Reconstruction talk:Latin/dinarium

This form is attested in Lex Salica
It is attested in the Salic Law of the 5th century, therefore this word should not be under a reconstruction page. LatinGuy87 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @LatinGuy87 Given the absence of *dinier from northern France, where the Lex Salica would have been composed, what you have indicated would probably be one of many cases where a Late Latin ⟨i⟩ stood for /e/. Nicodene (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Doubt. It's more likely that this spelling reflects the ancestral forms of the Occitano-Romance reflexes (they were the same language as the ancestor of Old French back in the 5th century). So I'd support LatinGuy87's claim. Kwékwlos (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, it was all 'the same language' from modern Portugal to Bulgaria at this stage- it's far too early to speak of any meaningful 'Occitano-Romance'.
 * Second of all, any one language can vary from place to place, especially on the level of individual words.
 * Third of all, there is no a priori reason to assume that the word in question even had an /i/ variant as early as ca. 500, and any ⟨i⟩ spelling can stand for either /i/ or /e/ if it comes from an area where original Latin /ĭ/ and /ē/ merged, such as what is now northern France. One would have to find a spelling like ⟨dinarius⟩ in a non-merging area, for instance Roman Africa, to be sure of the pronunciation /i/.
 * Fourth of all, the reason for the spread of an /i/ form is Byzantine influence, a Mediterranean phenomenon. It would be strange indeed if it had spread to the furthest reaches of northern France by ca. 500, given that Oïl instead reflects the original Latin denarius, and given that the Franks did not even have access to the Mediterranean at the time.
 * If you still want to use an 'attestation' from an area with the ĭ–ē merger, it should at the very least come from an area that did (at least eventually) opt for an /i/ variant. Even then it's not ideal. Nicodene (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)