Yves Cortez
'Guest' : « <<< In Spanish RAE attempted to hispanify the foreign term whisky by spelling it as güisqui since many people pronounce w as gu , so I don't think that step is unnatural for a Romance speaker at all. >>>
That´s strange: in France nobody would have the idea to say guisky instead of whisky. »
La non-transformation de /(h)wIskI/ pour An <whisk(e)y> en *<gwiski> ou *<giski> pour Fr <whisk(e)y> peut s'expliquer par la date de l'emprunt : probablement fin XVIIIe siècle, c'est-à-dire fort longtemps après le Moyen-Âge.
Mais il n'est pas interdit de penser que le renforcement articulatoire /w——/ → /gw——/ ou /g——/ puisse à nouveau se produire dans le futur. Il se peut que les francophones du XXIIIe siècle prononcent /giski/ et écrivent <guisqui>. L'avenir le dira...
<<That sounds like an example out of the book of Yves Cortez. >>
Thanks (I hope :), it's purely coincidental. I have never read him.
The Truth is self-evident everywhere. That's what makes Truth truth.
"As an explanation I have read that Germanic <w> was difficult to pronounce for Gallo-Romans, but I do not see why it was difficult."
Sound changes have not necessary to do with pronounciation difficulties of non-native speakers - other explanations are possible and have been shown in other cases.
<<<
oui < OFr. 'oïl' < Lat. 'hoc illud' ("that's it")
>>>>
In which texts can one find the earliest 'hoc illud' in the sense of "yes" and of "non" in the sense of "no"?
"
La non-transformation de /(h)wIskI/ pour An <whisk(e)y> en *<gwiski> ou *<giski> pour Fr <whisk(e)y> peut s'expliquer par la date de l'emprunt : probablement fin XVIIIe siècle, c'est-à-dire fort longtemps après le Moyen-Âge.
"
The names Guelf and Ghibelline for Welfe and Waiblinger were created in the 12th or 13th century, so the systematic transformation w > g, gu was effective then. Are there even more recent examples?
'Guest' : « The names Guelf and Ghibelline for Welfe and Waiblinger were created in the 12th or 13th century, so the systematic transformation w > g, gu was effective then. »
Les exemples que tu propose sont surtout pertinents pour l'italien médiéval puisque l'ancien français lui aurait emprunté ces termes.
It <guelfo> /g/ → Fr <guelfe> /g/
It <ghibellino> /g/ → Fr <gibelin> /ʒ/
Configuration de l'emprunt : /g/ → /g/ ou /ʒ/ ;
pas du tout /w/ → /g/, du moins pour l'ancien français.
D'autre part on trouve une double alternance en allemand <Guelfe>/<Welfe> et <G(h)ibelline>/<Waiblinger>.
<Guelfen und G(h)ibellinen> → 80 %
<Welfen und Waiblinger> → 20 %.
À confirmer/infirmer par nos amis germanophones.
Pour le cas <guelfe>/<gibelin>, c'est difficile, à première vue et si l'hypothèse ci-dessus se vérifie, de retenir un effet du germanique sur le roman pour ce qui concerne le schéma évolutif /w/ → /g/ d'autant que ce schéma n'est pas celui qui a joué quand les termes originaux ont été transposés de l'italien ancien à l'ancien français, avec les adaptations et évolutions phonographiques ultérieures propres à la langue emprunteuse.
In Germany they are always called Waiblinger and Welfen, never Guelf or Gibellin.
Wikipedia sais:
Guelph (often spelled Guelf; in Italian Guelfo, plural Guelfi) is most probably an Italian form of Welf, the family of the dukes of Bavaria (including the namesake Welf, as well as Henry the Lion). The Welfs were said to have used the name as a rallying cry during the Battle of Weinsberg in 1140, in which the rival Hohenstaufens of Swabia (led by Conrad III) used Waiblingen, the name of a castle, as their cry. Waiblingen, at the time pronounced and spelled somewhat like "Wibellingen", became subsequently Ghibellino in Italian. The names were likely introduced to Italy during the reign of Frederick Barbarossa. When Frederick campaigned in Italy to expand imperial power there, his supporters became known as Ghibellines (Ghibellini).
To conclude:
to question the Germanic origin of French "guerre" and "guerra" in other Romance languages seems to be at least very speculative and Yves Cortez should bring in this point some hard facts in order to substantiate his hypothesis.
The general problem remains that no texts written in proto-Italian or vulgar/vernacular Latin are known. Also the "evolution" of Romance remains unclear, since the very first Romance text was written in 842, at a time, when it was already completely different and far away from Latin while very near to modern Italian and French.
"since the very first Romance text was written in 842"
Cartularios de Valpuesta were writen in proto Spanish and the first one dates from 804. That the earliest ones were writen in very archaic Spanish or Vulgar Latin with Romance features is subject of debate. Some scholars say that only after the XI century fully Romance manuscripts were writen.
'Guest' : « To conclude:
to question the Germanic origin of French "guerre" and "guerra" in other Romance languages seems to be at least very speculative and Yves Cortez should bring in this point some hard facts in order to substantiate his hypothesis. »
Non, c'est la conclusion inverse qui s'impose : l'hypothèse selon laquelle <guerra> serait d'origine germanique n'est pas prouvée. Ce qui est prouvé, en revanche, c'est la forte adhésion de la Romanie à l'étymon <guerra> avec conservation du sémantisme {guerre} alors que ce même étymon (germanisé avec un /w/ initial) rapporté au signifié {guerre} n'est que très peu répandu dans les langues germaniques.
La charge de la preuve d'une hypothétique origine germanique reste entière.
"Some scholars say that only after the XI century fully Romance manuscripts were writen. "
That is true, and that is why the origins of Romance are often speculative - but speculation is fun.
<<Non, c'est la conclusion inverse qui s'impose : l'hypothèse selon laquelle <guerra> serait d'origine germanique n'est pas prouvée. Ce qui est prouvé, en revanche, c'est la forte adhésion de la Romanie à l'étymon <guerra> avec conservation du sémantisme {guerre} alors que ce même étymon (germanisé avec un /w/ initial) rapporté au signifié {guerre} n'est que très peu répandu dans les langues germaniques.
La charge de la preuve d'une hypothétique origine germanique reste entière. >>
If 'guerre'/'guerra' is not of germanic origin, as you seem to be implying, then what do you propose it might be instead?
if we might establish a chronology of sound changes in Latin, it could make the things simpler, but it appears a very complicated task. In this (a little old one) book:
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/7rlat10.txt
the author after an analyse of antic texts concludes that the sound 'w' was absent in the first century BC; but Tolkien in one of his essays gives two Welsh words and their etymologies:
ciwdod<ciuitatem
ciwed<ciuitas
Does it signify that the sound 'w' existed in the first century AD (when The Romans conquered the Britain) and maybe even later?
"If 'guerre'/'guerra' is not of germanic origin, as you seem to be implying, then what do you propose it might be instead?"
I don't think someone will give you an answer other than: 'We don't have any inscriptions of proto-Italian and we cannot give you any prove that a such language ever existed thus we won't give an alternative etymology of guerre but we are sure that we are right because Yves Cortez says so'.
;)
<,"If 'guerre'/'guerra' is not of germanic origin, as you seem to be implying, then what do you propose it might be instead?"
I don't think someone will give you an answer other than: 'We don't have any inscriptions of proto-Italian and we cannot give you any prove that a such language ever existed thus we won't give an alternative etymology of guerre but we are sure that we are right because Yves Cortez says so'.
>>
I know. I just wanted to be fair, balanced, and open minded. Some on this thread have been laboring so hard to undermine the fact that 'guerre' comes from 'werra' (which the evidence emphatically points to btw).
(sigh), I'm getting soft in my eld : )