From: Grzegorz Jagodzinski
Message: 50445
Date: 2007-10-27
----- Original Message -----
From: stlatos
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] swallow vs. nighingale, PASSer
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz Jagodzinski"
>> <<
>> § 85. Desarrollo regular: ssi, sse entre voc. > j > [s^] > [x]:
>>
>> *bassia:re > bajar, russeum > rojo
> >>
>>
>> Btw. single -si- yielded -s- in Spanish, not -j-, like in ba:sio: >
beso.
>>
>> In other words, -j- in pájaro is regular if we accepted the
>> intermediate form *passiarum
> This just leaves the Portuguese and Romanian forms irregular.
Personally, I doubt that a language called Vulgar Latin (or: Popular Latin)
ever existed; instead, it was rather an L-complex: a bunch of loosely
connected dialects with very little phonetic rules common to all dialects.
As a concequence, the discussed rule -sse- > *-ssia- [ssja] was valid only
for Spanish, not for Portuguese or Romanian. So, the Portuguese pássaro may
be fully regular, and the same Romanian pasare (the breve sign over the
second a).
The change ss > [ssj] might be irregular: but in other positions / words the
Latin -ss- (not followed by i [j]) yields just -s- in Spanish, cf. grossum >
grueso. However, it may have existed a TENDENCY (or: a "weak phonetic rule")
to palatalization of all geminants in Spanish (but NOT in Portuguese for
instance). That tendency became a phonetic rule in the instances of nn and
ll:
Latin nn = Spanish ñ = Portuguese n
ex. annum - año - ano
Latin ll = Spanish ll (palatalized l) = Portuguese l
ex. caballum - caballo - cavalo
Whatever we can say on the change passerem > *passiarum (*passiaro) (which
was irregular at least partially: -em > -um (-o)), two next statements seem
to be correct (under the condition that *passiarum / *passiaro ever
existed):
1. This form was neither "Latin" nor "Popular Latin": it was limited to
those dialects which next became parts of the Spanish language (a logical
conclusion from the statement that so called "Vulgar Latin" was only an
L-complex, not a "true" language).
2. The development *passiaro > pájaro has been fully regular (i.e. it has
subdued to all rules of Spanish phonetic development)
>> (btw. chícharo is irregular or dialectal, as Latin c [k] should not
>> yield ch [c^] in Spanish at all so any parallels between the
>> development of -c- and -ss- in cicer and passer are wrong
> The intermediate stages of ke > kYe > tse > etc. leave room for ts >
> tsY > ts^ in a specific environment.
OK, but in what environment exactly?
Before a front vowel, c [k] > [þ] in Spanish (I use here the thorn symbol
instead of theta for technical reason), ex. ci:vita:tem > ciudad, ce:la:re >
celar, caelum > cielo and hundreds of others.
However, there are instances of the other development c [k] > ch [c^], like
in
ci:micem > chinche,
*marci:tum > marchito, or
cistellam > chistera (here ll > r is irregular as well).
Personally I doubt whether you can formulate a phonetic rule here. Prof.
Man'czak is helpless as well; he terms "chinche" and "marchito" "préstamos
de los dial." = borrowings from dialects (what dialects?). "Chistera" is to
be Basque (it is listed under "préstamos del vasco"). In "chícharo" we have
the same problem with the first [c^].
The group [kj] (from groups what were spelt "ce" or "ci" in Latin before a
vowel) yielded [þ] in Spanish (spelt z or c), not [c^]:
lanceam > lanza,
e:ri:cium > erizo,
corticeam > corteza, and also
bracchium > brazo (with - probably - [kkj] in late Latin).
And again, we have single examples of the other development here, like in
"capacho" (from unattested *capa:ceum), "capucho" (*cappu:ceum). Man'czak
qualifies the former as a borrowing from a dialect (note intervocalic -p-
preserved without lenition!) and the latter as an Italianism (= a borrowing
from Italian).
There also numerous "préstamos del lat.", like juicio (ju:dicium), Galicia
(Galliciam) with yet another development (yes, they have [þ] but with -i-
preserved!; in Galliciam - note -ll- > -l-) - but perhaps it is better to
leave them apart.
So, after Man'czak, no example of c [k] > ch [c^] is regular in Spanish. If
you want to contradict this opinion, and try to formulate strict rules when
[k] > [þ] and when [k] > [c^], give it a try.
If we agreed with the shift of posttonic nonfinal e > ia, then Latin cicer
"should" yield **cízaro (through **ciciarum) in Spanish (with the shift to
the -o class, common among neuter nouns). Note that Latin cicer had
short -i- but in Spanish -i- < -i- is regular before -i- [j].
In other words, the development of [ssj] (as in *passiarum) in Spanish is
NOT parallel to [kj] (as in *ciciarum) as the latter "should not" have [c^]
at all. Or, in other words, as there is not known a rule for [kj] > [c^] and
instances of such a development are exceptional and considered borrowings by
specialists, your argumentation that the development [ssj] > [s^] is
parallel is incorrect (also because of the difference between double [ss]
and single [k]).
> Since I've already said er>Yar
> in one, the same changes in another (of e>a before r with a pal. of
> the preceding C) make 3 points of similarity between these two words.
The only point is that e > ia. The presence of -r- is unimportant because
similar changes e > a in unstressed syllable may be observed in other
Spanish words with "irregular" development, like trabajo < *tripa:lium,
balanza < bilancem (here short -i- should yield (close) "e" but yielded "a"
instead).
> I think that's too much to be a coincidence instead of a rule. Even
> if you just call them irregular, they are irregular in the same way.
Probably your another mistake is that you consider only [c^], not [þ],
palatalized. But notice that all instances of [þ] come from palatalized
sounds as well.
It is probable useful to remind what were sources of "regular" ch [c^] in
Spanish. Some examples:
[pl] ancho < amplum
[fl] hinchar < i:nfla:re
[klj] cuchara < cochlea:re (neuter that has become feminine)
(note that [kl] yielded [x] or [lj]: oculum > *oclo > ojo, cla:vem > llave)
[kt] hecho < factum, lechuga < lactu:ca
[lt] mucho < multum, escucha < auscultat
(note irregular e- in the last example; Old Spanish form was ascucha, also
irregular; au- should yield o-)
As pl, fl > ch are possible only not in anlaut (where pl, fl > ll), all
Spanish words with initial ch- are borrowings or examples of irregular
development.
>> Anyway, the example of pájaro shows clearly how valuable are certain
>> reconstructions, including IE reconstructions. [...]
>> I am not surprised that plenty of IE words developed irregularly as well.
> Any number of reasons might make PIE > early IE more regular:
> fewer speakers (and dialects),
Fewer speakers or fewer dialects? Let's count known main IE dialects then:
1) Anatolian, 2) Tocharian, 3) Germanic, 4) Celtic, 5) Italic, 6) Hellenic,
7) Armenian, 8) Thracian, 9) Balto-Slavic, 10) Indo-Iranian, and probably
some others like Albanian or Illyrian. Now let's count main Romance
dialects: 1) Portuguese, 2) Spanish, 3) Catalan-Occitan (possibly one
dialectal continuum, including also Arpitan, or Franco-Provançal), 4)
French, 5) Italian, 6) Sardinian, 7) Rheto-Romance, 8) Dalmatian, 9)
Romanian. Quite a similar number, isn't it?
Of course we could argue that some dialects are not present in these lists -
but in both lists (for example; Messapian within IE, and Friulan within
Romance) which does not change the final estimation.
> less contact with others,
More precisely: we know - better or worse - who lived in France or Romania
before Latin speakers. But we have almost no idea who lived there before
Indo-Europeans.
Instead, I'd like to compare the terrains:
Romance from Portugal to Romania and from northern France to Sicilia,
IE from Portugal to Takla Makan and from Iceland to southern India.
And, which terrain was larger?
> no written language to draw on,
You are right - but notice that we exclude Latin borrowings in Romance
languages which are, as a rule, "scientific" words (absent in early IE
languages). Written Latin had little influence on the development of
"national" or "popular" Romance dialects which became Romance languages.
Tons of Latin words came into Romance languages only later.
> Whatever the reason, I see no reason to think there
> were very many irregular sound changes > IE.
Well, let's count then...
[see my other posts]
Grzegorz J.
___________________________________________________________
Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html