Anda di halaman 1dari 20
Folia Linguistion Historica VIIT/1 ~2 pp. 283 - 267 © Sooielas eee DIVERGENCES AND CONVERGENCES AMONG NEO-LATIN SYSTEMS IN NORTH-EASTERN ITALY Alberto Zamboni Frastva ponuntur pura whi paueiora suficiunt 1, DIALEGTAL TYPOLOGY IN NORTH-EASTERN ITALY, Scientific vulgata currently identifies in north-eastern Taly — during the Imperial age a territory belonging to the X Regio Au- gusten and later under Diocletian to the VILL Provincia (Venelia et Histria) — 9 number of Neo-Latin systems, which area more or less divergent and which sometimes contrast sharply amongst themselves. Such a position is well mirrored by Pellegrini’s Carta (2977) which, speaking at least for the dialects placed within the borders of the Italian State, distinguishes among other things a large Venetian (veneto, not only veneciano) group, a considerable Frin- Jian entity and finally a relatively small alpine area, where Ladin (Dolomitie) dialects are spoken. Yeb between the Venetian domain and the neighbouring ones, which differ from it systemically, in- stead of sharp intervals usually gradual transitions (areal continua) can be noticed, which define real amphizones in coemection with ‘Trentino, Dolomitic Ladinia and Friuli. Venetian, moreover, is an ‘historically planted system — though in current opinion mostly as # colonial variety — in several areas of constal Friuli and the Is- trian peninsula (not to mention Dalmatia). One group of varieties contrasting with Venetian are the so called Central or Dolomitic Ladin and Friulian dialects, which. starting from Asooli’s (1873) and Gartner's (1888, 1904) works, are considered espocially by Ger- ‘man scholars 2s subparts of an autonomous Neo-Latin area. impro- perly called “Rhaeto-Romance’ (that is Neo-Latin of Rhac ‘The theory of Ladin unity, or even of a Rhacto-Romancs tongus, ‘was fought by Salvioni and Battisti and later by Tagliavini and Pel- 234 Jegrini, who on severel occasions specified the historical background of (pre)alpine Romance and its connections with non-alpine dis- foots (ef. Heilmann 1977; Pellegrini-Saceo 1988). & contro ‘versy, on the contrary, concernsthe complex of Romance dislects in Istria, which for historical reasons (before Venetian colonization), and as regards especially theirs outhern varieties, are ascribed by Yugo- slay Romanists (Skok, Deanovié, Tekavtié) to “Istro-Romance” and ‘thus kept apart from tbe “Ttalo-Roimaniec" domain. This statement hhas also been resolatély fought by Italian scholars (starting from Bartoli-Vidossi 1045: Inter by Tagliavini, Folens, Pellegrini, Doria, ‘Crevatin #f alii); while the first seholar who systematically investi _gated those dialects (called istrioti), A. Tve (1900), followed by Merlo, labelled them with the name of “Ladin-V of a misintérprotation of Ascoli’ thought. Int his lat ‘and from yaanice many sides leas’ tradition — Pellegrini (1973) substantial ‘tributes nortieastern Ttaly to the first {or Po Valley Italian; including thé so called “Gall6-Ttalio” with Ligurian, tho marginal and archaic ares of Laidin, thenVe tian and Istrian) and the Fxiulian respectively, which iu comparison to tho former bears evidence of'a remarkable dutonomy. ‘two (sub)groupings (belonging to Western Romania in traditi assumptions) are primarily characterized by the general proces of lenition/sonotization of intervovalie volecless Sonsonants, by’ de- gemination and the consequat restructuring of word initials (¢he Venetian ares only retains some élements of variation in thé inican- ing give to it by Weinrich and Lausberg), by the special dovel- opment of clusters and, concerning the vocalism, by the tendency to reduce elements in weak pasition — internal or fins! —, thie pre- sence in Gallo-Italic varieties of rounded front vowels (/@/, [yl). and finally by the development — properly Friulian — of an organic system of quantity oppositions (fortis es debilis) with the loss of the *Proto-Romance" four degree system. Furthermore Friulian, agreo- ing with Ladin dialects, palatalizes etymologic ka, ga/ atid pre- ‘serves jl) clusters and final s/ with morphological Functions, be- sides other various morphological and syntactié features. “Within this picture of the situation, therefore, Tstrian dislects should be considered, accordiig to Toglisivini and Pellegrini (1973), as “an appendix of rural Venctian”, even if they display pooutiar historical foatures (for instance the possible lateness of sonbrization ‘or the _ aystenife trends such us toile fof > ef." 235

Anda mungkin juga menyukai