Academic literature on the topic 'Exceptio doli generali'

Abstract One of the phenomena of Catalan phonology that has given rise to some discussion in the phonological literature is ‘homorganic stop deletion’, the process by which, for example, pont/pent/ ‘bridge’ is pronounced [pen] in most of Catalonia and in Ibiza. This process is usually linked to a more general one of cluster reduction affecting complex codas. In many varieties, a preconsonantal coda is generally limited to two consonants; thus parts baixes/part + z + a ∫ a + z/ ‘lower parts’ is pronounced [ parz. β aS∫ s], a reduction process that has yet more far- reaching effects in Majorcan. In Majorcan, with a limited exception, no more than one consonant can stand in a pre-consonantal coda, so in that variety parts baixesis pronounced [ par β aS∫ s]. Dols (2002) gives a survey of clusters and cluster reduction in Catalan. Within Generative Phonology Catalan homorganic stop deletion has been treated by Lleó (1970: 25–9), Wheeler (1975/9: 280–87), Mascaró (1983: 100–11; 1985; 1989), Iverson (1993a, 1993b), Morales (1995), and Bonet & Lloret (1998: 108–14). These authors were largely concerned with correctly identifying the limits of the phenomenon, and formulating deletion rules accordingly. Majorcan clusters in particular are the focus in Dols (1993; 2001). Optimality perspectives on cluster deletion were introduced to the Catalan data by Colina (1995) and by Jiménez (1996a; 1999: 189–242). Jiménez’s account provides data (especially Valencian) and inspiration for the treatment offered here, though there are significant differences. As usual, Recasens provides comprehensive data (1993: 167–9, 196–201, and esp. 1991b: 181–351 for dialect variation). Majorcan data originally assembled by Bibiloni are set out in Dols (1993), and given an Optimality account in Dols (2000: 311–48). The works of Dols (1993; 2000) are the source of most of the Majorcan data presented here. I use the general terminology ‘cluster reduction’ so as not to prejudice the interpretation of the phenomenon. From the perspective of OT correspondence theory, reduction could reflect deletion in the strict sense (with Max violation), or alternatively, fusion (with some IDENT violation, along with Uniformity violation).

The title 50.17 of Justinian’s Digest lists many juristic rules (regulae iuris). One of these juristic rules, which can be found in D. 50.17.173.3, reads as follows: dolo facit, qui petit quod redditurus est. An application of this rule is described in D. 44.4.8.1, which deals with a problem in the context of the law of succession. Due to the rule’s character as a general rule, there must have been more cases in which an exceptio doli was granted because of dolo facit, qui petit quod redditurus est. However, it is difficult to find other cases of dolo facit, qui petit quod redditurus est, as n