Béla Adamik REMARKS ON THE CHANGES OF CONSONANTISM IN PANNONIAN LATINITY AS EVIDENCED BY THE INSCRIPTIONS Béla ADAMIK The research of the Latin language as reflected on the inscriptions in Pannonia is hardly to be regarded as a completed matter; on the contrary it can rather be regarded as a project just started. This is not to deny the fact that some studies on partial topics have already been published, and some of them, like the excellent studies of József Herman, treated aspects of Pannonian Latinity in a wider context, among others concerning dialect geography. However, there is no solid and detailed description of the language of Pannonian Latin inscriptions so far that could serve as a reference like the excellent study of Zamboni on the Latin language as reflected in Venetia and Histria. As far as the phonology of Pannonian Latinity is concerned, there are only two studies: one written by Herman on dialectal aspects of the vocalism and the other written by Fehér on some questions concerning the consonantism, published recently. 1 The latter is the starting point for our remarks on some details that concern the changes of consonant clusters, especially of consonant plus [j]. I. Our first remark concerns the Pannonian attestation of the [j] (yod) evolving from vocalic i in hiatus, because this sound is particularly responsible for changes of consonants immediately before it, i.e. for the phenomenon widely called palatalisation or assibilation. In Fehér’s opinion it is possible to detect the transformation of vocalic i into consonantal i [j] only in epigraphic poems, where the syllabic structure of the words contrasted with the metrical shape of the verse reveals us its consonantal pronunciation in many cases. As a nice example let me cite the last pentameter line of an otherwise hexametric funeral inscription from Aquincum (CIL 3, 10501.9 = CLE 489) et pia voce cane: Aelia Sabina vale. Here the pronunciation of the name Aelia . is clearly [ę:lja] 2 But one should bear in mind the well- known fact that this sound change is obviously evidenced by the confusion of i and e in hiatus in writing as well. This confusion in written Latin was also triggered by the development that in Vulgar Latin both unstressed /e/ and /i/ came to be pronounced [j] in prevocalic position, i.e. in hiatus, as also corroborated by copious Romance evidence. 3 Consequently, apart from eight more or less sure metrical examples collected by Fehér, 4 we can add a further 9 or more instances of the consonantal i [j] attested in Pannonian inscriptions concerning the confusion of e and i in hiatus in writing: a) e for i: Deane for Dianae (CIL 3.14076 and 14086, Carnuntum) 5 and Deanae for Dianae (ILJug 1134.1 Poetovio); and b) i for e: Nicia for Nicea (< Nicaea) (RIU 1166.2, Intercisa); diabus for deabus (RIU 1015.1 = CIL 3.10298, Bölcske 6 , and CIL 3.3274 7 ); diae for deae re Diasuriae for Deasyriae on the same inscription (= Deae Syriae; CIL 3, 10393.1 and 3; Aquincum 8 and Thiodora for Theodora (RIU-S 251.9). Thus we can verify with a comparatively wide attestation the otherwise right conclusion of Fehér, drawn only from the metrical evidence, that in Pannonia the vocalic i in hiatus had already evolved into consonantal [j] in the 3rd century. This conclusion is important for us since this sound change is the prerequisite for the palatalisation of consonants preceding this consonantal [j] to be dealt with in the second part of my paper. 1 Herman (1968 = 1990 2 ), re Fehér (2004). 2 Fehér (2004: 171) and Adamik, T. (1995: 438f). 3 Herman (2000: 35). Cf. rubeus > it. robbio and (rabies >) rabia > it. rabbia (REW n.7408 re 6980). 4 Fehér (2004: 171 n.7). 5 Luzsénsky (1933: 100), Mihäescu (1978: 187). 6 Luzsénsky (1933: 100). 7 LEP 53. 8 Mihäescu (1978: 187). 103