(Re: [tied] Re: Six, -ts- > -ks-) Portuguese -s^

In Brazilian Portuguese the palatalization of -s (s>s^) occurs in many regions, mainly in Rio de Janeiro City, Northeastern Brazil, Northern Brazil. The Carioca spelling is usually explained as influence by the presence of the Portuguese Court after 1808. Rio de Janeiro State has the normal -s. In Carioca spelling the palatalization is very strong, sometimes palatalizing the vowel.

note: R* is the uvular R (how should I write it?)

dez "10" : Standard Portuguese /dEs/, Carioca /dEis^/

Roberto Carlos (name of a soccerplayer and a singer) : St.P. /R*obEr*tu Kar*lus/, Carioca /HobEhtu Kahlus^/

esporte "sport" : St.P. /espOr*t^i/, Carioca /is^pOht^(i)/,/s^pOhc^(i)/

feroz "fierce" : St.P. /ferOs/, Carioca /ferOis^/

arroz "rice" : St.P. /ar*os/, Carioca /ahois^/

Lopes (my surname), St.P. /lOpis/, Carioca /lOpis^/,/lOps^/

Joao SL

----- Original Message -----

From: m_iacomi

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 11:06 AM

Subject: [tied] Re: Six, -ts- > -ks-

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" wrote: > And you have ironclad evidence that it didn't occur before that? > Lately I've come across many passages in linguistic literature in > which the author claims that the late appearance of some feature is > caused by its having to work its way up from the subjugated popular > deep. What am I to make of that? Nothing. Final -s in "some" Portuguese is pronounced /s^/ with other preceeding vowels than /u/. >>> 2) The usual "path of disappearance" for /s/ is > /s^/ > /h/ > >>> zero. >> >> I don't think so. > > I do. Nyah, nyah, nyah (that oughta take care of _that_ argument). Nope. You should substantiate your claim and that "usual" word. >> It didn't. It disappeared first before a voiced consonant (by way >> of s > z > D > 0), then (11th. c) before voiceless consonants (by >> way of /h/), finally (13th. c.) in final position, > > Daintily steppping over the /s^/-puddle. Which was noted by noone. The spelling <cheva(u)x> did not stand for /c^evaus^/, it is simply that /us/ was rendered by <x>: "... équivaut en effet dans l'orthographe au groupe final -us indiquant le pluriel de certains noms: au lieu de chevaux, issu de caballus, on écrivait souvent chevax [...]", you might have noticed that also from other examples I gave. This rendering was a simple graphical way to write faster. Restoring the "u" became a necessity once the diphthong reduced to /o/: /s^evo(s)/ [and that was 200 years later than 13th century when the graphy <ch> shifted its' pronounciation from /c^/ to /s^/, providing thus a good graphical rendering for any /s^/ which might have appeared], the <au> was there to stand for [o], but final x remained just as a graphical mark of the plural with no real etymological background. >> except in liaison, where it survives >> until today (as /z/, of course, not as /z^/). > > Oh! The final blow. But I don't think /s/ > /s^/ would force /z/ > > /z^/. Of course not. But were the <x> pronounced [s^], the regular voicing of it would have yielded [z^], not [z]. So your theory has to include also an explanation for this. The simplest explanation is that your theory does not hold. Regards, Marius Iacomi