Reconstruction talk:Proto-West Germanic/falis

Vulgar Latin *falisa
There is a caveat here: Old French has (not falese or falesse), which means the parent (Latin) form had to end in -ia/-ea and the -i-/-e- had to be transferred to the preceeding syllable (cf gloire < gloria; noise < nausea, etc.). If you want to have a VL step, it needs to show -ia/-ea to make the OFr work. Leasnam (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a clear example (btw) of a word which definitely entered some form of Latin first before entering Old French! Leasnam (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, though OFr also had and, but  is unattested. We do find OFr ,  however. Maybe it entered OFr both from VL. and LL, or maybe it's simply vowel stress. --Victar (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the Old French faleise and faloise come from the Late Latin, and are immediately in the line of the modern words. The others existed, but they are dead branches. Leasnam (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's odd we also have Italian . Is Latin Late Latin or Medieval Latin? If it's Medieval Latin, it could be a back formation from  --Victar (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is another explanation. Vulgar Latin had two e-phonemes, and . The former became a diphthong  in early Old French, later shifting to . Vulgar Latin  has two sources: Latin long ē and short i. It's quite possible that this was also applied to the Frankish unstressed short i, which may have been borrowed as  into French early enough for it to undergo the vowel shift as well.  16:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It also seems some scholars thought the word derived from . Looking at the sources for, which are chiefly Norman, I would have to say it's Medieval Latin and not Late Latin. --Victar (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "It's odd we also have Italian . Is Latin Late Latin or Medieval Latin? If it's Medieval Latin, it could be a back formation from " It's Middle Latin. It could be a hyper-correctedised-back-formed formation, yes...given that they understood sound correspondences (not unknown to have occurred)...The OFr word is supposed to have been originally Norman yes. I moved them around some. See what you think Leasnam (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If is descended from Ofr, then it would have been formed from, not , no? --Victar (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If it was pseudo-created (i.e. "correctified") to resemble what speakers imagined would have initially produced Old French, then I would think so, yes. Hence the -ia I would think... Leasnam (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So then I think your edits mistakenly reverse this. --Victar (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You think Middle Latin comes from Old French  instead? Leasnam (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't, but the way you edited the descendants tree implies this. --Victar (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's what I meant: VL *falisa > Old French falise, falese > ML falisia > Old French faleise, faloise (reborrowed) >... Leasnam (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, it's the "Old French falise, falese > ML falisia" step that I think is wrong. --Victar (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean; But then we would have to assume that it was stress which diphthongised e to ei, as in to ...hmmmm, you're making me think outside the box. I LOVE IT!!! Leasnam (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, in this instance then I can concede faleise not having to come from falesia. I leave it again to your discretion : ) Leasnam (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, language sure is a funny thing and it's puzzles like these that keep me going, for sure. --Victar (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I just saw this too, from CodeCat: "There is another explanation. Vulgar Latin had two e-phonemes, /e/ and /ɛ/. The former became a diphthong /ej/ in early Old French, later shifting to /oj/. Vulgar Latin /e/ has two sources: Latin long ē and short i. It's quite possible that this was also applied to the Frankish unstressed short i, which may have been borrowed as /e/ into French early enough for it to undergo the vowel shift as well."--boy, that would've saved me some time Leasnam (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)