From: Rick McCallister
Message: 44660
Date: 2006-05-23
Thanks, that's all I's like to know.The ausence of palatals in Proto-Italic, Proto-Celtic and Proto-Germanic is some clue to we know more about their respective substrata? In later descendants of these languages the palatals "returned".
Joao SL
Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> escreveu:On 2006-05-23 13:39, Joao S. Lopes wrote:
> How a foreign word with palatals would be "Latinized"? What was the
> standard Latin transcription for palatals?
>
> For example:
> Let's imagine a hypothetical foreign word *s^ara
>
> What would be the Latin form?
>
> 1) sara ?
> 2) siara ?
> 3) another one?
>
> And a *z^ara ?
> 1) zara ?
> 2) ziara ?
> 3) giara ?
> 4) iara ?
> 5) another one?
I'd expect *<sara> in both cases in early loans. Greek zeta was rendered
as Lat. <s> word-initially (e.g. zo:ne: --> so:na) and <ss> medially
(-izo: --> -issa:re), i.e. its voicing was usually ignored (<z> was used
only exceptionally in pre-Augustan Latin). Palatoalveolar fricatives in
languages such as Etruscan and Punic were normally represented as <s>,
e.g. <su:fes ~ suffes>, gen. <-etis> 'chief magistrate, consul (in
Carthage)' from Pun. s^pt., or <Perusia> 'Perusia' <-- Etr. Pershia.
When <z> became more common in loans from Greek and <zo:na> replaced
<so:na>, <z> became available as a way of spelling foreign /z, z^, 3,
3^/, so in a later loan one might expect *<zara> for something like
*/z^ara/.
Piotr
Abra sua conta no Yahoo! Mail - 1GB de espaço, alertas de e-mail no celular e anti-spam realmente eficaz.
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.