, we find that these
languages have also developed special characteristics in the -ir
conjugation, sometimes similar to the Spanish ones, though often
the process has been a different one. (Source materials referred
to by abbreviations in the text will be found listed in the
Bibliography at the end.)
First let us begin by listing the verbs concerned, by classes,
taking the OSp. forms:
(1) e/ie/i; Latin Ĕ,
AE:
ferir, mentir, sentir, (ar)repentirse,
fervir,
premir,
tremir,
-cernir,
convertir, erguir, re-querir (pes-,
con-),
venir,
aterirse,
and
compounds.
(2) e/i, OSp. also e/ie/i; Latin Ĕ:
vestir,
embestir,
servir,
seguir,
rendir, pedir, ex-pedir (des-), gemir,
regir and compounds.
(3) e/i or i/i; Latin Ē, Ĭ: medir (co-), re-çebir (con-, (a)per-,
de- (F.J.)), desçir, fenchir, redemir,
ceñir, costreñir, estreñir, teñir, feñir,
reñir.
(4) e/i or i/i; Latin Ī:
bevir, escrevir, reir, freir, dezir.
(5) e/i; etyma doubtful: arrecirse, derretir, engreirse, desleir.
3
4
(6) e/e/i; Latin Ĕ:
(7) o/ue/u; Latin Ŏ:
exir.
dormir, morir and compounds.
(8) u/u, or OSp. o/u, also o/ue/u; Latin Ŏ:
cobrir, ofrir, sofrir (with the open o
of ofrir) aborrir, nozir, complir,
contir, escorrir; add MSp. tullir,
tundir (1), surtir (1), muñir, curtir ?,
mullir, cundir, pulir, dial. espurrir,
cullir.
(9) u/u, or OSp. o/u; Latin Ō, Ŭ:
sa-codir (a-, re-, per-), sobir, foir,
roir, destroir, escopir, dial. tusir,
and cusir, bollir, sobollir, engollir,
groñir, tundir (2), surtir (2), ordir,
englotir, nodrir, podrir, surgir,
unzir, dial. mocir, MSp. confundir.
(10) u/u, OSp. also o/u; Latin Ū:
aduzir, sumir, luzir, mugir, dial.
pruir.
(11) o/o, OSp. also o/o/u; Latin AU:
oir.
3. Narrowing down the field. It will be seen that in the old
language the front and back vowels had the same range of
alternation. However, several notes need to be added to modify
4
5
the picture:
(1) Fervir, premir, tremir, and erguir are flanked by old and
dial. infinitives ferver, premer, tremer and erzer (coming from
*ĔRGERE for classical
ĒRIGERE;
-er also in Portuguese, which has
old erger, later erguer); premir, tremir, found as old variants of
premer, tremer, are perhaps learned formations. Concernir,
convertir etc., beside the simple verbs cerner, verter, also have a
learned flavour, but -querir beside querer reflects a widespread
popular development. Aterirse is of doubtful origin, but is also
flanked by aterecerse (also OPtg.), so forms like ateresco
probably antedate rhizotonic forms. In the case of repentir, there
are, in addition, -er forms (dial. and Ptg.; cf. also p.ps.
repeso/repiso/arrepentudo in L.B.A.); further, unlike Malkiel
(Mal.; see Bibiliography), I would say that the forms with -t- go
back to early PR syncopation, with subsequent attraction to the
sentir class (cf. It. pentire), while those with -d- come from
unsyncopated ones as preserved in Cat. penedir, Prov. peneder.
Venir, being irregular, only partly belongs here, but exerted
strong influence. (I ignore perir, as it was an interfix verb, with
only arrhizotonic -ir forms; also enxerir, though it seems to have
had some popular development in Spanish and Portuguese,
because we do not know enough about its forms.)
(2) Seguir comes from a widespread PR -IRE variant of
*SEQUERE. Rendir also had an infinitive render (cf. Portuguese).
Expedir and despedir are semi-learned words attracted to pedir.
Gemir is also a learned form alongside gemer/emer (Ptg. gemer).
5
6
Regir too is learned, but has wide popular use in many Romance
languages, and correger is found in Old Leonese (cf. Ptg. reger);
the g may come from a late Latin geminate, cf. Cat., Prov. regir
paralleling llegir, legir. (I ignore obedecer, empedernir/-ecer,
denegrir/-ecer, aguerrir being basically interfix verbs.)
(3) Desçir, re-çebir etc. and fenchir correspond to Ptg. -er
infinitives descer, receber etc., encher, also OLe. receber (F.J.,
with recebe, quoted by Hanssen, and p.ps. recibudo, percebudo;
cf. similar OAr. recebuda, G. H. 99, and apercebudo in L.B.A.),
encher, Ar. impler/-ir. However, recebir may be older, with -ir
from a PR *-IRE variant, based on the yod forms; note modern
recibir, (a)percibir but concebir. (Pedir also goes back to PR
*PETIRE.)
The
origin
and
development
of
desçir
are
problematical. Asturian/Leonese and Old Portuguese also have
-ir or -er for the verbs of the -ñir class (which exhibit a specially
Spanish
change
of
conjugation,
see
§11
below).
Redemir/remedir, modern redimir, has undergone learned
influence. Medir and pedir have influenced each other. (Fender
was not attracted to this class because it had ę from PR *FĔNDERE,
cf. It. fęndere.)
(4) For the change of conjugation in these verbs see §11
below. Bevir and escrevir now have i throughout. Dezir only
partly belongs here, being irregular, but is very influential. -Er
infinitives are common in the dialects for escrevir, bevir, reir
and dezir, and it is not clear which is the earlier; however, Ptg.
escrever seems to point to an earlier *escrevir from escrivir
6
7
(attested in Old Galician) with dissimilation (but cf. popular
vever, dezer etc., Nunes, p. 275), and there is no sign of a Ptg.
*rier beside riir/rir, though Portuguese is very prone to have -er
for Sp. -ir; also Galician has vivir and dizir beside viver, dizer,
so the -ir forms may be earlier, seeing that the trend is from -ir
to -er. (Fenir has no place here, because it had become an
interfix verb.)
(5) Arrecirse virtually only exists in the form arrecido, and is,
perhaps, originally an interfix verb like the cognate Rum. răci: cf.
Gal. arrecerse (Cor. Dic.). Derretir corresponds to Ptg. derreter,
so may be an old -er verb. Engreir seems to have started from a
p.p. engreido, and an infinitive engreyecerse is also found (Cor.
Dic.), suggesting that rhizotonic forms are late. These verbs, and
desleir, because of their uncertain etyma, cannot be used as the
basis of any argument, but are, perhaps, of secondary formation
anyway.
(6) Exir does not produce ye- forms in Castilian, because of
the palatal, but ye- forms are found in the dialects.
(7) We must exclude adormir as being an interfix verb.
(8) As in the cognate languages, cobrir, ofrir, sofrir (and Ar.
obrir) tended to share the same development; the change of
conjugation seen in ofrir, sofrir is PR. But ofrir early changed to
ofrecer, and sofrir partly to sofrer; from complir (semilearned)
an OAr. interfix form complezca is also found. For nozir an OAr.
infinitive nozer is found (Alv., Zam.), and Galician and Old
Portuguese,
less
conclusively,
have
nocer/-ir,
nozer/-ir,
7
8
suggesting that the verb may have been attracted to the -ir class
by aduzir, luzir. Aborrir/aborrecer and contir/contecer, while
exhibiting some old rhizotonic forms (aburra, cunta/cuenta in
the L.B.A.), belong rather to the interfix conjugation. Tullir is a
new formation replacing old toller, starting from tollido > tullido,
and Ar. cullir corresponds to standard coger. For espurrir (<
EX-PORRIGERE)
for escorrir (<
Asturian also has esporrer (pres. espuerre), and
EX-CORRIGERE)
Galician also has escorrer (Gar.
D.). We have insufficient evidence to hand about the old forms
of moñir/muñir (<
MONĒRE)
and polir/pulir. Sortir/surtir, like its
cognates in the other languages, seems to come from two
sources,
SORTIRI
and *SURRECTIRE and so also tondir/tundir
(TONDĒRE/TUNDĔRE), condir/cundir (CONDĔRE/CONDIRE), the first
two with original stem vowels both o and u. Mullir, being
formed from an adjective, would seem to be a survival from an
earlier mollir/mollecer (cf. enmollecer) with interfix in the
present (so also enfurtir, aturdir, OSp. estordir/estordecer). The
origin of curtir is uncertain.
(9) For foir, roir, destroir (see §15 below), PR seems also to
have had forms with
(whether CL
RUGIRE
Ū,
had
Ŭ
to judge by the cognate languages
or
Ū is uncertain);
roir/ruir gave way
to learned rugir. Confundir has been substituted for old cofonder.
Coser/cusir seems to have been an -er verb attracted to this class
(cf. It. cucire/SIt. cusere, cusire, Cat. cosir/dial. cúser; -ĔRE
forms elsewhere), with tusir/toser showing the contrary
development; the change of conjugation in escopir goes back to
8
9
PR. Surgir seems learned, but has popular cognates in the other
Romance languages, and perhaps in OSp. surzir, modern zurcir.
Engollir/engullir is an Iberian and Provençal formation (cf. Fr.
engouler, It. ingollare), and follows bullir (older bollir/bollecer).
OSp. sobollir comes from *SEPULLIRE for
SEPELIRE (×SUB-),
and
seemingly survives in modern za(m)bullir. Nodrir/-ecer and
podrir/-ecer belong to the interfix conjugation, and pudro is
modern. Unzir (<
IUNGERE),
mocir (<
MUNGERE)
show a
multiplicity of forms, including -er infinitives in Asturian and
Galician. Sacodir (< SUCCUTERE), like foir, recebir, goes back to
a PR *-IRE variant based on the yod forms.
(10) Aduzir (see §15 below) only partly belongs here, being
irregular. Pruir (< *PRŪDIRE for
PRŪRIRE)
is dialectal (Gal. also
proer). Mugir seems learned, as rugir, unless it is dialectal.
Sumir is presumed to have come from SŪMERE.
(11) Oir, with o <
AU,
was not subject to diphthongization, but
arrhizotonic u-forms are also found, as udir, udamos, huyé,
huyendo, udié, udieron, and Berceo also uses imper. udi, subj.
udas.
From the above it is seen that the nucleus of forms to be
considered decisive in setting this pattern is as follows:
(1) ferir, mentir, sentir, (ar)repentirse, venir;
(2) vestir, embestir, servir, seguir, pedir;
(3) medir, re-çebir etc., fenchir, ceñir, costreñir, estreñir,
teñir, feñir, reñir;
9
10
(4) bevir, escrevir, reir, freir, dezir;
(5) none;
(6) exir;
(7) dormir, morir;
(8) cobrir, ofrir, nozir, complir, escorrir, espurrir;
(9) sa-codir etc., sobir, sofrir, foir, destroir, ordir, escopir, bollir,
groñir, englotir, unzir etc., mocir etc.;
(10) aduzir, sumir, luzir;
(11) oir.
4. Alternation, where found. To get down to the origin of the
vowel alternation found today, we need to study the effect of the
interaction of all these types on each other, and not only in
Spanish but in the neighbouring languages. It is my belief that
there is no one single force at work, such as the “metaphony”
often spoken about (called on, it would seem, as a useful formula
to explain irregular vowel changes, without any examination of
why metaphony should operate in one case and not in another),
but a combination of many. It is such a tangled web that I cannot
hope to untangle it completely, but I hope at least to isolate some
of the strands.
The vowel changes involved take place, as we have seen,
under three sets of circumstances: (l) in rhizotonic forms, such as
siento, sientes, sienta or sirvo, sirves, sirva; (2) in an unaccented
syllable preceding a yod, as sintió, sirvió; (3) in an unaccented
syllable when there is no yod following, as sintamos, sirvamos,
10
11
OSp. sintía, sirvía, sintrá, sirvirá. Similarly for the back vowels:
(1) duermo, duermes, duerma, subo, subes, suba; (2) durmió,
subió; (3) durmamos, subamos, OSp. durmía, subía, durmirá,
subirá (with infinitive sobir/subir). Portuguese and Catalan also
show alternation, and in all three languages there is a significant
contrast between the -er and -ir verbs in this respect. In modern
Portuguese the forms for (l) are as firo, feres, fira or agrido,
agrides, agrida, and for (3) firamos, agridamos, and in the case
of the back vowels (l) durmo, dormes, durma or surto, surtes,
surta, and (3) durmamos, surtamos. (Note that whereas in the
Spanish present indicative forms persons 1, 2, 3 and 6 have the
same vowel, in Portuguese 1 is contrasted with the others.) The
Portuguese distribution is a highly artificial one, cutting across
etymological distinctions; thus frigir goes with ferir, and subir
with dormir, in the rhizotonic forms and all the subjunctive. In
Catalan the alternation shows the pattern OCat. sent, sents, senta,
sintam; other similar old forms found are sintau, consintrá,
vistam, iscam, firam, firén, sofirén, vinent, tinent, fugén, durmía,
muría, sirvía, vindrá, tindrá, rechirás, provehiscam, conferiscats,
vulía, vulríen, excluding others stemming from diphthongization
(cf. also Prov. sirvén, covinén, iscam, firatz).
5. PR yod forms. First we will start with the alternation in the
stressed syllable. Here, in comparing the conjugations to find a
point of difference to account for this, scholars have traditionally
sought for an explanation in the presence of the PR yod (though
11
12
this was also found in the PR -ĒRE verbs), which was supposed
to produce the effect of metaphony. Thus Menéndez Pidal, for
example, says (Men. M., 113.1) that in the -ir conjugation the
yod affected the preceding vowel but that the analogy of the
other persons did not allow it to affect the consonant; so mido
comes from
METIO(R)
and recudo from RECUTIO (114), whereas
in the nouns you get the contrary development, as vezo, pozo.
Now it can be seen at once that this is a purely arbitrary theory;
and I prefer to follow established principles and say that if VITIU
gave vezo, and *ADVITIO gave avezo, then METIO(R) should be
expected to give *mezo. Moreover, we have Ptg. meço to prove
that this kind of thing did happen in the -ir conjugation as much
as anywhere else; and we also have an OPtg. mido for which an
alternative explanation must be found, as it must for Sp. mido.
However, all this is not necessarily to say that the yod did not
exercise any action, and we must first examine the extant yod
forms in the three languages and see what light they throw.
In Spanish we have, first, from the PR -ĒRE verbs: he, haya,
seyo, seya, veyo, veya, OLe., OAr. valla, OUp.Ar. plaça, OLe.
açamos (Alex.), muño, muña, cayo, caya, sé, sepa, quepo, quepa
(hincho, hincha probably do not contain yod); to these can be
added the forms with a velar interfix, which generally betoken a
foregoing yod: valgo, valga, duelgo, duelga, suelgo, suelga,
tengo, tenga, remanga, yazgo/-co, yazga/-ca, plazgo/-co,
plazga/-ca, caigo, caiga, OSp. and popular haiga, veigo, veiga,
while poder has OLe. possa/posca, OAr. posca/puesca/puysquen,
12
13
and OUp.Ar. voler has vuyllguan. The siegat etc. alternating
with segamus in the Glosses shows the normal Aragonese
diphthongization of the tonic vowel before a yod, though it is not
clear whether the g represents a y, or is a velar interfix. In the
latter case the word would parallel Ar. tienga for an earlier
*tieña in contrast to the Castilian forms, where diphthongization
is inhibited by the yod. Be it noted here that in many cases the
earliest forms have no yod: yago, yaga, OLe. plaga, valo, vala,
duelo, duela, suelo, suela, huelo, huela, OAr. nuega (contrasting
with Berceo’s nuzo), Cast. puedo, pueda, devo, deva, muevo,
mueva (plega, yega are formed from plogo, yogo on the
proportion sopo:sepa; plogo:plega). We may also mention here
the subjunctives formed with -ia, such as OLe., MAs. podia,
molia, OAr. plaçia, sapian, and other MAs. forms like cabio,
cabia/quepia (also cabo, caba) and similar forms from saber.
(There is also a Moz. kumplya (G. H. 57) which seems to be a
subjunctive.) It will be seen that muñir stands alone among the
n-stems in its development, perhaps affected by
MUNIRE
(cf. the
mediaeval confusion of Latin praemonere and praemunire).
Henchir was attracted to the -ñir verbs.
PR -ĔRE verbs affected are : trayo, traya, destruyo, destruya,
with y from the other persons (PR *-GO, *-GES; OLe. has the
original trago, traga), and riyo, riya, rayo, raya, royo, roya,
vaya, OSp. creya, with analogical extension of the y, alongside
rio, rao, roo, crea, OSp. vaa; leo, lea perhaps also represent
older *leyo, *leya, as we would expect *liego, *liega <
LEGO,
13
14
LEGAM;
g has
crept in in the popular forms creiga, leiga (Ar.
liga), reiga, and in traigo, traiga, OSp. destruigo, destruiga,
raigo, raiga, roigo, roiga, OSp. and popular vaiga, and in pongo,
ponga, OSp. tuelgo, tuelga, cuezgo, conduzgo for earlier cuego,
adugo, now cuezo, conduzco, and conozgo, parezgo for earlier
-sco, now -zco, OAr. prengo, prenga, OLe. (F. de Av.) perga,
MLe., MAs. muelgo, muelga/molguia. (Ciño etc. are not yod
forms, but have the ñ from the other persons.)
In the PR -IRE verbs the yod presents are, strangely enough,
very few: muero < moiro (quoted by Hanssen, 198, without *,
confirmed by modern muöiru in Sisterna), muera/OCas. mojra
(G. H. 17), fuyo, fuya, where the y is supported by the other
persons, as fuyes, if it did not originate there; old oyo, oya seem
to follow fuyo, fuya, as the Leonese forms ozo, oza represent the
expected development from AUDIO, AUDIAM (cf. gozo; PR -AUDfalls in with -ALD-, creating a consonant group); in Aragonese
the ll of sallo, salla has been extended throughout; forms with
velar interfix are salgo, salga for earlier salo, sala, similarly
asgo, asga for earlier aso, asa, oigo, oiga, Le. ozga/ozca/osca,
luzco, luzca (ealier luga), old exco, exca, huiga, OLe., OAr.
fierga, with firgades in the Cid. Vengo, venga are based on
earlier *veño, *veña where diphthongization was inhibited in
Castilian by the yod; elsewhere ie appears, so As., Le., Ar.
viengo, vienga, also Ar. vingamos, vingades.
Leaving Portuguese to the last, because it presents the
greatest contrast, and taking Catalan next, we find the forms
14
15
OCat. jas, plas, placia, vuyl, vulla, duyl, dulla, vail, valla, calla,
puix, puixa, he, haja, tinya, capia, se, sapia, veig, veja, deig,
deja, caja, vaig, vaja, faç, faça, llig, llija, muyr, muyra, oig, oja,
fuig, fuja, viny, vinya, fira, soffira, requir, requira. These verbs
also developed velar interfix forms, as did, in particular, the
majority of the -ERE verbs; note siga, sapiga, for earlier sia,
sapia, and isc/ixc, isca (similarly Valencian tixc for tix and old
tixca). The overall position in Catalan is seen to be basically the
same as in Spanish; in modern Catalan, however, there has been
wide extension of the -ESC- interfix. (Provençal has some forms
which can be compared to the Catalan ones, such as feira, firatz,
sofieira, qu(i)eira, iesc, iesca, iscam.)
When we come to Portuguese, however, we find a great
many more yod forms: from PR -ĒRE verbs, OPtg. jaço, jaça
(also jasco; the ç replaced by the z of the other persons in praza
— but Gal. prasa — , nuza — but old nusso), hei, haja, sejo,
seja, vejo, veja, valho, valha, doio, doia, soio, soia, tenho, tenha,
remanho, remanha, caio, caia, caibo/cabio, caiba/cabia, sei,
saiba/sabia, feço, feça; from PR -ĔRE verbs arço, arça, perço,
perça, now perco, perca (and Gal. perga/perja), faço, faça,
recebio, recebia, choiva/chovia, coimo/comio, coima/comia,
ponho, ponha, tolho, tolha, queiro, queira, Gal. moio, moia; and,
from PR -IRE verbs, fujo, fuja, mujo, muja, rujo, ruja, moiro,
moira, feiro, feira, ofeiro, ofeira, pairo, paira, popular aibro,
aibra, saio/Gal. sallo, saia/Gal. salla, grunho, grunha, venho,
venha, peço, peça, meço, meça, senço, sença, menço, mença,
15
16
ouço, ouça, (z for ç in luzo, luza), servio/servho, servia,
dormio/dormho, dormia. In comparison with Spanish it will be
seen that Portuguese preserves more of the yod presents of the
-IRE verbs and some others, makes a few more extensions than
Spanish, e.g. arço, perço, but does not extend the yod to those
other -DERE verbs, such as raer, roer, to which it has been
extended in Spanish, nor make use of the velar interfix (perco is
a special case).
The significant points that emerge from an examination of
the state of affairs in Portuguese are firstly that Spanish and
Catalan have only a limited number of yod forms in the -ir verbs
(agreeing with the other Romance languages in this), whereas
Portuguese has more, and secondly that forms like pido, mido
are clearly seen to be of a different origin when compared with
Ptg. peço, meço, so that Spanish must either have had no yod
forms here from the start, or lost them in pre-literary times. A
further proof that Sp. pido, mido are new formations is provided
by the existence of pido, mido also in Old Portuguese, and the
replacement of OPtg. menço, senço, servio, dormio by
mento/minto, sento/sinto, servo/sirvo, dormo/durmo.
It should be noted here that Portuguese is far from showing
yod forms for all the -ir verbs; there are none, for example, for
vestir, bulir, tossir, sacudir.
But in the case of some of the
other stems ending in a labial, the modern forms may conceal an
earlier yod; for example, subo may come from *suibo (for
*subbio, thus giving b, not v), and cuspo from *cuspio/*cuispo,
16
17
as chuva comes from chuiva. And as recebio gave way to recebo,
*devio might have given way to devo (for recebio we would
expect *recibio/*recibo, as siba, vendima, but evidently the -er
conjugation did not admit of such metaphony).
Now, supposing we recreate yod forms in the Spanish -ir
verbs that show metaphony, to correspond to the Portuguese
forms, we get: *recibio, *requero, with -er- as in madera (cf.
Ptg. requeiro as madeira) and dial. requiero, agreeing with the
form without yod, similarly *ofero (dial. *ofiero), *fero (dial.
fiero, corresponding to the form without yod and to fier-ga),
*veño, which corresponds to ven-go (and dial. *vieño,
corresponding to vien-go), *mezo, *piezo (or *pezo, if attracted
to *mezo), *sienço, *mienço (as lienço/-zo), *servio (as nervio),
*dormio, to which we may also add *subio, *escupio (or *sobio,
*escopio, cf. rubio/ruyo/royo, gubia and gobio). The u of gruño
could be due to the yod (cf. cuña), perhaps so also the u of
non-Castilian bullo (cf. Ptg. gorgulho; the Castilian form would
be *bojo, as gorgojo), but fuyo, fuyes seem rather to be traceable
to PR *FŪGIO, *FŪGIS, as do the forms of the other Romance
languages (in which case Ptg. foges is secondary, as somes). The
Catalan forms also agree with some of these reconstructions:
requir, fira, soffira, viny/vinc, escup, gruny.
From the above it can be seen that the only forms in
Spanish which might go back to yod forms, apart from fuyo,
gruño, bullo (?), are those from stems ending in an r or a labial,
as these consonants were not changed by a following yod. On
17
18
this basis, muero, with its diphthong coinciding with that of
mueres < *MORIS, can be traced directly back to *MORIO, but in
the case of the other verbs, even supposing the yod was later
absorbed (which we cannot be sure of), we are still far from
arriving at the pattern we are seeking; we are left with recibo,
recebes (recebe is found in the F.J., but then so also is the
infinitive receber), subo, *sobes, *dormo, duermes, *servo,
sierves (sierve is found dialectally), *fero, fieres, in all of which
the first person is in contrast with the others, as in Portuguese,
rather than with the characteristic Spanish pattern of unaccented
e alternating with accented ie or i, and o with ue or u. So we
must look further afield for possible influences.
In passing, I might say that it is not impossible to conceive
of the existence of a secondary yod, as seen in Le., As. podia,
extracted from the primary yod of forms like veya, riya (cf. Fr.
-ions, It. -iamo etc.), which had the metaphonic effect seen in
limpio, tibio/tebio. But one is still left with the problem of why
and how it was levelled out afterwards.
6. Arrhizotonic subjunctive forms. At this point, while we are
still considering primary yod, it may be good to turn aside and
look at the arrhizotonic forms of the subjunctive and see what
effect the yod might have had on pretonic e and o, confining
ourselves once again to the forms where the yod did not affect
the preceding consonant. To take the position before an r, in
nominal forms, which should show an independent development,
18
19
you have maderaje but ciruela (< *CERJÓLA < CERÉOLA), agorero,
corambre but culantro, and also salmorada in Alex. P as against
salmoyrada (whence salmuerada) in O; on balance it looks as if
the yod here disappeared without affecting the vowel. Before a
labial you have liviano, and vendimiar, uviar, if these forms can
be relied on as typical (cf. Ptg. vindimar, old oviar/uviar/uivar,
Cat. veremar, old ujar), and before ñ, ll, cuñado, dial. muller,
señor but riñon, dial. mellor/millor, and before a single s, tusón.
On this basis we could explain durmamos, subamos, escupamos,
sirvamos, gruñamos, dial. bullamos, Ar. vin-gamos, dial.
cusamos, but not firamos or muramos (in contrast to OPtg.
feiramos, moiramos, as madeirar, coirama). But this is still only
a drop in the bucket. And on the other hand we have some old
forms without metaphony, such as servamos in the F.J. (quoted
by Hanssen, 200), mentades (Yúçuf), descobrades (L.B.A., 879b),
OAr. differades (G. H. 119), backed up by ven-gamos, which
suggest that the metaphony may have come later; a special case
is presented by oyamos, oyades with o < AU, which are, however,
flanked by Berceo’s udamos, udades. Equally, the -er verbs
show no metaphony due to yod, though in this case levelling was
at work also. On the other hand there are cases of pretonic
Spanish e and o changing without a following yod, e.g. dinero,
cigüeña, piojo, timón, hinojo (both words), hinchar, tijeras,
culebra, dudar, pulgar, lugar, jugar, vulpeja, pulmón, so that
there might have been a tendency to such a change in the
subjunctive too, though it would need reinforcing from other
19
20
sources to make it permanent. (A similar tendency exists in
Catalan, Provençal and Portuguese too, and could have had the
same effect on the verbs.) This tendency would also account
for the metaphony found in Old Spanish in the future (sintrá),
and in the imperfect (sintía), though this last form would also be
affected by the secondary yod in sintié. The alternation
exca/yscamos seems to favour this latter interpretation, and we
can also explain muramos, firamos, firgades this way, as well as
the forms of every other verb.
7. Secondary yod. When it comes to this secondary yod,
causing metaphony as in the nominal forms siniestra, hiniesta,
luci(e)llo etc., which affected the Old Spanish imperfect and the
perfect paradigm, the metaphonic effect is too vacillating and
uncertain to be decisive by itself, without some other influences
at work. This change was completely resisted by the -er verbs
(Malkiel, however, gives a few examples of change, Mal., p. 468,
quiriendo, trimió, (con)tiniendo, virtió, all, to my mind, to be
explained by the analogy of compounds in -ir or conjugation
change; for other exceptions, see below), because there was no
pattern of vowel alternation for it to fit into, while in the -ir
verbs in Old Spanish one could find equally siguió/seguió,
pidió/pedió, durmió/dormió, subió/sobió, diziendo/deziendo,
comidiendo/comediendo and so on. One influence in favour of i
and u came from the strong perfects where the i and u of the first
person were extended throughout the paradigm (aided by the
20
21
presence of secondary yod). So first fezo, veno, preso, queso,
poso were changed to fizo, vino, priso, quiso, puso, and then
fezieron, venieron, posieron etc. were changed to fizieron,
vinieron, pusieron (in the old language there is fluctuation, with
even forms like dexieron as dexiste < dixiste by dissimilation). In
the case of poder, the similarity between podiendo and podieron
produced a new participle pudiendo to match pudieron, and even
a conditional OAr. puriedes (G. H. 101), creating an instance of
o/ue/u alternation in an -er verb; similarly in ver the influence of
vieron etc. produced a participle viendo for earlier veyendo, and
also an imperfect vía, vié, now disused (cf. ría, rié from reir). In
the case of ser, siendo and sido have replaced seyendo and seido,
perhaps as unaccented forms, since the very rare dialectal perfect
sivieron can hardly have had any influence (note also an isolated
lyendo in the L.B.A.). Other apparent alternations in -er verbs are
due to a change of conjugation; Ar. vinció, atrivió, cullió, for
example, belong to infinitives vincir, atrivir, cullir. Anyway, to
return to the -ir verbs, it seems that another influence besides
metaphony was necessary to tip the balance in favour of i and u
rather than e and o.
8. The imperative. Leaving this subject now for the moment,
and returning once again to the rhizotonic forms, we find one
more source of change limited to the -IRE verbs, and that is the
imperative. Here Old Portuguese, once more, is very instructive.
It has forms like subi/sube, riimi/rime, fuge, dispe, where the
21
22
final -Ī changed the
Ē
and
Ō
of PR to i and u. This metaphony
evidently became a sign of the imperative, as we find it extended
to all verbs, thus segui/sigui/sigue, pidi/pide, cubri/cubre, fire,
sirve, minte, sinte, viste, durme, and to the -er verbs as well (see
Nunes, pp. 286-7). So on the basis of the Portuguese forms we
could say that Sp. mide, recibe (if from *RECIPĪ), sacude, sube,
fuye, bulle, gruñe, escupe (and Cat. acut, fuig, bull, gruny, escup,
tus, cus) would be inherited forms. In the case of ven and Cat.
vin-a the final -Ī, when coming before a vowel in the next word
(“veni ad me”), has acted as a yod, impeding diphthongization in
Spanish, and, on the other hand, causing it in Cat. vin < *viein
(cf. similar Cat. (a)hir, OPtg. eire < (AD)HERĪ).
9. Monophthongization of ie. The next possible influence we
need to examine is one discussed by Malkiel (Mal.), in which ie
tends to be changed to i in the neighbourhood of an s in
association with r or v, or, occasionally, in isolation (cf. prisa,
avispa, ristra, siglo for earlier priessa, aviespa, riestra, sieglo).
This could have affected three verbs, servir, vestir and seguir.
We have seen that the etymological reflex of
SERVIO
would have
been *servio, as nervio, which is not found, nor is any yod form
found for vestir, while it is unlikely that one ever existed for
seguir, as this verb was a late changer to the -IRE class (cf. Fr.
suivre/sivir, Prov. segre/seguir (rare), Cat. seguir but also
cossegre, It. seguire with presumably an -ere form in the south,
where this is usual; Gal. seguer is probably a later formation).
22
23
The forms *siervo, *viesto, *siego are not found either, but we
have in the subjunctive, which should have preserved the yod if
it had existed, dial. sierva, siervan, bestanlo(s) (this in a text
from Sobrarbe which is hesitant about diphthongization, thus
tiega/tenganlo; G. H. 92) pointing to PR forms without the yod,
in line with OPtg. vesto, vestas (once), sega (Nunes, p. 340). In
forms 3 and 6 of the indicative we also have the similar dial.
sieguen, sierve, sierven/sierben, dessierven, vieste, viesten,
notably in Alex. O, where Castilian and P have i-forms, this
situation agreeing chronologically with dialectal retention of ie
as against Cas. i in nominal forms (for a wide-ranging
documentation see Mal., 455-6; I have also found other
examples of Moz. syerbe and Nav. siervan in G.H. 57 and 77,
while the L.B.A. has undiphthongized servi (imper.) and serven,
and the F.J. segue beside siegue). The ie in these forms then
changed to i, or had already done so in Castilian, producing the
specifically Spanish pattern of agreement between persons 1, 2,
3 and 6 as against 4 and 5 in the indicative, and a uniform
subjunctive, if we suppose metaphony in the plural. At the same
time there is a possibility that pedir and medir were attracted
into this class. Malkiel quotes pieden from Alex. O, where the
imperfect pidien is required, as found in P, and mieden (Alex. O;
miden in P), miedan (F.J.); I find pieden also occurs in the F.J.
(Llera).
The
question
is
whether
these
ie-forms
are
Proto-Spanish, with medir < *MĒTIRE, with Ē, affected by pedir,
or whether the ie is a typical Leonese substitution for e or i (cf.
23
24
F.J. tiemen, vieno, similarly F. de Ov. uieno/F. de Av. ueno, this
last probably on the analogy of dieo/deo (F. de Av.) beside dio).
Malkiel observes that ie-forms are not found in Aragonese,
which has the old form pitent in the Glosas Silenses, and
suggests that Proto-Spanish may never have had ie. On the other
hand, piede is the form we would expect, unless pedir was
attracted to medir, and its absence from Aragonese may be an
indication that this verb (and medir) came into Aragonese from
Castilian. Pedir and medir are neither of them found in Catalan,
and Aragonese often follows Catalan in its vocabulary; and the
Glosas Silenses do, after all, come from Castilian territory.
It is tempting to see here an influence for changing riendo,
yergo etc. to rindo, irgo, but it is doubtful if the changes are
contemporaneous. And a strong group of PR -IRE verbs with ie,
ferir, requerir (con-), sentir, mentir, repentir, were left
unaffected (but see repi(e)nte, Mal., 460, and requiro (Apol.),
Mal., 465), so it looks as if this change from ie to i only affected
the verbs mentioned above. (Ferir may have resisted change
because of older forms *fero, *fera < *feiro, *feira with yod;
*fero, *fera were then adapted to fieres, fiere.) A special case is
presented by exir; in Castilian the rhizotonic forms are exco,
exes, exe, exen, exca, ex (contrasted with yscamos, Cid, 685), but
the other dialects have both yex-/yess- (yexen, Alex. O) and
yx-/yss- (yxen, Alex. P), besides yesca (F. de Ar.), esca (F. de Av.,
which does not usually have diphthongs). In Castilian it forms a
class of its own. In parts of Navarre and Aragon we could regard
24
25
yx- as coming from ye(i)x- by reduction of the triphthong as in
vin-ga, tin-go and Cat. ix, tix, llig, fira etc. (cf. also muyr, cu(y)ll,
vu(y)ll etc.); in other areas it is best regarded, as Malkiel says, as
paralleling the change from sierve to sirve etc.
10. The -INGERE verbs. We have now exhausted the possible
sources of influence to be found in the original PR -IRE verbs, as
far as the front vowels are concerned, and we have seen how we
could get i for ie, but, apart from the influence of the imperative,
we have not found how we could get rhizotonic i for e, e.g.
mides, recibes for *medes, *recebes (taking recebir as a PR -IRE
verb). The only e-form found is the recebe of the F.J. mentioned
in § 3 (3) above, which can however be referred to an infinitive
receber (Malkiel’s receba (Mal., 467) appears to be a
misreading of Hanssen). We therefore need now to cast further
afield and explore the other verbs which appear in the -ir class in
Ibero-Romance. The first of these groups is the -NGERE verbs.
Here the position in Spanish is very confused, as the different
dialects show different treatment. In Old Castilian, in the
-ANGERE verbs, we have tañer, atañer, plañer, and frañer/franzer,
with a change to -ir in modern plañir, franjir (given by
Velázquez as ‘obsolete’), that is, there was no change to -ir in
the old language (-ñ- was originally post-tonic and -nz- pretonic,
and then the two forms became interchanged). Modern Leonese
and
Asturian
have
francer/francir/frañir.
tañir,
Mozarabic
atañir/atanguer,
has
franne-,
changir,
Aragonese
25
26
planyer. Galician has changer, tanger, Old Portuguese changer,
tanger and franger, now frangir/franzir (crossed with the
cognate of Sp. fruncir). Catalan has tànyer, atànyer, plànyer,
frànyer. As far as the a-stems go, then, the tendency is to keep
the -er infinitive.
When we come to the -INGERE verbs, we find a different
picture. Old Castilian has only infinitives in -ir, ceñir, feñir,
estreñir, restreñir, co(n)streñir, teñir, reñir, with present tense
cingo, ciñes, ceñimos, constringo, constriñes, constreñimos, and
subj. cinga, constringa etc. There also appear to be no -nz- forms.
(We may also add fenchir, which was attracted to this class.)
For Castilian, fingir and restringir must be classed as learned,
though they need not be so in the other dialects. For a form with
exceptional e for i, note çentura in the Razón de Amor.
Variations come as we go west. Asturian (Gar. D.) has (earlier)
rancer/(later) riñir, restringir (cf. changir), with present as ringo,
riñes/(later) rances (Zamora Vicente also gives rañer). Malkiel
(Mal., 465) quotes Hanssen for western variants costrener (with
n = nn)/constrennir/constringir, reñer/reñir, fiñir, encher/enchir,
and to this add çinir in Alex. O. In the F.J. we find enfinne/enfiñe,
and for constreñir, (r)estreñir an almost limitless number of
infinitive variants formed by the interchange of e/i with ñ/nn/ng
and -er/-ir, and almost equally various rhizotonic forms
constrenne/-inne/constrenge/-inge, co(n)streng(u)a/co(n)stringa.
Galician (Gar. D. ) similarly has the pairs renger/ringir (I am
arbitrarily using traditional orthography for the sound which now
26
27
has the value /∫/), cenger/cingir/cinguir, fenger/fingir, tengir,
costrenger, estrenger, with present as tingo, tinges, while
Portuguese (Nunes, p. 277, and Michaelis, Taylor) likewise has
old -er, modern -ir, as cinger/-ir, tinger/-ir, finger/-ir,
renger/ranger/rengir/ringir, co(n)stranger/-ir/constrenger/-ingir,
(r)estringir, estingir/extinguir, impingir, atingir, with similar
present OPtg. cingo, now cinjo, cinges, OPtg. fingo, OPtg.
cõstrengo. (The two forms ranger/renger and OPtg. cõstrengo
make it appear that constranger is a phonetic variant of
constrenger, rather than a hypercorrection as Malkiel (Mal., 454)
would have it; I find no reference to an *atanger beside atingir
which would have acted as a model.) Doubling back to the east,
in Aragonese and Catalan we find the verbs divided among two
infinitive types; thus Catalan has cenyir, tenyir, renyir, with
present cinc (?), ciny, cinyen, tiny, riny, but also cínyer,
tínyer/tènyer, and estrènyer, costrènyer, empènyer, espènyer,
atènyer, acontènyer (Cor. Dic.), fènyer (Moll, 163b), with
present estrenc (now estrenyo/-nyc), estrenys, empenc (empenyo),
empenys etc., while Aragonese (Gar. D., G. H., et al.) has
costrennyer/-eyner/-eigner, empeñer, conteigneria, likewise p.p.
costrenido with n equivalent to ñ (cf. Gl. Sil. constrinitu),
present constrengo, constrenga(n) (but pres. p. estrinyendo), as
against Gl. Sil. tingen. There is also an OAr. tennieu, with the
-ieu that belongs to the -er verbs, though this was occasionally
extended to the -ir verbs. (Documentation for Catalan appears to
be scanty, and many -ir verbs now have the interfix; I have not
27
28
actually found a present form *cinc (now cenyeixo), but there is
a strange perfect form sincs (Rus., 41:75) which appears to equal
*cinc(h) < *CINGUIT, as planch, strench, empench, subj.
atanguessen, so with the support of cinyen (Rus., 68:72) I
deduce rhizotonic i throughout.) Provençal also provides some
related material; Anglade (p. 61) gives alternative p.p. forms
sincha/sencha, fincha/fencha, and Bec (pp. 277–8) says cinta is
Gascon and West Languedocian, while cencha is East
Occitanian.
So much for the extant forms, but the problem is to sort out
what the Proto-Iberian forms might have been. As far as Cas.
cingo, ciñes go, we would expect to have *cengo, *ceñes, as
lengua, leña, ceño < CINGULU (but cf. on the other hand domingo,
jeringa, tiña, lonninco, prominco (G. H. 56), and As. llingua, Ptg.
lingua, domingo, seringa, provinco). Here the explanation of the
i of cingo, cinga probably goes back to Latin
CĪNXI, CĪNCTUS,
with I regularly lengthened before NX, NCT (Buck, 99-2); for the
hesitation between e and i from Latin
Ĭ
before a palatal cf. the
various forms in the Romance languages derived from CILIUM,
CONSILIUM, MIRABILIA, LIGNUM, SIGNUM (see
Buck, ib.), TINEA
and -ICULUM, and especially the alternation found in Prov.
celh(a)/cilh(a), conselh/consilh, meravelha/meravilha, lenh/linh,
senh/sinh, tenha/tinha, abelha/abilha. In all the Iberian
languages, then, it looks as if the hesitation between e and i goes
back to Latin times; the other Romance languages levelled one
way or the other, Tuscan to i (other Italian dialects retaining the
28
29
e of the present paradigm), French and Provençal to e. It is
noteworthy that Aragonese and Catalan have divided the
conjugations according to the vowel of the rhizotonic forms —
cenyir:cinyen, estrenyer:estrenyen; could it be that cinyen and
tinyen established their i-forms because of the p.ps. cint, tint,
whereas estrenyer, empenyer, atenyer had p.ps. estret, empès
(and substantival empènta), atès (Rus., 73:88) with e ? In the
west, likewise, the existence of co(n)streñer, costrenger,
co(n)stranger and reñer, rancer, renger, ranger, but no *cenger,
*tenger, may be an indication that there was once a similar
division, which was later obscured by the confusion of the -ir
and -er types, giving a double conjugation for many verbs. Then
in Castilian, typically, the -ir type prevailed. In Galician, on the
other hand, this confusion could have set the pattern for a vast
migration of -ir verbs into the -er class, resulting in doublets
like pidir/peder, vistir/vester, sintir/senter, mintir/menter and
siguir/seguer, with presents such as visto, vestes, sinto, sentes
(Gar. D.), as also in Portuguese. (Whether cingo, cenges could
be an early alternation setting the pattern for modern Portuguese
is a question, but it seems doubtful to me.) Why the rhizotonic i
came to be associated with the -ir infinitive is another question,
made all the more interesting because it affects all three Iberian
languages; the answer may lie with the next group of verbs I
wish to discuss. (The -UNGERE verbs show the same line of
development as the -INGERE verbs, but I will leave them till later,
when I discuss the back vowels.) The reflexes of IMPLERE,
29
30
evidently being attracted to all the different types, show great
vacillation: Cat. omplir, omple/old umple, Cas. fenchir, finche,
Ar. empler/impler/implir/enplirnosamus (Gl. Em.), ORioj. imple
(Mal., 461), Le., As. encher (in Sisterna, incher)/enchir, Gal.,
Ptg. encher. One more old -ERE verb, redemir/-imir/remedir, has
redimo, redimes through learned influence.
11. Dezir, etc. The next and final group to be considered in the
front vowel series are those old -ERE verbs (all -ĔRE in PR) with
stem vowel I, which all changed over to -ir in Castilian. These
are, as we have seen above, VIVERE, SCRIBERE, RIDERE, FRIGERE,
DICERE
and compounds, which give OCas. bevir, escrevir, reir,
freir, dezir. In the dialects you have the variants Ar.
(ar)ri(y)er/arriguer/reir, dir (OAr.)/decir/escontraecer, Le., As.
ri(y)er, escrever/escriver, viver, dizer (dicer)/contradizer/-ir and
a present dece (F.J.). Galician has viver/-ir, escriver/-ir, r(i)ir,
firgir, decer/-ir (dez-, dic-, diz-), and Portuguese viver, escrever
(old 3 escrive, pointing to an infinitive escriver but giving no
clear indication of the existence here of escrivir, as found in
Gal.), r(i)ir, frigir, dizer, with popular forms vever, fregir, dezer
(Nunes, p. 275). Catalan has viure, escriure, riure, fregir, dir.
The old Latin accentuation also survives still in the place names
OSp. Benbiber, Benvivre, now Belbimbre (Oríg.); note also the
old futures biuré/viuré (Alex. P and O).
We now need to look at each of these groups of verbs, and
see what effect their special development had on the -ir verbs as
30
31
a whole. In Castilian the alternation e/i (with e due to
dissimilation before a following i, cf. vezino and OPtg. vezinho,
Cat. veí) is especially interesting from this point of view. The
first question is, why did these verbs move over into the -ir
conjugation in Castilian? I have hazarded an answer to this in
my earlier papers (Ronshu, 8 & 10), and it is worth repeating
here, with a side glance at the other dialects and languages. The
etymological derivatives of the Latin infinitives would be *vivre
(cf. Benvivre), *escrivre, *rire, *frire, *dire (from *DIGERE). If
you then suppose analogical *vire, *escrire (cf. Fr. écrire), and
take away the final e’s, you are left with *vir, *escrir, *rir, *frir,
dir (found in Old Aragonese, and forming the basis for the future
diré), which are easily converted into the Castilian forms by
reforming on the stem as found in the arrhizotonic forms. Thus
what was the stem vowel has become the vowel of the infinitive
ending. (Similarly fer < *faire becomes fazer; for the u-stems
see below.) On this basis, the notably western forms viver,
escriver/escrever and ri(y)er would be later formations. As far as
Galician and Portuguese are concerned, viver (beside Gal. vivir)
and escrever (beside Gal. escrivir) may exhibit the typical trend
away from -ir to -er; in fact, escrever, escrevo are only
understandable on the basis of an earlier *escrevir with
dissimilation (Gar. D. gives Gal. escrebir), unless we imagine an
earlier paradigm escrivo (attested), escreves, escreve following
sirvo, serves, serve, though this is unlikely, given the earlier
escrives, escrive; similarly freges, frege, unless likewise
31
32
analogical, may point to the antiquity of the popular form fregir
(here Galician has firges, firge). Old Portuguese riir would have
come from an earlier *rir, and then have been changed back
again to this form later. In the case of dizer, the existence of Gal.
dezir/dizir suggests that dizer, like viver, may be a later form.
The same arguments hold good for Leonese and Asturian. In
Aragonese, reir/riyer are parallelled by leir/liyer, so there may
have
been
interaction
between
the
two
here
and
in
Asturo-Leonese; note that Aragonese at first kept the D of RIDERE,
so this would not have given *rir.
The changes in Catalan that are interesting from our point
of view are as follows. Viure, escriure, dir form the plural of the
present vivim, escrivim, deim/diem etc. (and dur likewise makes
duim/duem). They can thus be compared with the Castilian
forms, and perhaps came about in the same way, that is, with the
sense of an infinitive ending in -ir; the imperfect forms vivia,
escrivia, deia would also have helped. In the case of riure, the
imperfect reia has given rise to the form reim in the Balearics
(Moll, 310), and the same thing has happened in the case of
creim, queim, feim, seim, treim, veim. Fregir is from *frigir by
dissimilation; forms without interfix are still found in Cataluña
and the Balearics — frig, friges, subj. frigi (Moll, 349), as llig,
lliges, lligi from llegir.
Of these verbs, clearly the most important from the point of
view of frequency of occurrence is
DICERE.
We have seen that
an alternation exists in Castilian, Galician, and Catalan, thus:
32
33
OCas. digo, dizes, dezimos, dezía, diga, dizendo, dixiesse; OGal.
digo, dizes, dezimos, dezia, diga, dizendo, dissesse/dixesse; OCat.
dic, dius, de(z)im, de(z)ia, diga, di(z)én, dixés. But in Galician
and Catalan both de- and di- forms are found pretonically (later
in all positions in Gal.), as the dissimilation of the two i’s was
not observed so strictly (cf. MPtg. divino, vizinho for OPtg.
devino, vezinho). But the results in Castilian are very significant.
Whereas in the other languages this alternation was blurred by
levelling in both directions, in Castilian it was maintained. Now
it will be seen that the alternation e/i which is now the mark of
the verbs of the servir type is precisely that found in dezir, reir,
freir, bevir, escrevir, and furthermore that it is only in these
verbs that it is a phonetically inherited type, fenir having become
an interfix verb long since. In other words, it looks very strongly
as if, while developments like *siervo > sirvo, sierve > sirve
may also have played their part, along with dialectal forms like
yexe > yxe, if it had not been for this strong type, which in its
turn probably helped to fuse the ceñir type, this alternation
would not have become firmly established in Castilian.
(Note
that the ceñir type also shows -ir forms right across the
Peninsula; the alternation between cingo, ciñes, with i as in cinxe,
cinto <
CĪNXI, CĪNCTU,
and ceñía <
CĬNGEBAM/*CĪNGEBAM
would
have identified it with the type digo, dizes, dezía, so drawing it
into the -ir conjugation.) Once established, this type then
probably first attracted the now anomalous-seeming verbs with
stem vowel e: recebir, redemir, medir and perhaps pedir, if it
33
34
had been attracted to medir. (We have seen that recebir might
already have had a yod form recibo, reciba, and that the
imperatives had become recibe, mide and perhaps pide; redemir
was probably always subject to influence from Latin REDIMO,
REDIMIS.)
How the other verbs, that is, the verbs with e/ie
alternation from the -er conjugation, such as rendir, hervir,
erguir, were attracted to the -ir conjugation, is a question of pure
speculation. In other cases, such as gemir, convertir, one can
invoke the mystic words “learned borrowing” to justify adoption
into this conjugation (though GEMIRE is found in late Latin). All
that we can be sure of is the final result of a contrast between the
-er and -ir conjugations which amounts to a kind of vowel
harmony, -er being associated with e or ie, and -ir with i.
Though we have not found a fully satisfying explanation to
cover all cases, the phenomena being too complicated and many
factors having been at work, yet it can fairly be said that the
above analysis helps to show at least what the prime movers in
the process may have been. And most importantly, it puts the
effect of the yod in its proper perspective as being only limited,
thus establishing that the agreement between persons 1, 2, 3 and
6 is natural in Spanish (always excepting the case of Cas. vengo,
vienes etc.), in contrast to the state of affairs in Portuguese.
12. The back vowels; o/ue/u. We must now try and trace the
pattern for the back vowels, which we left earlier, having shown
34
35
that the yod had effect in the case of foir and morir, and might
also have affected sobir, escopir, groñir and bollir. We also saw
that the final -Ī might have affected the imperative, that pretonic
o could change to u by metaphony, and that foir probably had an
inherited u in the rhizotonic forms. So let us now take up the
subject again, beginning with the verbs with stem vowel PR Ŏ,
morir, dormir, cobrir, ofrir, nozir, complir, escorrir and esporrir,
and also taking in sofrir, which was attracted to this type.
In the case of morir, the ue < oi of the yod forms agreed
with the ue < ǫ of the other persons, producing a unified type; in
the case of dormir we can suppose ue < ǫ in all persons, in the
absence of any yod. Durmamos can also come from
*DORMAMUS. Muramos, however, and equally the OSp.
mueramos (Mal., 466) cannot come from *MORIAMUS, if
corambre shows the normal development, so both must be
analogical.
For the other verbs we have Le., Ar. cuebres, cuebre,
descuebre, encuebre (Men. M., Gar. G., Cor. Dic.), and descobre
in MSS. G & C of the Libro de Buen Amor (1. 569c),
descobrades (ib., 879b), otherwise rhizotonic and subjunctive
cubr-; uffre in Berceo (Cor. Dic.), but generally an early change
to the interfix class; nuzo in Berceo, nozir/nozer, nueze, nuezen
in Alex. (this last perhaps the “OCas.” nuezen quoted by
Hanssen), and other instances of Le., Ar. nozer, nueze, nueçe,
nuecen, also Ar. nuega (Cor., Alv., Zam., Gar. G.), otherwise
35
36
rhizotonic and subjunctive nuz-; “OCas.” cuemplan (Hanssen),
F. de Av. compla (Mal., 470), otherwise rhizotonic and
subjunctive cumpl- (Malkiel, Mal., 449, also speaks of a
hesitation “between, say, 2 cobres and cubres, or conples and
cunples” in some MSS.); escurra, escurren in the Cid;
espuorre/espuerre in Asturian (Gar. D.); suefres, suefre in Alex.
O (Cor.), also OLe. suefro/sofro, suefra/sofra (Hanssen, quoted
by Malkiel, Mal., 465), otherwise rhizotonic and subjunctive
sufr-. There are also interesting variants cuenta, cuentan, in MSS.
C & T of L. B. A. (1. 1400b), where S has cunta, from contir; all
three are all the more interesting because I would expect
contesca (another variant) to be the only form found, but perhaps
this is a verb, like ofrir, fallir, which changed to the interfix class
within the history of Spanish, and not in PWR times. The same
document has aburra (114b, confirmed by the rhyme), where I
would certainly have expected aborresca to be the earlier form,
in line with the interfix conjugation of the other Romance
languages, including Rumanian (though Italian has both aborro
and aborrisco). The ue of suefro etc. accords with OFr., OProv.
suefre and the open o of It. soffre, and shows that in the case of
each language the verb was attracted to cobrir, ofrir and their
respective cognates.
The picture that emerges is similar to that of the front
vowels, namely that the diphthong ue has been replaced by the
single high vowel u, with a few examples of the older state of
affairs preserved in the dialects. However, in this case there is no
36
37
natural sound change to account for it (the only alternation
between ue and u is in vidueño/viduño (Men. M., 14.2d), but
here the etymon has Ō, so it is unlikely that muñir was similarly
affected), and we are thus forced to speculate as to what
analogical forces could be at work. One point of difference from
the front vowels is that the verbs with a close stem vowel in PR
are more numerous than those with an open one. So it is possible
that the forms cobre, conple, sofre indicate that these verbs were
attracted to the sobir class (or sofrir/-er to romper), unless again
these are just forms in which ǫ has not diphthongized (cf. F.J.
tuello/tollo); conversely, as we have seen with the front vowels,
in Leonese and Asturian diphthongs appear for the close vowels,
thus F.J. puenen, ruempe, As. cues(e) (Zam.), ascuendo,
respuendo (Men. M., 13.4). The other possibility, more
applicable to the next class of verbs, is that the sense of a
conjugational pattern of metaphony was created, with the back
vowels conforming to the alternation e/i by setting up an
alternation o/u (later, of course, to be eliminated by levelling in
favour of u). We should also consider the possibility that the
change from ue to u might have been assisted by that from ie to
i; in both cases some verbs were left unaffected, thus duermo,
muero as hiervo, yergo, hiero, -quiero.
13. The back vowels; o/u. In the verbs with stem vowels PR
and
Ū
Ō
we find a division of types in Portuguese and Catalan,
37
38
which is worth studying to see if it throws any light on the
position in Spanish. In Portuguese all the back vowels are
divided into two types irrespective of origin (as were the front
vowels, see § 4 above, §16 below). Those with u/o in the present
are: dormir, cobrir, sa-cudir etc., subir, fugir, de-struir (con-;
this pair also just with u), cuspir, tossir, bulir, engolir, surgir
(Bourciez, 360), (con)sumir; Gal. rugir, mu(n)gir/mogir,
resurdir, pruir/proer, lucir (so also the popular forms of Ptg.
luzir). Cumprir formerly belonged to this type; ungir, mungir
formerly had forms *onger (p.p. onjudo)/ongir, monger (no
alternative given by Nunes for jungir). All the rest of the verbs
with u in the infinitive keep the u throughout, though some also
have o-forms, preferred in popular use (Nunes, pp. 288-9); those
with o hesitate, as exturco/extorco, or avoid using the forms in
question. Morrer, sofrer and coser (Gal. also sofrir, cusir), of
course, have o (Gal. still moiro). The position here is evidently
so confused as to be uninstructive. In Catalan PR
Ŏ
gives
rhizotonic o: 3 dorm, mor, obre, comple (as omple; OCat.),
cobre (OCat.); PR
Ō, Ū
both give u, but with a varying
distribution of vowels in the infinitive: (l) cosir, escopir, sortir,
tossir, (2) a-cudir etc., bullir, (es)munyir, fugir, grunyir, engullir,
lluir, pruir, pudir, OCat. also destruir, junyir (now only with
interfix). Collir makes cu(y)ll by resolution of the triphthong
*cueyll (cf. OAr. cuillgades, as Pyrenean vuyllgua from voler,
where Catalan. has vulla, later vulga). The only possible light
thrown here comes from the verbs in class (2) coming from PR Ō.
38
39
The first is fugir, which agrees, as noted above, with all the
Romance languages except Portuguese in having rhizotonic u
throughout, probably going back to PR Ū (so Ptg. foges would be
a later formation, like somes, lozes). The same can probably be
said of destruir and rugir (interfix class in Catalan). Bullir,
engullir may have been influenced by collir; but the change may
also have originated earlier, as Provençal has both bolh and bulh
(Angl., p. 81), and in Roussillon they use forms like coscull,
ginull for standard coscoll, genoll. Similarly, grunyir may have
followed the -UNGERE verbs, or it may have been subject to the
fluctuations seen in puny/poin (Rus., 42:2), vergonya/Rous.
vergunya, Prov. conh/cunh, ponh/punh (Angl., ib.). In these
three cases the change would have originated with the yod forms
and been extended to the other persons; and then this whole
group, backed up by the metaphony in the imperative, would
have affected cosir, escopir, sortir, tossir and acudir. (This last
word, by the way, and sacudir, percudir, are rare examples of
Catalan agreeing with Spanish as against Provençal, which has
escodre, socodre; the Spanish-looking a of sacudir makes me
wonder if they are not Spanish importations.)
If we suppose the same state of affairs in Spanish, we get
fuyo, fuyes < *FŪGIO, *FŪGIS, and gruño as puño, cuña; but for
bullir, engullir and za(m)bullir < sobollir/sebellir (Cor. Dic.) we
would expect forms like *bojo, as coscojo, hinojo, in Castilian,
but with -llo in the dialects. However, in the case of bullir, we
may be dealing with a PWR BŪLLIRE variant. Even so, we still
39
40
have not much evidence of rhizotonic u in the PR -IRE verbs, the
only other occurrences being in the imperative and perhaps the
yod forms *subio, *escupio, backed up by a tendency to adopt
arrhizotonic u-forms. Our last hope, as with the front vowels, is
in the -UNGERE verbs, and the old -ERE verbs with stem vowel
PR Ū.
14. The -UNGERE verbs. Of the first group, only
MUNGERE
IUNGERE,
(×MULGERE), and to a slight extent PUNGERE (e.g.
barua punnientes in the Razón de Amor) are represented in
Spanish,
IUNGERE having
ousted
UNG(U)ERE
for phonetic reasons.
But Old Portuguese has *onger (extrapolated from onjudo)/ongir,
now ungir, jungir, pungir, and monger/-ir/mugir, now mungir,
with Gal. onger/-ir, moger/-ir/mu(n)gir, and Catalan has junyir
(plus a form júnyer given by Moll, 59), punyir/púnyer and
munyir/múnyer. In Spanish the dialects have innumerable forms,
outmatching those of constreñir or reñir: for Cas. unzir/uncir
(also yungir, juncir, uñir in Velázquez, with juñir added by Men.
M.) the F.J. has yungir/yuncir/yunzir/junner/junnir/yunnir, pres.
yunge/yunze/yunne,
perf.
yungio/yunço/yunno/iunneo/iunnio;
Corominas (Dic.) gives Le. unguir, ungan and junir (Alex. O; =
juñir, as in P) and a whole spate of modern dialectal forms;
Asturian has (earlier) joncer/juñir/juncir (Santander), with
present jun go, (earlier) juñe/jonce; Mozarabic has yunnir.
MUNGERE and
MULGERE are,
in part, geographically separated: in
the east, Ar. muir/mullé (Val d’Arán), in the west Le., As.
40
41
mocir/(es)mucir/mocer/mecer, also muñir, with muñe/munce.
As in the case of the -INGERE verbs, we can find the
influence of the perfect, as
IŪNXI, IŪNCTUS,
corroborated once
more by Prov. jonher/junher, onher/unher (Angl., p. 81), with
jonch, ponch in the east, junt, punt in the west and Gascony (Bec,
pp. 277-8, 534).
(Cf. also the unusual Ptg. ponto, ponta,
perhaps pointing to an earlier *ponger.) The result is the
extension of the u in most areas of the Peninsula, but in this case
virtually without any arrhizotonic o-forms — a point of contrast
with the front vowels. (However, in Portuguese and Catalan a
sense of alternation would be provided because the pretonic
pronunciation of o as u made pretonic u here equivalent to an o.
The chances of Latin
IŬNGO
giving a u are uncertain — cf. Sp.
hongo, tronco but junco; Ptg. fungo, tronco, junco — but IŬNGES
might have done so; see gruño above.)
15. Aduzir, etc. In the second group we have AD-DUCERE,
DESTRUERE, SUMERE,
which join the PR -IRE verbs *LUCIRE,
*PUTIRE, *PRUIRE. Of these, the first two are the most interesting,
because of their change of conjugation; sumir was probably
attracted into the -ir class later, when the u-i as opposed to the
o-e, correspondence was established. For PR we must suppose
*AD-DŪGERE, *DESTRŪGERE/*DESTRŬGERE, to account for the
forms in all the Romance languages; these would give
Proto-Iberian forms *adúire, *destrúire, thence, by way of a
change of accent to *aduír(e), *destruír(e), and remodelling on
41
42
the arrhizotonic forms, we arrive at Cat. (adur)/conduir, destruir,
OCas. aduzir, destruir, and OPtg. aduzir/-er, destruir. (A
shortened form *ADDŪ(GE)RE is the basis of the old future forms
(cf. faré, diré etc.) and perhaps Cat. adur, where we would
expect *aduire, as coyre; OLe., OPtg. aduzer will have to be
secondary, if this theory is correct.) Like dir, Cat. (a)dur has
(a)duim/-em in the present. Once again, then, the back vowels
form a parallel series to the front vowels, but without alternation.
However, this was sometimes provided analogically, as in the
case of OSp. adozir beside aduzir, or somir/sumir (somidas,
somiese in L.B.A.; cf. destroir/destruir, foir/fuir, roir/ruir, Cat.
destro(u)ir (old)/destruir, fogir (old)/fugir, and possibly Ptg. 2
destróis beside destruis, foges as against old fuges, where PR
seems to have had forms with both Ŭ and Ū), Gal. lucir/locir/-er.
The situation in the back vowels is not as clear as that in the
front vowels, but we now have perhaps enough examples both of
rhizotonic and of arrhizotonic u to account for the re-formation
of the verbs with o. (That certain verbs must originally have had
rhizotonic o is shown by the changes of conjugation in Cas. toser,
on the one hand, and dial. cusir on the other, and by variants like
As. tos/tus(e) (Zam.), sómete/súmete (Cor.); in fact forms like
tos, some and recebe may have given rise to -er infinitives (cf.
sumería, Mal., 448). Thus we may say that for the back vowels,
as for the front, we have been able to indicate certain factors
giving the impetus to change, without being able to present a
precise picture of the process. And once more we are left with
42
43
the feeling of a kind of conjugational vowel harmony, -ir being
associated with u, where -er is with o or ue. However, there is
one great difference in modern Spanish between the front and
back vowel series. Whereas in the case of the front vowels Old
Spanish hesitated between arrhizotonic i and e, the modern
language has mostly settled for e before accented i, because the
tendency to dissimilation was uppermost; but in the case of the
back vowels this principle did not operate, with the result that
the u was generalized, thus eliminating vowel alternation, the
only verbs to preserve the o (in some parts) being those where it
continued to alternate with both ue and u, namely dormir and
morir (apart from oir, where the o coming from
AU
did not
diphthongize, even in Aragonese). We may say that the
preponderance of rhizotonic u over ue (cf. the situation in the
front vowels) gave the feeling that ue was anomalous, and so
most of the verbs with ue changed over to u.
16. Portuguese. Before summing up, it may by valuable to
tabulate the varieties of metaphony found in Portuguese and
Catalan, as we have had occasion to refer to these languages
very often.
In Portuguese, some -ir verbs came to change their
conjugation, giving forms such as morrer (with -rr- from the
future morrei, perhaps), sofrer, oferer/oferecer, repender,
receber (con-, de-, (a)per-), while the old language or Old
43
44
Galician had -ir forms rather than -er, e.g. sofrirã, Gal. recebir,
repintir (but no *morir, only moiro). We have also established
the likelihood that escrever, viver, dizer and aduzer were
preceded by -ir forms, as found in Gal. Galician has gone further
in the matter of conjugation change, producing vester, menter etc.
beside vistir, mintir. Of the remaining -ir verbs, those with stem
vowel e (apart from some learned words) alternate as servir,
sirvo, serves, sirva, sirvamos. These are seguir, sentir, mentir,
vestir, ferir, despir, with learned additions like discernir,
advertir, aderir, repetir, preferir, conferir, emergir, imergir
(OPtg. immerger/amerger). We have already seen that pedir and
medir (and vir) keep the old yod forms, which mentir, sentir,
servir, ferir and oferir once had (cf. also receber/Gal. recebir,
querer, requerer/Gal. requirir, with recebio, (re)queiro).
Besides these forms, which give the alternation peço, pedes,
meço, medes, there were also formerly forms as pido, pides, pida,
pide (imper.). Similarly there were also formerly mento and
mintes, sento and sintes, servo and sirves, sega and sigues etc.,
with imperatives sigue, sirve, minte, sinte, viste, fire, (d)ispe,
rime etc. (Nunes, pp. 287, 337-41). Those with stem vowel i
throughout are basically the old -INGERE verbs cingir, fingir,
re-stringir (con-), tingir, estingir, impingir, atingir, ringir, which
we have seen also had -er forms like cinger, renger. Others are
r(i)ir, frigir, which now alternates frijo, freges (but Gal. firgir
has firgo, firges, as irgo, irges from erguer — *erguir is
unrecorded, though Michaelis lists ergir), and learned afligir,
44
45
resistir, dirigir, corrigir, erigir, inquirir, imprimir, transmitir etc.
(old
forms
correger/-ir,
ereger/-ir,
enquerer/inquerir,
empremer/-ir, tra-/tremeter; remir now takes its rhizotonic forms
from redimir). Other verbs, all learned, have arrhizotonic e and
rhizotonic i throughout (including all forms of the subjunctive),
such as agredir, progredir, transgredir, prevenir, denegrir, also
serzir/sirgir. They thus follow the pido, pides seen above, and
seem like Hispanicisms, except that in Spanish agredir,
transgredir show no alternation, prevenir is like venir, and
denegrir has only arrhizotonic forms. The old -IRE verbs, it will
have been seen, all had stem vowel PR Ĕ, except medir, nor were
there any with stem vowel Ī, OBOEDIRE and FINIRE both having
passed to the interfix class in PWR.
Among the verbs with stem vowel o alternating with u, as
dormir, durmo, dormes, durma, durmamos, there are both verbs
with PR Ŏ, such as dormir, cobrir, and those with PR Ō, such as
subir, bulir, tossir, engolir, cuspir, sa-cudir (a-, re-), surgir, and
also some from the
Ū
(or
Ū/Ŭ)
class, such as sumir, fugir
(formerly also with u throughout), destruir (also with u
throughout), and popularly luzir, with others in Galician, like
rugir, resurdir, mungir. Cumprir also formerly belonged to this
type, with compre, also subj. compra. Other verbs have u in
rhizotonic forms and throughout the subjunctive, such as
puir/poir and polir, sortir, OPtg. nozir/nuzir, jungir, pungir,
ungir, luzir, aduzir. The tendency, as in Spanish, is to have u
only, with no alternation.
45
46
It will be seen that both groupings are highly artificial; we
have verbs with and without alternation in the singular of the
present, whatever their original vowel and the present stem
vowel of the infinitive, thus servir, frigir, dormir, subir with
alternation, agredir, corrigir, sortir, jungir with i or u
throughout. The only verbs to preserve e (now open ę, except
before a nasal) throughout the present are those where the yod
has affected the consonant, as peço, meço, venho; the rest have
changed to the -er conjugation (as receber, repender), as have
some o-stems such as morrer, sofrer. We have, then, a much
more confused position than is found in Spanish, and one which
seems virtually to defy clarification.
In spite of the fact that many old yod presents, senço,
menço, servio, feiro, ofeiro, requeiro, recebio, dormio, moiro,
have been lost, it seems still as if the pattern of 1 i, u against 2, 3,
6 e, o (in which Portuguese differs notably from Spanish), must
go back to the yod (which is noticeably better preserved in
Portuguese than in Spanish), as we have seen that other forms
like subo, cuspa could go back to yod forms. As to the origin of i
and u in the modern first persons, we have seen that sinto, minto,
sirvo, durmo are late formations, being preceded at an
intermediate stage by sento, mento, servo and dormo. This
change seems to be similar to that from esso, esto, todo to isso,
isto, tudo, generally explained as due to o-metaphony (cf. the
equally late u-metaphony in Asturian, e.g. puirtu, timpu from
puerto, tiempo). This metaphony did not, however, take place in
46
47
all words; the above three words, for example, are the “neuter”
forms, while the corresponding masculine, todo, shows no
metaphony (isso, isto correspond to masc. êsse, êste). But in the
case of the verbs one must assume a double metaphony: first
sẹrvo < sęrvio, as nẹrvo <
dọrmo < dǫ̣rmio as fọrça <
NERVIU,
FORTIA,
sobẹrba <
SUPERBIA
and
and then sirvo < sẹrvo,
durmo < dọrmo. Sẹnto, mẹnto (with close ẹ before a nasal)
would have replaced senço, menço by analogy; they then
changed to sinto, minto in the 15th century, presumably on the
same analogy. (But note that this did not happen in the -er
verbs.) However, nothing is certain, except the final result. In
this respect, where Spanish has a vowel harmony contrast
between the -er verbs and the -ir verbs, Portuguese has three
contrasting types in the three conjugations: the -ar verbs have
open ę and ǫ in all positions, whatever their origin, thus lęvo,
lęva, espęro, espęra, rǫgo, rǫga, cǫrto, cǫrta, no doubt because
of the opening influence of the post-tonic a; the -er verbs occupy
a middle position, in which open and close e and o once more
coincide to produce a new type of alternation, as vẹrto, vęrtes,
vẹrta, mẹto, mętes, mẹta, vọlvo, vǫlves, vọlva, cọrro, cǫrres,
cọrra; here vẹrto and vọlvo have close vowels by metaphony,
and the subjunctive follows the first person, as in the yod verbs,
while mẹta and cọrra have resisted opening for the same reason,
whereas mętes and cǫrres follow vęrtes and vǫlves; finally the -ir
47
48
verbs have extended the alternation one degree further, in
harmony, as it were, with the infinitive, giving i and u instead of
ẹ and ọ while the other persons have open ę and ǫ̣, like the -er
verbs (see Will., 176). Thus Spanish and Portuguese have both,
by different routes, arrived at a kind of vowel harmony.
The verbs with i and u throughout would appear to have
followed the lead of verbs like cingir, dizir (Gal.), jungir, aduzir,
with the change from old forms like cenges to cinges perhaps
helping the process. Or, considering that many of them are
learned words, we may see Spanish influence at work, and
perhaps also in the alternative forms pido, pides, mido, mides.
The alternation between pretonic o and u has no significance, as
both are pronounced alike, and many verbs have been written
either way, e.g. tossir/tussir, gronhir/grunhir, cospir/cuspir,
ordir/urdir, cobrir/cubrir, bolir/bulir, fogir/fugir, sobir/subir,
somir/sumir, acodir/acudir, until recent orthographical reforms
settled on one or the other.
17. Catalan. In Catalan the position is simpler. The front vowels
can be divided into three types: (l) OCat. sent, sents, sentim,
senta, sintam, consintrá (Bad. H.), where pretonic i is found
except before a stressed i (but seguent; cf. Prov. servén/sirvén);
thus we have vistam (Rus.), and also provehiscam, conferiscats
(Bad. H.), where the i may, however, represent the extension of
the i of -ir etc. to the interfix (cf. partescam, desgarnescam); (2)
48
49
the verbs with yod, ferir, oferir, soferir, requerir (con-), tenir,
venir, which have rhizotonic forms such as requir, requers,
requira, and arrhizotonic forms based on requer- or requir- (Gar.
D.), thus requerim/requirim, recherás/rechirás (Rus., 15:100),
conquirats, and so also fira (Moll),7 firam, 3 fer, firén, ferrá
(Rus.), ofir, ofira, subj. soffira and soffiram, soferán, sofiren(t)
(Rus., Bad. H.), tinc/tenc, tens, tinga/tenga, tingam/tengam,
tinent/tenent, tindré/tendré, and similarly vinc/venc, vens,
vinga/venga,
vingam/vengam,
vinent/venent,
vindré/vendré,
imper. vin(a); these have i for *iei before the original yod, with a
tendency to extend it to the pretonic position, except before a
following i (requirim is based on an alternative root requir-); in
contrast, tenir and venir also have a tendency to replace the i by
the e of the other forms; (3) the verbs with a following palatal
which diphthongizes the e with the same result, e(i)xir, teixir,
llegir, which have ix/ixc, ixes, exim, ixca, ixcam, ixént (Rus., 41:
63) and also infinitive ixir, similarly OCat. tix/tixc, tixes, tixca,
and llig/llixch, lliges, subj. lligi, found in Cataluña and the
Balearics (cf. OCat. subj. ligen, Rus.), and lisca, OCat. ligiren
(Rus.) and ligenda <
LEGENDA
(Bad. H.); in the same class we
have fregir, frig, friges, frigi (with inherited i, also preserved in
the same areas), and formerly also regir (reg/rig), afegir
(afig/afisch), elegir (eleg/elig), and the whole class was joined
by cenyir, tenyir, renyir (*cinc, cinyen), and in part by dir, riure
(deim, deia, reim (Bal.), reia); now, however, exir is the only
one of these verbs (apart from the last two) unaffected by the
49
50
interfix. The distribution here is seen to be roughly the same as
in the Spanish servir class.
In the case of the back vowels there seem to be no verbs
corresponding to type (l) above, as dormir has the old
subjunctive dormam; durmia, however, occurs in the imperfect.
In class (2) we have morir, with muyr, mors, morim, muyra, and
pretonic mor-/mur-, as morie/muria, and in class (3) collir, with
cullo/cullc (for *colc), culls, collim, culli/OCat. colgan, and
pretonic coll- as the general rule, but also old cuylí, rechulirá,
aculids, acullentz. As we have seen, the other verbs, with the
exception of obrir, omplir, and cobrir, complir, these two now
with interfix, follow the pattern of collir, some with arrhizotonic
o, others with u; but as the two vowels have fallen together in
pronunciation, as in Portuguese, there is hesitation in the texts,
thus ubertes, umplert, umplit, (des)cubert, descubrirei, fogí,
destro(u)ir (though these two may reflect a hesitation between
PR Ū and Ŭ), and even rhizotonic umple.
Among the -er verbs also, there is alternation in poder,
doler, soler, voler, due to the yod.
18. Conclusion. In conclusion we can say that we have
established the following points. Firstly, that in contrast with
Portuguese there is not much trace of yod in the Spanish -ir
verbs. Consequently we find agreement in the stem vowels of
persons 1, 2, 3 and 6 in Spanish, whereas in Portuguese 1 is
50
51
generally opposed to 2, 3 and 6. And whatever slight metaphony
may have been caused by a yod, in certain verbs only, was not
sufficient of itself to establish a pattern of change.
Secondly, metaphony of close vowels could, on the other
hand, have been caused by the final -Ī of the imperative, as is
demonstrated in Portuguese.
Thirdly, the tendency to close pretonic e and o to i and u,
whether or not before a yod (primary or secondary), is a hesitant
one and would need reinforcing by other influences in order to
become dominant. The fact that this tendency was resisted by the
-er verbs shows that this is so.
Fourthly, certain verbs like servir changed rhizotonic ie to i,
thus forming a class of verbs with arrhizotonic e before i
alternating with i in other positions (also arrhizotonic i before i).
This class of verbs was joined by two groups, firstly the -INGERE
verbs like ceñir, and then the group consisting of dezir, reir, freir,
escrevir, bevir, both of which had e alternating with i in the same
positions as the verbs of the servir class, this time because the
stem vowel i was dissimilated to e before an accented i. Thus the
alternation e/i in the front vowels became the dominant pattern
for the -ir verbs.
In the case of the back vowels, the same tendencies are
observable, that is, a change from ue to u as in cubre for cuebre,
and the parallel introduction of -ERE verbs with stem vowel u,
such as unzir, mucir, aduzir, but the actual processes of change
are not as clear as in the case of the front vowels, and the final
51
52
result is the elimination of alternation, as there are no influences,
such as dissimilation, to impede the introduction of u in all
positions.
All the processes have been finally congealed by a certain
sense of conjugational vowel harmony, which requires that the
rhizotonic vowel in the -ir conjugation shall be i or u, whereas in
the -e conjugation it is ie or e, ue or o. In this sense of vowel
harmony Spanish agrees with Portuguese.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Spanish, standard language and dialects:
(Men. M.)
R. Menéndez Pidal, Manual de Gramática
Histórica Española, 13th ed., Madrid,
1968.
(Oríg.)
R. Menéndez Pidal, Orígenes del Español,
3rd ed., Madrid, 1950.
(Cid)
R. Menéndez Pidal, Cantar del mio Cid,
3rd ed., Madrid, 1954-6.
(Ent.)
W. J. Entwistle, The Spanish Language,
London, 1936.
(G. H.)
D. J. Gifford & F. W. Hodcroft, Textos
Lingüísticos
del Medioevo Español,
Oxford, 1959.
(Hanssen)
F. Hanssen, Gramática Histórica de la
52
53
Lengua Castellana, Halle, 1913.
(Gar. E.)
V. García de Diego, Elementos de Gramática
Histórica Castellana, Burgos, 1914.
(Gar. G.)
V. García de Diego, Gramática Histórica
Española, Madrid, 1951.
(Gar. D.)
V. García de Diego, Manual de Dialectología Española, Madrid, 1967.
(Alv.)
M. Alvar, El Dialecto Aragonés, Madrid,
1953.
(Zam.)
A. Zamora Vicente, Dialectología Española,
2nd ed., Madrid, 1967.
(Llera, F.J.)
V. Fernández Llera, Gramática y
Vocabulario del Fuero Juzgo, Madrid,
1929.
(L.B.A.)
J. Corominas ed., Juan Ruiz, Libro de Buen
Amor, Madrid, 1967.
(Cor. Dic.)
J.Corominas, Diccionario CríticoEtimológico de la Lengua Castellana,
Madrid, 1954-7.
(Mal.)
Y.Malkiel, “Diphthongization, Monophthongization, Metaphony”, in Language,
Vol. 42, pp. 430-472, 1966.
(Velázquez)
M. Velázquez de la Cadena, Spanish and
English Dictionary, Chicago, 1967.
Portuguese:
(Will.)
E. B. Williams, From Latin to Portuguese,
53
54
2nd ed., Philadelphia, 1962.
(Nunes)
J. J. Nunes, Compêndio de Gramática
Histórica Portuguêsa, 7th ed., Lisbon,
1969.
(Michaelis)
H.Michaelis, Portugês e Inglês Dicionário,
New York, 1945.
(Taylor)
J. L. Taylor, A Portuguese-English
Dictionary, Stanford, 1958.
Catalan:
(Bad. G.)
A. M. Badía Margarit, Gramática Catalana,
Madrid, 1962.
(Bad. H.)
A. M. Badía Margarit, Gramática Histórica
Catalana, Barcelona, 1951.
(Moll)
F. de B. Moll, Gramática Histórica
Catalana, Madrid, 1952.
(Rus.)
P. Russell-Gebbett, Mediaeval Catalan
Linguistic Texts, Oxford, 1965.
Provençal:
(Angl.)
J. Anglade, Grammaire de
l’Ancien Provençal, Paris, 1921.
(Bec)
P. Bec, Manuel Pratique de Philologie
Romane, TomeⅠ, Paris, 1970.
54
55
Latin:
(Buck)
C. D. Buck, Comparative Grammar
of Greek and Latin, Chicago, 1933.
General:
(Bourciez)
E.Bourciez, Eĺ éments de Linguistique
Romane, 5th ed., Paris, 1967.
Where no reference has been given for forms in the
Spanish dialects, and also sometimes in Galician and Catalan,
they are generally to be found in the relevant sections of García
de Diego’s Dialectología. I have also found certain forms in the
Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology.
******
This is an edited version of a paper originally published
in Ronshu, Vol.12 ( Tokyo, Aoyama Gakuin University, 1971).
55
56
56