20-02-2026, 01:40 PM
I agree that this "e" is likely inserted for ease of pronunciation. But this is not something one would do if their native dialect easily pronounces "br"-clusters. If our hypothesis is that the person had difficulty pronouncing "br", this is due to their mother tongue, not some individual speech impediment. Hence, this insertion might still be useful.
I don't know the phonetic quality of "u" in spellings like "apuril". I doubt anyone actually said "apooril". So it might be like French [y], a front vowel perhaps influenced by [p] or [b], which would also be epenthetic.
Our data shows that this additional vowel was sometimes recorded in writing. However, what we don't often find is that both the epenthesis and the p>b shift are represented. Since we find both in isolation though, it seems worthwhile to keep an eye out for their combination as well.
About "o" in June/July, you make a good point. However, u>o would still need a sound shift, and we haven't found any instances of that. There is Sauvaget's astrolabe, but iirc, we don't know where that's from. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I don't know the phonetic quality of "u" in spellings like "apuril". I doubt anyone actually said "apooril". So it might be like French [y], a front vowel perhaps influenced by [p] or [b], which would also be epenthetic.
Our data shows that this additional vowel was sometimes recorded in writing. However, what we don't often find is that both the epenthesis and the p>b shift are represented. Since we find both in isolation though, it seems worthwhile to keep an eye out for their combination as well.
About "o" in June/July, you make a good point. However, u>o would still need a sound shift, and we haven't found any instances of that. There is Sauvaget's astrolabe, but iirc, we don't know where that's from. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.