Explanation of the Modern Dialect Forms in Light of the Historical Context

The explanation for the different patterns of use of the two conditional paradigms in the late mediaeval period as described above suggests that the usage of the periphrases would continue to develop in separate ways in the northern and Tuscan dialects. Moreover, this analysis would predict a situation in which occurrence of the

CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis would continue to increase in the northern Italo-

Romance dialects, but decrease in the Tuscan dialects. The modern dialect data shows that this is indeed the case.

The Northern Italo-Romance Dialects

In the northern Italo-Romance dialects, the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis was not solely a literary form: it was used in both practical and literary genres. The use of the form increased in most genres over the fourteenth century. On this basis, it would be expected that the use of the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis would continue to increase, to the point where it would attain status either equal to or dominant over the

CANTARE HABUIperiphrasis.

The AIS maps show that the use of theCANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis has three main

centres in the northern Italo-Romance dialects. There is a strong concentration of the

CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis in the Veneto, which clusters around Venice.

Attestations of the CANTARE HABUIperiphrasis occur at the extremities of the region,

particularly in the Istrian dialect regions and the more conservative villages of the Veneto.436 Reflexes of the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis are also centred around

Milan.437This cluster does not extend far, and it is largely surrounded by the sigmatic forms of the CANTARE HABUI periphrasis noted by Parry.438 The third cluster of

reflexes of the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis is to be found in Liguria and

Piedmont.439 This cluster of attestations of the form does not consistently extend east into Lombardy or Emilia-Romagna, which tend to show reflexes of the CANTARE HABUI periphrasis with variation between desinences in –ebbe and sigmatic

desinences.440

The attestation of reflexes of theCANTARE HABUIperiphrasis in the conservative areas

of the Veneto, and in the Istrian dialects, and the use of the CANTARE HABEBAM

periphrasis only in close proximity to Milan, confirms that the CANTARE HABUI

paradigm is the native form in the northern Italo-Romance dialects and that the use of reflexes of the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis is innovative. It is not surprising, therefore, that the usage of this paradigm forms clusters around cities, which tend to be the loci of innovation. The incursion of theCANTARE HABEBAMperiphrasis into the Ligurian and Piedmontese dialects is, however, less in keeping with the normal pattern of rural areas tending towards the preservation of conservative forms.

This pattern of attestation of theCANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis, however, is entirely

explicable in the light of the data presented in this thesis. The dual sources of the

CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis, geographic and literary, are represented by the

Ligurian/Piedmontese and Venetian/Milanese dialect situations. The extreme proximity of the Piedmontese and Ligurian dialects to the Provençal would appear to account for their adoption and retention of the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis. In

contrast, Venice and the Veneto, although exposed to the Provençal form through lesser proximity, also required the literary tradition of the Troubadours and the

Karl Jaberg and Jakob Jud, Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz (AIS) (Zolfingen: Ringier, 1928-1940).

437_{See AIS 1019, 1044, 1104, 1519, 1603, 1630, 1627: points 252, 261.} 438_{Parry, p. 549.}

439_{See AIS maps 1019, 1044, 1104, 1519, 1603, 1630, 1627: points 131, 143, 150,152, 161, 160, 163,}

170,175, 181, 182, 190.

440

See AIS maps 1019, 1044, 1104, 1519, 1603, 1630, 1627: points 412, 420, 446, 454, 466, 467, 479 etc.

Sicilian poets for the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis to gain ground. In contrast,

Lombardy, which had neither the literary centre of Venice, nor the extreme proximity to Provençal of the Piedmontese and Ligurian dialects, retained the CANTARE HABUI

periphrasis and did not generally adopt theCANTARE HABEBAMperiphrasis. The same

is true of the Emilian dialects, which by reason of their greater proximity to Tuscan, would also have been more likely to be strongly conditioned by the Florentine dialect as a literary influence than Venetian.

The Tuscan Dialects

In Tuscany, in contrast to the northern Italo-Romance dialects, the CANTARE HABEBAMperiphrasis was only perceived as a literary, and primarily poetic, form. As it was not available for use in practical texts, and its use decreased over the fourteenth century, it would be expected that the form would gradually be eradicated in the Tuscan dialects. Corroborating evidence for the actual occurrence of this process is to be found in Bembo, who says:

È il vero che ella termina etiandio così, AMERIA VORRIA: ma non Thoscanamente, e solo nel verso: come che SARIA si legga alcuna volta etiandio nelle prose: PORIA poscia che disse il Petrarcha in vece di Potria è anchora maggiormente dalla mia lingua lontano. nel qual verso anchora così termina alle volte la prima voce,IoAMERIA, IoVORRIAin vece .d’.Amereie di

Vorrei; e così .quelle .de gli-altri.441

This statement confirms that the reflexes of the CANTARE HABEBAM periphrasis were

regarded as a non-Tuscan poetic form. While the use of the paradigm continued in poetry into the sixteenth century and beyond, the form was no longer considered as acceptable in prose. The eradication of the form continued, resulting in the conclusive situation mapped by the AIS, which shows almost universal use of reflexes of the

CANTARE HABUIperiphrasis in Tuscany.

441

Pietro Bembo,Prose della vulgar lingua: L’edition princeps del 1525 riscontrata con l’autografo Vaticano latino 3210ed. by Claudio Vela (Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice, 2001), 139v(p. 193).