Metaphony, if it is to be projected to Proto-Romance, may have initially been limited to open syllables. That is, it would have targeted allophonically lengthened /ɛɔ/.[4]
/b/ did not occur in intervocalic position.[17][viii]
Morphology
The forms below are spelt as they are in the cited sources, either in Latin style or in phonetic notation. The latter may not always agree with the phonology given above.
Some nouns of the –C type had inflections with alternating stress or syllable count:[19]
Type
-C (m)
-C (f)
Number
SG
PL
SG
PL
NOM
hómo
hómines/-i
múlier
muliéres
ACC
hómine
hómines
muliére
GEN-DAT
hómini
hóminis
muliéri
muliéris
Gloss
‘man’
‘woman’
There were also ‘neuter’ nouns. In the singular they would have been treated as masculine and in the plural as feminine, often with a collective sense.[20]
Type
-o (n)
-C (n)
Number
SG
PL
SG
PL
NOM
bracchiu
bracchia
corpus
corpora
ACC
GEN-DAT
bracchio
bracchiis
corpori
corporis
Gloss
‘arm’
‘body’
Adjectives
Positive
Lausberg (1973:§§668–73) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFLausberg1973 (help)
Type
-o/-a
Gender
M
F
M
F
Number
SG
PL
SG
PL
SG
PL
SG
PL
NOM
bonus
boni
bona
bonas
virdis
virdes/-i
virdis
virdes
ACC
bonu
bonos
virde
virdes
virde
GEN-DAT
bono
bonis
bonae
bonis
virdi
virdis
virdi
virdis
Gloss
‘good’
‘green’
Comparative
For the most part, the typical way to form a comparative would have been to add magis or plus (‘more’) to a positive adjective. A few words were inherited with a comparative suffix -ior. Their inflections can be reconstructed as follows:[21]
Number
SG
Gender
M or F
N
NOM
mélior
mélius
ACC
melióre
Gloss
‘better’
Superlative
Superlatives would have been formed by adding definite articles to comparatives.[22]
^That is, when followed by a syllable containing a close vowel.
^Diachronically this reflects the ‘weakening’ of vowels in this context, for which see Lausberg & 1970:§§292–6 harvcolnb error: no target: CITEREFLausberg1970:§§292–6 (help). An example, per the latter, is Latin dormītorium > French dortoir.
^In representing it as such this article follows Burger 1955 and Petrovici 1956. Similarly, van den Bussche 1985 proposes a Proto-Romance inventory with /ʎʎ ɲɲ (t)tʲ (d)dʲ (k)kʲ (ɡ)ɡʲ/ (p. 226) and Pope 1952 reconstructs Proto-Gallo-Romance with a series of palatalized consonants (§168). Gouvert 2015 prefers a phonetic palatalization rule for Proto-Romance, as in /basiˈare/ [baˈsʲaːɾe] (p. 83).
^Gouvert assumes regular (phonetic) gemination of palatalized intervocalic /n l k/ to [ɲɲ ʎʎ cc]. Repetti points out that there exists (variable) Romance evidence for the gemination of each consonant other than /s/.
^Example from Gouvert. Per Lausberg the prop-vowel would have been added only after a consonant or pause.
^Diachronically this reflects the development of Latin intervocalic [b] to [β], and likewise [bj] to [βj], for which see Lausberg 1970:§§366, 475.
^de Dardel & Gaeng (1992:104) differ from Lausberg on the following points: 1) They believe that the genitive-dative case was limited to animate nouns. 2) They reconstruct a universal gen-dat. plural ending -orum. 3) They reconstruct, for class -a type nouns, a nominative plural -ae (albeit in competition with -as per de Dardel & Wüest (1993:57)). They are in agreement with Lausberg regarding the remaining inflections.
Burger, André (1955). "Phonématique et diachronie à propos de la palatalisation des consonnes romanes". Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure. 13 (13): 19–33. JSTOR27757997.
Chambon, Jean-Pierre (2013). "Notes sur un problème de la reconstruction phonétique et phonologique du protoroman: Le groupe */ɡn/". Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris. CVIII (1): 273–282. doi:10.2143/BSL.108.1.3019219.
de Dardel, Robert & Gaeng, Paul Ami (1992). "La declinaison nominale du latin non classique: Essai d'une methode de synthese". Probus. 4 (2): 91–125. doi:10.1515/prbs.1992.4.2.91.
de Dardel, Robert & Wüest, Jakob (1993). "Les systèmes casuels du protoroman: Les deux cycles de simplification". Vox Romanica (52): 25–65.
Dworkin, Steven N. (2016). "Do romanists need to reconstruct Proto-Romance? The case of the Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman project". Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie (132): 1–19. doi:10.1515/zrp-2016-0001.
Gouvert, Xavier (2015). "Le système phonologique du protoroman: essai de reconstruction". In Buchi, Éva; Schweickard, Wolfgang (eds.). Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman. Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 61–128. doi:10.1515/9783110313482. ISBN978-3-11-031244-7.
Gouvert, Xavier (2016). "Du protoitalique au protoroman: deux problèmes de reconstruction phonologique". In Buchi, Éva & Schweickard, Wolfgang (eds.). Dictionnaire Étymologique Roman 2. Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 27–51. doi:10.1515/9783110453614. ISBN978-3-11-045361-4.
Lyons, Christopher (1986). "On the origin of the Old French strong-weak possessive distinction". Transactions of the Philological Society. 84 (1): 1–41. doi:10.1111/j.1467-968X.1986.tb01046.x.
Operstein, Natalie (2010). Consonant structure and prevocalization. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Vol. 312. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/cilt.312. ISBN978-90-272-4828-2.
Petrovici, Emil (1956). "Problema moştenirii din romanica comună a corelaţiei palatale a consoanelor în limba romînă". Ştudii şi Cercetări Lingvistice. 7: 163–9.
Pope, Mildred Katherine (1952) [1934]. From Latin to Modern French (2nd ed.). Manchester University Press.
van den Bussche, Henri (1985). "Proto-Romance inflectional morphology. Review of Proto-Romance morphology by Robert Hall". Lingua. 66 (2–3): 225–60. doi:10.1016/S0024-3841(85)90336-5.